The High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad, while quashing Criminal Application No. 792 of 2014, clarified that sentences imposed by the applicant in a previous appeal shall run consecutively due to the lack of a direction for concurrent execution.
The application was disposed of by clarifying that the substantive sentences shall run consecutively.
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.
Cri.Appln792.14.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 792 OF 2014
IN APEAL/676/2011
NAMDEO MUKUNDA LASHKAR
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. S. B. Jadhav (appointed) APP for Respondent : Mr. P.N. Muley
CORAM : ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.
Dated: February 25, 2014
P.C. :-
Heard Mr. S. B. Jadhav, the learned counsel for the applicant/appellant. Heard Mr. P.N. Muley, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent.
Cri.Appln792.14.odt
2
conviction and sentence, imposed upon him, by filing an appeal in this Court. The said appeal (Criminal Appeal no.676/2011) was partly allowed by this Court. The conviction of the applicant/appellant with respect to the offence punishable under section 304 Part I of IPC was altered to the offence punishable under section 304 Part II of IPC read with section 34 of IPC. Consequently, the substantive sentence imposed upon him was reduced to rigorous imprisonment for five years for the said offence. But, the sentence of fine was enhanced to Rs. 10,000/-. The conviction of the applicant/appellant with respect to the offence punishable under section 324 of IPC read with section 34 of IPC and sentence awarded therefor by the trial Court was confirmed and maintained.
3 Cri.Appln792.14.odt
facts of the case, as revealed from the appellate judgment, I am satisfied that since it had not been directed that the sentences would run concurrently, it should be taken that that they would run consecutively.
( ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. )
sga/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether brutal sentences imposed upon the applicant/appellant in a previous appeal shall run concurrently or consecutively in the absence of a specific direction.
NAMDEO MUKUNDA LASHKAR
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
ABHAY M. THIPSAY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
