Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Akash Rashtrapal Deshpande and Nikunj @ Nikki Ramesh Sadhwani, were convicted in multiple robbery cases by Magistrate Courts. They were jointly tried and convicted in seven cases, and petitioner No.1 was individually tried in one additional case. The cases were decided by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhandara, and the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tumsar, with judgments delivered on 15/11/2017 and 16/11/2017. The sentences imposed ranged from 3 years of rigorous imprisonment with fines. The petitioners filed a criminal writ petition before the Bombay High Court at Nagpur seeking a direction that all sentences run concurrently. The issue was whether the court should exercise its discretion under Section 427(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) to order concurrent sentences. The petitioners argued that the aggregate sentence of 21 years would be disproportionate to the criminality involved. The State opposed, contending that consecutive sentences were appropriate given the separate offences. The court analyzed Section 427(1) CrPC, which provides that when a person already undergoing a sentence is sentenced to further imprisonment, the subsequent sentence runs consecutively unless the court directs otherwise. The court noted that the discretion must be exercised judicially, considering the nature of the offences and the total sentence. The court found that the petitioners were young and the robberies were not of a grave nature. Directing consecutive sentences would result in a total of 21 years, which was disproportionate. Therefore, the court allowed the petition and directed that all sentences run concurrently. The court also ordered that the petitioners be given set-off for the period already undergone.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Sentencing - Concurrent vs Consecutive Sentences - Section 427(1) CrPC - The court has discretion to direct sentences to run concurrently when a person is already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment. The general rule is consecutive running, but the court may order concurrent if the aggregate sentence would be disproportionate to the criminality. (Paras 2-6) B) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 427(1) CrPC - Disproportionate Punishment - Where the total sentence would be 21 years for multiple robberies, the court held that directing consecutive sentences would be disproportionate to the criminality involved, and ordered concurrent running. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the sentences of imprisonment imposed on the petitioners in multiple robbery cases should run concurrently or consecutively.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The sentences imposed on the petitioners in all cases shall run concurrently. The petitioners are entitled to set-off for the period already undergone. Rule made absolute.
Law Points
- Sentencing
- Concurrent vs Consecutive Sentences
- Section 427 CrPC
- Discretion of Court
- Robbery
