Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Vasudeo Shankar Rajput @ Kanjarbhat, was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment under Sections 302 and 394 of the Indian Penal Code in Sessions Case No.137 of 1997 on 30th September 1998. While serving this sentence at Yervada Central Jail, Pune, he was subsequently convicted in Sessions Case No.26 of 1997 (arising out of Crime No.50 of 1996, Lanja Police Station) and sentenced to five years' imprisonment under Section 395 IPC on 1st January 2001. The subsequent sentencing court did not give any direction as to whether this five-year sentence should run concurrently with or consecutively to the life sentence. The petitioner filed a writ petition through jail seeking a direction for concurrent running of the sentences. The High Court, hearing the petition at the admission stage with consent of the State, examined the provisions of Section 427(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court noted that the default rule under Section 427(1) is that when a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced to a further term, the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with the previous one unless the court expressly directs it to run consecutively. Since the subsequent court had not made any such direction, the Court held that the five-year sentence must run concurrently with the life sentence. The Court rejected any notion that concurrent running is inapplicable to life sentences, stating that the provision applies to all sentences of imprisonment. Accordingly, the petition was allowed, and the Court directed that the sentence of five years imposed in Sessions Case No.26 of 1997 shall run concurrently with the life sentence imposed in Sessions Case No.137 of 1997.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Concurrent Sentences - Section 427(1) CrPC - Default Rule - Where a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced to a further term of imprisonment, and the subsequent court does not direct that the sentences shall run consecutively, the sentences shall run concurrently - Held that the default rule under Section 427(1) CrPC is concurrency, and in the absence of a specific order for consecutive running, the subsequent sentence must run concurrently with the earlier sentence (Paras 6-7). B) Criminal Procedure - Life Imprisonment - Concurrent Running - Section 427(1) CrPC - Applicability - The principle of concurrent running applies even when the earlier sentence is one of life imprisonment - Held that there is no legal bar to a subsequent term sentence running concurrently with a life sentence, and the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of concurrency (Paras 6-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a subsequent sentence of imprisonment should run concurrently with or consecutively to a prior life sentence when the sentencing court has not given any specific direction under Section 427(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The sentence of five years imprisonment imposed in Sessions Case No.26 of 1997 shall run concurrently with the life sentence imposed in Sessions Case No.137 of 1997. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
Law Points
- Concurrent running of sentences
- Section 427(1) CrPC
- Life imprisonment
- Subsequent sentence
- Default rule of concurrency
