The court has discretion under Section 31 CrPC to order sentences for multiple offences to run concurrently or consecutively, depending on the nature of the offences and circumstances.

JUDGMENT

Appellant has filed this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (In short “ Cr.P.C.) against the judgment dated 28.06.2023 passed by VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar in Sessions Trial No. 181/2021, whereby trial Court has convicted appellant under Section 420(34 counts) of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years for each count and fine of Rs. 10,000/- in each count and Section 193 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs. 1000/- with default stipulation and ordered that sentence of substantive imprisonment imposed under Section 420 of IPC for 34 counts shall run consecutively.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant, at the outset, has submitted that he is not challenging conviction part of judgment. His prayer is that sentence imposed by learned trial court for offence under Section 420 (34 counts) of IPC and which has been ordered to be run one after another, be modified and be ordered to run concurrently.

3. Learned counsel for the State submits that learned trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced appellant under Section 420 (34 counts) and Section 193 of IPC. It is also urged that appellant has cheated 34 persons. Therefore, learned trial Court has rightly ordered sentence imposed under Section 420 of IPC to run consecutively. Hence, no interference is required in the findings recorded by the trial Court and appeal be dismissed.

4. I have learned counsel for the appellant as well as State and have examined recorded of the case.

5. So far as conviction is concerned, this court has gone through the evidence available on record, both oral as well as documentary evidence and has examined the same minutely. In this court’s considered opinion from evidence available on record, offence under Section 420 (34 counts) and Section 193 of IPC stands clearly established against appellant/accused. In this court’s opinion, learned trial Court has rightly appreciated evidence on record and has rightly convicted appellant for aforesaid offences. Hence, no interference is required in the findings recorded by the trial Court with respect to appellant’s conviction for aforesaid offences.

Principles governing concurrent/consecutive sentences:-

6. Sole issue involved in this case is whether in the instant case, sentence imposed by the trial Court under Sentence 420 (34 counts) of IPC can be ordered to run concurrently. Before discussing and examining the facts and evidence of the case, it would be appropriate to refer relevant pronouncement of Hon’ble Apex court having bearing on the issue involved in the case.

7. A three judge bench of Hon’ble Apex Court in O. M. Cherian @ Thankachan Vs. State of Kerala and others, (2015) 2 SCC 501, has dealt present issue in detail and has held as under:-

“9. Section 31 CrPC relates to the quantum of punishment that the court has jurisdiction to pass where the accused is convicted for two or more offences at one trial. Section 31 CrPC reads as follows: “31.Sentence in cases of conviction of several offences at one trial.—(1) When a person is convicted at one trial of two or more offences, the Court may, subject to the provisions of Section 71 of the Penal Code, 1860, sentence him for such offences, to the several punishments prescribed therefor which such court is competent to inflict; such punishments when consisting of imprisonment to commence the one after the expiration of the other in such order as the court may direct, unless the court directs that such punishments shall run concurrently.

(2) In the case of consecutive sentences, it shall not be necessary for the court by reason only of the aggregate punishment for the several offences being in excess of the punishment which it is competent to inflic