Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C. JAYACHANDRAN, J
Ligi Sebastian @ Kevin – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
This appeal is carried from the judgment of the Additional Sessions Court, Pala in S.C.No.463/2014, which convicted the appellant/accused for offences under Sections 450 and 394, read with Section 34 of the Penal Code ; and sentenced him for rigorous imprisonment for a period of six years, each. The appeal centers around the narrow compass of the running of sentences in terms of Section 31 Cr.P.C, that is to say, whether the sentences are to run concurrently or consecutively. The judgment is silent in this regard. According to the appellant/accused, the sentences are to run concurrently; and not consecutively. Inasmuch as it is not specified so in the judgment impugned, by virtue of Section 31 Cr.P.C, the sentences will run consecutively, which is the sole point on which the appellant seeks interference.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the records.
3. It is relevant to note that the offences in question are under Sections 450 and 394 of the Penal Code . Section 394 is extracted here below:
“394. Voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery. - If any person, in committing or in attempting to commit robbery, voluntari
Sentences for offences arising from the same transaction should run concurrently unless expressly stated otherwise by the sentencing court.
Concurrent sentences under Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can only be granted when the offenses arise from a single transaction; distinct and independent offenses do not qualify for su....
The court affirmed the trial judge's sentencing, emphasizing that the absence of proximity in time, place, and purpose negated the application of the one transaction rule for concurrent sentencing.
Distinct offences warrant separate punishments; consecutive sentences uphold justice and public interest.
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 ....
(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....
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
