Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH
NIVEDITA P. MEHTA
Pintu Girdharilal Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra through Police Station Officer, Police Station Kamptee – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts of the original case leading to sentencing. (Para 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding the necessity for concurrent sentencing. (Para 3) |
| 3. court's observations on procedural correctness. (Para 4) |
| 4. legal standards governing sentence concurrency. (Para 6 , 8 , 11) |
| 5. final decision on the application not to alter judgment. (Para 22 , 23 , 25) |
JUDGMENT :
By the present Application for Speaking to the Minutes, the Applicant has requested to mention in the operative part of the judgment and order dated 07.01.2019 passed by the Hon’ble High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 677/2006 that, the substantive sentence imposed under Section 376 (g) of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to “IPC”) for 10 years imprisonment and the substantive sentence imposed under Section 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code for 1 year imprisonment shall run concurrently and sought direction against the Jail Authority to release the applicant forthwith.
2.1. The Accused No. 1 namely, Viru @ Virendra S/o. Dhanraj Yadav and the Accused No. 2 namely, Pintu S/o. Girdharilal Yadav (Applicant) both were convicted for the offence punishable U/s. 376 (g) of IPC and each was sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonmen
The court ruled that once a judgment attains finality, it cannot be altered or reviewed except to correct clerical errors; substantive modifications require specific procedural grounds.
(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 ....
The court may direct sentences to run concurrently under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., considering the nature of offenses and the defendant's likelihood of reform.
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 ....
The High Court has the authority to direct sentences from separate convictions to run concurrently under Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, ensuring fair treatment in sentencing.
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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the discretionary powers of the criminal courts in applying Section 427 Cr.P.C. and determining the concurrent running of sentences in multiple cas....
The benefit of section 427 Cr.P.C., 1973 can be granted to the accused if the offences are intertwined and intrinsic, leading to a single transaction, and the Court can exercise its jurisdiction unde....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
