M. NAGAPRASANNA
Ramachandra Reddy – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
ORDER :
(M. Nagaprasanna, J.)
The petitioners in these petitions are before this Court seeking a prayer that the order of conviction dated 25.11.2010, passed in S.C.No.2/2007, by the District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura, for different offences to run concurrently. Petitioners are convicted-accused Nos.1 and 2.
2. Heard Sri M.R.Nanjunda Gowda, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt.K.P.Yashodha, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent in both the cases.
3. Brief facts of the case that leads the petitioners to this Court in the subject petitions as borne out from the pleadings are as follows:
On 03.09.2002, as crime comes to be registered against accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 3 02, 201, 120B, r/w. 34 of the IPC. The concerned Court took cognizance of the offences in C.C.No.442/2002 and after the case being committed to the Court of Sessions, the Sessions Judge registers a case in S.C.No.45/2003. The Sessions Court in terms of its order dated 09.12.2010, convicts accused Nos.1 and 2, the petitioners herein and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and pay fine of Rs.50,000/- for offence punishable under Section 3 02
Dalbir Singh v. State of Punjab
Duryodhan Rout v. State of Orissa
Gopal Vinayak Godse v. State of Maharashtra
Laxman Naskar v. Union of India
Mohd.Akhtar Hussain v. Collector of Customs
Muthuramalingam and Others Vs. State
O.M. Cherian v. State of Kerala
Ramesh Chilwal @ Bambayya Vs. State of Uttarakhand (2012(11) SCC 629)
Ranjit Singh v. UT of Chandigarh
Ranjit Singh v. UT of Chandigarh
Ravindra Trimbak Chouthmal v. State of Maharashtra
Sambha Ji Krishan Ji v. State of Maharashtra
Sanaullah Khan v. State of Bihar
Shri Bhagwan v. State of Rajasthan
State of Punjab v. Joginder Singh
Point of Law : Under sub-section (2) of S.31, there cannot be a sentence exceeding 14 years.
(1) Section 31(1) Cr.P.C. vests complete discretion with Court to order sentences for two or more offences at one trial to run concurrently having regard to nature of offences and surrounding factors....
Point of Law : While multiple sentences for imprisonment for life can be awarded for multiple murders or other offences punishable with imprisonment for life, the life sentences so awarded cannot be ....
Prior term sentences must be served before subsequent life sentence under Section 427(1) CrPC unless court directs concurrency; Section 427(2) applies only when prior sentence is life imprisonment.
Direction for 10-year sentence under gang rape provision to run consecutively after life imprisonment overruled by Constitution Bench; life sentences superimposed, not consecutive, preventing additio....
Sentence - Trial Court has awarded sentence to be run separately which has been affirmed by Divisional Bench of this Court also, therefore, this Court cannot issue direction to run both the sentences....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the discretion of the court to order concurrent or consecutive sentences, the importance of considering the nature of offences and the totality of ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.