Back
C. S. SUDHA
Jayan @ Sanu – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala, Represented By Public Prosecutor – Respondent
ORDER :
C.S.SUDHA, J.
This unnumbered criminal appeal has come before me pursuant to a filing defect noted by the Registry. The appeal is against the judgment dated 21/08/2024 in S.C.No.2593/2022 of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Neyyattinkara. The accused was found guilty for the offences punishable under Section 324 and 308 IPC and hence sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three years and seven years for the offences punishable under Section 324 and 308 IPC respectively. The substantive sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
2. When the appeal was filed, a clarification was sought by the Registry as to whether this Court is the proper forum to file the appeal to which the counsel answered that the appellant had initially filed an appeal before the Court of Session, Thiruvananthapuram as he bona fide believed the court to be the proper forum. However, the appeal was returned for filing before the proper court and hence the appeal before this Court.
3. The Registry notes that as per Section 415(2) of B.N.S.S, the substantive sentence of imprisonment is only seven years as the sentences have been directed to run concurrently and hence the proper forum is the Court of
The appeal must be filed in the Sessions Court when the substantive sentence exceeds seven years, even if the sentences are ordered to run concurrently.
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.
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.
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 discretionary powers of the criminal courts in applying Section 427 Cr.P.C. and determining the concurrent running of sentences in multiple cas....
where there are different transactions, different crime numbers and disposal of those by judgments of different courts, direction to serve the sentences imposed concurrently cannot be issued under Se....
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 ....
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.
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
