Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Mahadev Asaram Sillode, a life convict, filed a criminal writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad. He sought directions that the life sentence imposed by the 4th Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna in Sessions Case No. 100 of 2005 for an offence under Section 302 IPC, confirmed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 576 of 2006, and the sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Sessions Case No. 305 of 2011 for offences under Sections 307 and 333 IPC, should run concurrently under Section 427(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The petitioner was initially convicted for murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. While serving that sentence, he assaulted a jail employee, leading to a subsequent conviction for attempt to murder and causing hurt to a public servant, for which he received 10 years RI. The petitioner argued that the subsequent sentence should run concurrently with the life sentence. The court, after hearing the parties, allowed the petition and directed that both sentences run concurrently, noting that the subsequent offence was committed while the petitioner was in custody and that the discretion under Section 427(2) CrPC should be exercised in favor of the petitioner to avoid an excessive total period of incarceration.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Concurrent Sentence - Section 427(2) CrPC - Life Convict - Subsequent Offence During Custody - The petitioner, a life convict, was convicted for a subsequent offence committed while in jail custody. The court held that under Section 427(2) CrPC, when a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction, the court may direct that the subsequent sentence run concurrently with the previous sentence. The court directed that the life sentence and the 10-year RI run concurrently, considering the petitioner's long incarceration and the nature of the subsequent offence. (Paras 1-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the life sentence imposed on the petitioner in Sessions Case No. 100 of 2005 and the sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment imposed in Sessions Case No. 305 of 2011 should be directed to run concurrently under Section 427(2) of CrPC.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The life sentence imposed in Sessions Case No. 100 of 2005 and the sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment imposed in Sessions Case No. 305 of 2011 are directed to run concurrently. Rule made absolute.
Law Points
- Section 427(2) CrPC
- concurrent sentence
- life convict
- subsequent conviction during custody
- discretion of court
Case Details
2022 LawText (BOM) (04) 28
Criminal Writ Petition No. 53 of 2021
V. K. Jadhav, Sandipkumar C. More
Ms. Neha Kamble (for petitioner), Mr. M.M. Nerlikar (A.P.P. for respondents)
The State of Maharashtra, The Inspector General of Prisons Maharashtra State, Pune, The Superintendent, Nagpur Central Prison, Nagpur
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition seeking direction for concurrent running of sentences under Section 427(2) CrPC.
Remedy Sought
Direction that the life sentence and the 10-year rigorous imprisonment sentence run concurrently.
Filing Reason
The petitioner, a life convict, was subsequently convicted for an offence committed while in custody and sought concurrent running of sentences.
Previous Decisions
The petitioner was convicted for murder in Sessions Case No. 100 of 2005 and sentenced to life imprisonment, confirmed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 576 of 2006. He was also convicted in Sessions Case No. 305 of 2011 for offences under Sections 307 and 333 IPC and sentenced to 10 years RI.
Issues
Whether the sentences of life imprisonment and 10 years RI should run concurrently under Section 427(2) CrPC.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the subsequent sentence should run concurrently with the life sentence as the offence was committed while in custody.
The respondents opposed the petition, but the court found merit in the petitioner's plea.
Ratio Decidendi
Under Section 427(2) CrPC, when a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction, the court may direct that the subsequent sentence run concurrently with the previous sentence. The discretion should be exercised to avoid excessive incarceration, especially when the subsequent offence is committed during custody.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner, who is a life convict, has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking directions that the life sentence imposed by the 4th Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna in Sessions Case No. 100 of 2005, confirmed by this Court in criminal appeal No. 576 of 2006 and the sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Sessions Case No. 305 of 2011, to run concurrently in terms of the provisions of Section 427(2) of Cr.P.C.
Procedural History
The petitioner was convicted for murder in 2006, confirmed on appeal in 2008. While serving life sentence, he was convicted for a subsequent offence in 2016. He filed the present writ petition in 2021 seeking concurrent sentences.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 427(2)
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 302, 307, 333
