IMPORTANT POINT
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 sentences, and the legal obligation to specify the running of sentences.

JUDGMENT :

Jyotsna Sharma, J.

1. Heard Sri Rajiv Upadhyaya, Advocate holding brief of Ms. Sufiya Bano, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri L.D.Rajbhar, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant challenging the judgment and order dated 10.01.2014, passed by Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bhadohi in S.T. No. 20 of 2011 (State Vs. Shamsher Ali) arising out of Case Crime No. 325 of 2010 under section 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. P.S. Gopiganj, District- Sant Ravi Das Nagar, Bhadohi, where appellant got convicted under sections 363, 366 and 376 I.P.C. and sentenced for seven years rigorous imprisonment each under sections 363 and 366 I.P.C. and for 10 years rigorous imprisonment under section 376 I.P.C.

3. The submission in brief of the appellant is that he has been awarded a substantive sentence of 7 years for an offence under section 363 I.P.C. and another substantive sentence of 7 years for an offence under section 366 I.P.C. and further substantive sentence of 10 years for the offence under section 376 I.P.C. The trial court did not specify whether such sentences shall run concurrently or consecutively. Resultantly, he is facing prospect of imprisonment of 24 years, which is too rigorous and severe. The sentencing part of the order of the trial court is therefore flawed.

4. Learned A.G.A. submits that section 31 Cr.P.C. provides that where accused is convicted at one trial of two or more offences and the trial court has not provided for concurrent running of sentences, it shall run consecutively i.e. one after the other.

5. During the course of arguments it is, however fairly admitted by the State that section 31 Cr.P.C. is subject to provisions of section 71 of I.P.C. and further that the proviso to section 31 (2) provides that in no case, shall such person be sentenced to imprisonment for a longer period than 14 years and that in this case, the aggregate punishment is 24 years.

6. Several important issues arise in this matter, first, whether the trial court can afford to not to mention how the sentences are to run, whether concurrently or consecutively. Secondly, whether the failure to mention the same is ignorable in view of the facts and circumstances of the matter. Related with this issue is the point that whether the court intended that the sentences should run consecutively and if so, whether or not such a presumption will lead to disproportionate period of imprisonment and against the provision of law as contained in section 31 (2) proviso (a).

7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohd. Akhtar Hussain Alias Ibrahim vs Assistant Collector Of Customs 1998 AIR 2143, while allowing the appeal, observed that the basic rule of thumb over the years has been the so called principles of “single transaction rule” for concurrent sentence. The Court held as below:

“2(i) The enormity of the crime committed by the accused is relevant for measuring the sentence. But the maximum sentence awarded in one case against the same accused is not irrelevant for consideration while giving the consecutive sentence in the second case although it is grave. The court has to consider the totality of the sentences which the accused has to under go if the sentences are to be consecutive.

The totality principle has been accepted as correct principle for guidance. [753E.F]

2(ii) The broad expanse of discretion left by legislation to sentencing courts should not be narrowed only to the seriousness of the offence. No single consideration can definitively determine the proper sentence. In arriving at an appropriate sentence, the court must consider, and some times reject, many factors. The court must `recognise, learn to control and exclude' many diverse data.”

8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Chatar Singh Vs. State of M.P. (AIR 2007 SC 319), in Criminal Appeal No. 623 of 2005 decided on 24.11.2006, had a case before it in which the accused was convicted for several offences and was convicted for different period of imprisonment w