The High Court of Bombay rejected the application for running two concurrent sentences arising from different convictions. The court held that each sentence must be suffered independently unless the court explicitly directs otherwise, and leaving the matter to judicial discretion without concurrent ordering was appropriate.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
APPA 280-2011
1
Anand
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.280 OF 2011
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.139 OF 1997
Natha Namdeo Patil..Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra..Respondent
Mr.S.R.Chitnis,SeniorCounselwith
Mrs.V.R.Raje, for the Applicant
Mrs.P.P.Shinde, APP, for the Respondent -
State
CORAM:R.C.CHAVAN, J.
DATE:25TH MARCH, 2011
P.C.
.Heard the learned Counsel for the
respective parties.
2.The applicant seeks that the sentences
inflicted upon the applicant as a result of
decisions in Criminal Appeal No.112 of 1997
and Criminal Appeal No.139 of 1997 may be
ordered to run concurrently. The learned
Counsel for the applicant places reliance on
the Judgment of full bench of this Court in
Satnam Singh Puransing Gill Vs. State of
APPA 280-2011
2
Maharashtra, reported at 2009 ALL MR (Cri)
1351. The full bench holds that the Court has
a discretion to direct that sentences imposed
upon an accused tried and convicted at two
different trials shall run concurrently. The
full bench has categorically stated that it
was neither permissible nor possible to spell
out any universal formula obviously because
there cannot be any Judgment encroaching on
judicial discretion vested in a Court, & that
discretion has to be exercised judiciously
after considering the facts of each case. As
far as existence of power to order that the
sentences should run concurrently there was no
doubt that the Court has such power and also
there can not be any parameters or guide lines
regulating the exercise of this power since it
rests in the discretion of the Court which has
to be exercised judiciously considering facts
of each other.
3.The applicant has been convicted for
3 APPA 280-2011
two different offences. Criminal Appeal No.
112 of 1997 arose out of the conviction of the
appellant for the offence punishable under
Section 304 part II of the Indian Penal Code
in a case at which he was tried, in fact, for
murder. After considering the evidence it was
found that the appellant had not given
successive or multiple blows to the victim and
therefore, the requisite intention or
knowledge could not be attributed to the
appellant and therefore, the case would
appropriately fall under Section 325 of the
Indian Penal Code and hence, sentence was
reduced after considering that the appeal was
being decided 14 yrs after the appellant was
convicted for an incident which had taken
place on 3rd November, 1992 i. e. 17 years
before the Appeal was decided. In Criminal
Appeal No.139 of 1997. The appellant
questioned his conviction for the offence
punishable under Section 307 of the Indian
Penal Code and in the light of injuries
4
APPA 280-2011
inflicted, this Court found that the requisite
intention for conviction under Section 307 of
the Indian Penal Code was lacking and
therefore, the conviction was altered to one
for the offence punishable under Section 325
of the Indian Penal Code. Again considering
the fact that the appellant was living in
shadow of conviction for 14 years, the
sentences of rigorous imprisonment for three
years with a fine of Rs.500/- was imposed. In
one of the Appeals, a specific prayer for
admitting to benefits of the Probation of
Offenders Act was made and it was rejected.
4.The learned Counsel for the appellant
submitted that if the sentences are not
ordered to run concurrently, the result would
be that the appellant would be in jail for at
least six years now which would be harsh. The
appellant indulged in two separate Criminal
activities which are distinct and occured
with a gap of one year and did not reflect to
APPA 280-2011
be part of a series of acts in continuation of
animosity within a short period of say one or
two months. It is not clear as to how
suffering two sentences for such two distinct
acts would be unjust or burdensome. As
observed by the full bench that the offender
has to suffer the sentences for each wrong
independently and therefore, the sentences are
to run consecutively unless the Court
otherwise drags. In these two Appeals
directions that sentences should run
concurrently would result in appellants
suffering no punishment at all for one of the
two offences both of which were serious
enough, wherein the sentence was reduced after
duly considering all factors including
pendency of appeal for a long of time.
5.Criminal Application is, therefore,
rejected.
6 APPA 280-2011
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the concurrent running of two sentences imposed in separate criminal appeals was permissible in the present case.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Satnam Singh Puransing GillReferred¶2
Satnam Singh Puransing Gill Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2009 ALL MR (Cri) 1351
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Natha Namdeo Patil
The State of Maharashtra
R.C. Chavan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court