Back
2025 Supreme(Bom) 1575
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH
Nivedita P. Mehta, J.
Pintu Girdharilal Yadav – Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra through Police Station Officer, Police Station Kamptee – Respondent
Criminal Application (APPA) No. 756 of 2025 in Criminal Appeal (APEAL) No. 677 of 2006
Decided On : 12-11-2025
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Sentencing
Act Referred
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.235(2), S.31, S.31(1), S.362, S.427, S.482
BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA : S.25, S.473, S.528
Headnote
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 31 - Sentencing discretion by trial court - Importance of specifying concurrent running of sentences - Judicial discretion must be exercised based on crime nature - The court found the heinous nature of crimes committed by accused justified consecutive sentencing. (Paras 8, 11, 22)
For the Appellant :Shri S.D.Chande, Advocate
For the Respondent: Shri A.R.Chutke, APP
| 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 :
Nivedita P. Mehta, J.
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. The facts leading to the instant application in a nutshell are as under.
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 Imprisonment for 10 years and to a fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default to suffer further RI for 15 days each. Both the accused were also convicted for the offence punishable U/s. 506 r/w 34 of IPC and each is sentenced to suffer RI for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and I/D to suffer further RI for 15 days each; as per the judgment and order of conviction dated 01.11.2006 in Special Case No. 09/2005 passed by the learned 10th Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur.
2.2 It is significant to note here that, the learned Trial Court in the operative part of the aforesaid Judgment dated 01.11.2006 had miserably failed to observe as to whether both the above substantive sentences imposed upon the accused persons were to run concurrently or consecutively.
2.3. The accused have assailed the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction before the Hon’ble High Court by filing Criminal Appeal No. 677/2006 which was dismissed on 07.01.2019 and the judgment and order of conviction dated 01.11.2006 passed by the learned 10th Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Special Criminal Case No. 09/2005, convicting the appellants for the offences punishable U/s. 376 (g) and 506 r/w 34 of IPC was confirmed, as the accused were found guilty of the said offences during reappreciation of the evidence by the Hon’ble Court in the criminal appeal.
2.4. It would be necessary to mention here that, in the 1st para of the aforesaid order passed by the Hon’ble High Court on 07.01.2019 in the said criminal appeal, it has been incorrectly observed that, the learned trial court has directed that both the substantive sentences shall run concurrently.
2.5. The accused have thereafter assailed the aforesaid order passed by the Hon’ble High Court before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India by filing Special Leave Petition, which came to be dismissed and as such, ultimately, the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned trial court has then attained finality.
2.6. Needless to mention here that the accused had, neither before the Hon’ble High Court nor before the Hon’ble Apex Court has, ever raised any concern regarding the manner or mode of the substantive sentences imposed upon them, to run concurrently or consecutively.
2.7. Further, the Criminal Writ Petition No. 234/2025 filed by the appellant/accused before the Hon’ble High Court for premature release of the applicant also came to be dismissed on 23.07.2025.
2.8. In this view of the matter, the applicant has then moved the instant application for speaking to the minutes and sought incorporation of the words ‘both the substantive sentences shall run concurrently’ in the operative part of the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court on 07
