IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Tushar Rao Gedela, J.
Ajay Kumar - Appellant
Versus
The State NCT of Delhi - Respondent
Crl.A. 159 of 2016 & Crl.M.(Bail) 11 of 2022
Decided On : 31-10-2023
Conversion of Sentences - IPC - 376 - 306 - [IPC 376, IPC 306] - The court considered the scope and powers of the Court to exercise its jurisdiction under section 427 Cr.P.C., 1973 and applied the principles of section 427 Cr.P.C., 1973 to the present case. The benefit of section 427 Cr.P.C., 1973 was granted to the applicant/appellant and consequently the sentences under section 376 and section 306 IPC imposed by the learned Trial Court to run 'consecutively', are directed to now run 'concurrently'.
Fact of the Case:
The case concerns the unfortunate demise of a young lady who committed suicide after being subjected to forcible sexual intercourse and threats by the accused. The accused sought conversion of the sentences from consecutive to concurrent, arguing that the offences were part of the same transaction.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the offences of rape and abetment of suicide were intertwined and intrinsic, leading to the deceased's extreme step. Consequently, the Court granted the benefit of section 427 Cr.P.C., 1973 and directed the sentences to run concurrently.
Issues: Whether the offences of rape and abetment of suicide were part of the same transaction and could be considered for concurrent sentences under section 427 Cr.P.C., 1973.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court applied the principles of section 427 Cr.P.C., 1973 and found that the offences were intertwined and intrinsic, leading to the deceased's extreme step, and consequently directed the sentences to run concurrently.
Final Decision: The benefit of section 427 Cr.P.C., 1973 was granted to the applicant/appellant and consequently the sentences under section 376 and section 306 IPC imposed by the learned Trial Court to run 'consecutively', are directed to now run 'concurrently'.
JUDGMENT
Tushar Rao Gedela, J.
[The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode]
1. By way of an oral application the applicant/appellant seeks conversion of the sentences as imposed by the learned Trial Court in respect of offences under section 376 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC") of RI for 10 years with fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default whereof, to undergo further SI of 1 year and offence under section 306 IPC of RI for 7 years and with fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default whereof, to undergo a further SI of 6 months. These were directed to run consecutively.
2. According to the Nominal Roll, the applicant/appellant has already undergone a total punishment of 7 years 7 months and 25 days. It is the submission of the applicant/appellant that in case this Court converts the sentence of consecutive punishment to one of concurrent, he would abide by the punishment and not pursue the appeal.
3. Though no formal application seeking the relief of conversion of the sentences from one being "consecutive" to one being "concurrent" has not been filed by the applicant/appellant, however, Mr. M.L. Yadav, learned counsel has made an oral prayer and argued at length. On instructions from the applicant/appellant, learned counsel submits that in case, if this Court is inclined to allow such prayers, the applicant/appellant would not further pursue his appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No. 159 of 2016.
4. Keeping in view that there is nothing in the Code requiring that convicts ought to file any formal application seeking such prayers, this Court is of the opinion that the oral prayers can be considered. As such, the said oral application is being considered.
5. Mr. M.L. Yadav, learned counsel had argued for the applicant/appellant whereas, Mr. Haider, learned APP had argued extensively for the State.'
6. In order to appreciate the arguments, it would be relevant to consider the facts arising therein, the same is being extracted from the impugned judgement dated 02.12.2015, as under:
"The present case concerns the unfortunate and untimely demise of a young lady namely 'P' (real name withheld in order to conceal her identity), who is stated to have committed suicide at her residence in SN Farm House, Telephone Exchange Road, Samalka, Kapashera, New Delhi, in the morning of 30.5.2015. The prosecution alleges that the accused had committed forcible sexual intercourse with the deceased on several occasions during the period November, 2014 to May, 2015 and upon feeling unable to narrate the rape incident to anybody on account of shame and also upon the instigation and threats of the accused that he would show her obscene video to everybody, if she did not oblige her, she committed suicide by hanging.
It is not in dispute that the prosecutrix, her husband and the accused were working in M/s. SN Farm House. The family of the deceased was residing in one of the servant quarters in the farm house whereas the accused was residing alone in the adjacent servant quarter.
It is the case of the prosecution that the information was received in P.S. Kapashera on 30.5.2015 at 11.35 a.m. from the Duty Constable at Safdarjung Hospital that a lady named 'P' aged 30 years from SN Farm House, Samalka, Kapashera, was brought to the hospital by her husband in unconscious state and upon check up, she was declared brought dead by the doctor. The information was recorded as DD No. 18A and was entrusted to SI Yogender for necessary action. Accordingly, SI Yogender alongwith Const. Anil Dutt reached Safdarjung Hospital and collected the MLC of the deceased. He inspected the dead body and found a ligature mark around its neck. He met the deceased's husband Manual Kujur as well as accused Ajay. They apprised him about the occurrence. He accompanied them to SN Farm House where he inspected the room, in which the family of the deceased resided. He found that a Chunni of white and red colour was tied around the beam over the almirah and half portion of the Ch
Mohd Zahid Vs. State Through NCB
O.M. Cherian Vs. State of Kerela
Ramesh Chilwal Vs. State of Uttarkhand
Ramji Dayawala & Sons (P) Ltd. v. Invest Import
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....
(1) If a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment, such subsequent term of imprisonment would normally commence at expiration of im....
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....
(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....
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.
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 benefit of concurrent sentences cannot be sought through a separate petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. once the judgments of conviction and sentences have attained finality in different cases.
The court exercised discretion under Section 427 CrPC to allow concurrent sentences for similar offences, emphasizing the importance of the heinous nature of offences under the POCSO Act.
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.