Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Hanuman Anandrao Pendam, was a life convict serving a sentence under Section 302 IPC. While undergoing life imprisonment, he was released on parole on 6 January 2016 for 30 days, later extended by 60 days. He was required to surrender by 6 April 2016 but failed to do so, leading to registration of an offence under Section 224 IPC (escape from custody). The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhadrawati, convicted him and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.500, with a default sentence of 15 days. The Magistrate did not consider Section 427(2) CrPC, which provides that when a person already undergoing a life sentence is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment, the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with the previous sentence. The petitioner filed a criminal writ petition seeking relief under Section 427(2) CrPC. The State opposed, arguing that the explanation to Section 224 IPC states the punishment is in addition to the punishment for the original offence, so the sentences cannot run concurrently. The High Court examined both provisions and held that Section 427(2) CrPC is clear and mandatory: a subsequent sentence of imprisonment imposed on a person already serving a life sentence must run concurrently with the life sentence. The court noted that the explanation to Section 224 IPC does not override the specific provision of Section 427(2) CrPC. Accordingly, the court allowed the petition, set aside the Magistrate's order to the extent it did not direct concurrent running, and directed that the sentence under Section 224 IPC run concurrently with the life sentence. The court also directed that the fine amount be adjusted if already paid.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Concurrent Sentence - Section 427(2) CrPC - Life Convict - The petitioner, a life convict, was released on parole and failed to surrender, resulting in conviction under Section 224 IPC with one year rigorous imprisonment. The Magistrate did not order the sentence to run concurrently with the life sentence. The High Court held that Section 427(2) CrPC mandates that when a person already undergoing a life sentence is subsequently sentenced to imprisonment, the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with the previous life sentence. The court allowed the petition and directed that the sentence under Section 224 IPC run concurrently with the life sentence. (Paras 1-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the sentence imposed on a life convict for an offence under Section 224 IPC committed while on parole should run concurrently with the life sentence under Section 427(2) CrPC
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the Magistrate's order to the extent it did not direct concurrent running, and directed that the sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 224 IPC shall run concurrently with the life sentence. The fine amount, if already paid, to be adjusted.
Law Points
- Section 427(2) CrPC mandates concurrent running of subsequent sentence with previous life sentence
- Section 224 IPC punishment is additional but does not override Section 427(2) CrPC
