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.

JUDGMENT :

ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, heard finally at the admission stage.

2. By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has put forth the following prayers :

“A. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondent-authorities to treat the sentences awarded to the petitioner in (i) Sessions Case No. 100/2006, Additional Sessions Judge, Beed and (ii) Sessions Case No. 04/2007 (now confirmed in Criminal Appeal No. 672/2008), as running concurrently in terms of Section 427(2) Cr.P.C. and to give consequential benefits thereto.

B. Direct the respondent-State and the Competent Authority to forthwith decide the petitioner's pending proposal/representation seeking concurrency of sentences and premature release, strictly in accordance with law and within a time-bound period as may be stipulated by this Hon'ble Court.

C. Direct the respondent-authorities to recalculate the petitioner's sentence by applying Section 427(2) Cr.P.C. and upon such recalculation, if the petitioner is found to have undergone the requisite period of imprisonment, to release the petitioner forthwith, unless he is required in any other case.”

3. The issue involved in this Writ Petition is whether the petitioner who has been convicted and directed to undergo a term sentence(s) in previous trial is entitled for a benefit of running the said sentence concurrently with the sentence of life imprisonment awarded in subsequent trial.

FACTUAL MATRIX :-

4. The petitioner was tried before Additional Sessions Judge, Beed for committing offences punishable under Sections 363,376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) in Sessions Case No.100 of 2006 for Kidnapping, committing rape and criminal intimidation. It is pertinent to note that the prosecutrix was a minor girl.

5. The learned Sessions Judge vide its judgment and order dated 29.04.2008 convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.3000/- in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for six months each for the offences under Sections 363 and 376 of IPC, whereas for the offence under Section 506 of IPC, the petitioner was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. All these sentences were directed to be run concurrently by giving the benefit of set-off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. for the period undergone by him from 03.08.2006 till 29.04.2008. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner did not prefer any appeal against this conviction and sentence.

6. The petitioner was subsequently tried for the offences punishable under Sections 302,363,364,376 and 201 of IPC before the learned Sessions Judge, Parbhani in Sessions Case No.04 of 2007. Learned Sessions Judge by its judgment and order dated 17.06.2008 convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of which the petitioner was directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three years; similarly he