IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12th DAY OF DECEMBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA CRL.P. No.2515 OF 2017 BETWEEN:
DURGASETTY @ DURGI, S/O SHIVARANGASETTY, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, COOLIE, R/O KADUSHIVANAHALLI VILLAGE, KODIHALLI HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT – 562119.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI. DILRAJ ROHIT SEQUEIRA, ADVOCATE.) AND:
THE STATE, REPRESENTED BY KODIHALLI POLICE, THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE – 560001.
... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH, HCGP.) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S. 482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO ORDER OF SENTENCES TO RUN CONCURRENTLY: 1) THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 12.01.2016 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE AT KANAKAPURA IN S.C. NO. 89/2010 FOR LIFE IMPRISONMENT AND TO PAY FINE OF RS. 50,000/- ONLY IN DEFAULT TO PAY THE FINE TO UNDERGO R.I. FOR 1 YEAR FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 302 OF IPC. 2) THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 12.01.2016 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE AT KANAKAPURA, IN S.C.NO. 90/2010 FOR LIFE IMPRISONMENT AND TO PAY FINE OF RS. 50,000/- ONLY IN DEFAULT TO PAY FINE THE FINE TO UNDERGO R.I. FOR 1 YEAR FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 302 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner is convicted in two sessions cases namely in S.C.Nos.89 and 90/2010 respectively, both registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 398 of IPC. The learned trial Judge has come to the conclusion in both the cases that the accused was guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 398 of IPC. and sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC with fine and default clause stated therein. However, the trial Court has not extended the benefit of Section 427 (2) of Cr.P.C. directing sentence of life imprisonment imposed in both the cases to run concurrently.
2. Section 427 of Cr.P.C. reads as follows:-
“427. Sentence of offender already sentenced for another offence.-(1) When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment or imprisonment for life, such imprisonment or imprisonment for life shall commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he has been previously sentenced, unless the Court directs that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence:
Provided that where a person who has been sentenced to imprisonment by an order under Section 122 in default of furnishing security is, whilst undergoing such sentence, sentenced to imprisonment for an offence committed prior to the making of such order, the latter sentence shall commence immediately.
(2)When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for life is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment for a term or imprisonment for life, the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence.
Sub-Clause(2) of Section 427 abundantly makes it clear that if a person is already undergoing imprisonment for life, the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence.
3. Further, added to the above, the Apex Court in the case of Muthuramalingam and others .vs. State reported in Air 2016 sc 3340 at paragraph 31 has made observation to the following effect:-
“31. In conclusion our answer to the question is in the negative. We hold that while multiple sentences for imprisonment for life can be awarded for multiple murders or other offences punishable with imprisonment for life, the life sentences so awarded cannot be directed to run consecutively. Such sentences would, however, be super imposed over each other so that any remission or commutation granted by the competent authority in one does not ipso facto result in remission of the sentence awarded to the prisoner for the other.”
Therefore, in order to avoid such complexity, Section 427 has been introduced in the Statute. In the above circumstances, the prayer sought for in the petition has to be granted.
4. Hence, the following:-
ORDER The petition is allowed. The order of sentence passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge at Kanakapura in both S.C.Nos.89 and 90/2010 insofar as it relates to sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life is directed to run concurrently.
Sd/-
JUDGE *alb/-.