Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Akash Rashtrapal Deshpande and Nikunj @ Nikki Ramesh Sadhwani, were convicted in multiple robbery cases by Magistrate Courts in Bhandara and Tumsar. They were jointly tried and convicted in seven cases, with petitioner No.1 also convicted individually in one case. The sentences imposed were rigorous imprisonment for 3 years each under Section 392 IPC or Section 392 read with 34 IPC, with fines. The trial courts did not specify whether the sentences were to run concurrently or consecutively. The petitioners filed a criminal writ petition before the Bombay High Court at Nagpur seeking a direction that all sentences run concurrently. The High Court, after hearing the parties, noted that the general rule under Section 427(1) CrPC is that sentences run consecutively, but the court has discretion to order concurrent running. The court observed that the offences were committed in a short span of time and were of similar nature, and that the aggregate sentence of 21 years (if run consecutively) would be disproportionate. The court allowed the petition and directed that all sentences imposed on the petitioners in the seven cases shall run concurrently from the date of their first conviction, i.e., 15/11/2017. The court also clarified that the petitioners are not entitled to any remission or set-off beyond what is legally permissible.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Sentencing - Concurrent Sentences - Section 427(1) CrPC - The court has discretion to direct that subsequent sentences run concurrently with a previous sentence, especially when the offences arise from a series of similar acts and the total sentence would otherwise be disproportionate. Held that the petitioners' sentences in seven cases should run concurrently from the date of first conviction, as the offences were committed in a short span and the aggregate sentence would be excessive. (Paras 2-8) B) Criminal Procedure Code - Sentencing - Consecutive Sentences - General Rule - Section 427(1) CrPC - The general rule is that sentences run consecutively, but the court may order them to run concurrently in the interest of justice. Held that the trial court did not specify the order of sentences, and the default rule of consecutive running would lead to an aggregate of 21 years, which is disproportionate. (Paras 2-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the sentences of imprisonment imposed on the petitioners in multiple robbery cases should run concurrently or consecutively.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petition and directed that all sentences imposed on the petitioners in the seven cases shall run concurrently from the date of their first conviction, i.e., 15/11/2017. The court also clarified that the petitioners are not entitled to any remission or set-off beyond what is legally permissible.
Law Points
- Sentencing
- Concurrent vs Consecutive Sentences
- Section 427 CrPC
- Discretion of Court
- Robbery
