2012 JTR(SC) 476
2012 118 AIC 106 ; 2012 79 AllCriC 291 ; 2012 3 CCR(SC) 236 ; 2012 CriLR 735 ; 2012 5 LawHerald(SC) 3679 ; 2013 7 RCR(Cri) 596 ; 2012 6 Scale 648 ; 2012 11 SCC 629 ; 2013 1 SCC(Cri) 1086 ; 2012 6 SCR 558 ; 2012 5 SLT 529 ; 2012 KHC 4394 ; 2012 5 Supreme 80
Supreme Court of India
P. SATHASIVAM & RANJAN GOGOI, JJ.
Ramesh Chilwal @ Bombayya
Versus
State of Uttarakhand
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1072-1073 OF 2012 (Arising out of SLP (Criminal) Nos. 2924-2925 of 2012)
Decided On : 20-07-2012
IMPORTANT POINT
Concurrency of sentences.
Act
Referred
:ARMS ACT : S.27
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.31
GANGSTERS ACT : S.2, S.3, S.3(1)
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.302
(A) The appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code carrying a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life along with a monetary fine, of which a portion was directed as compensation under Section 31 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Concurrently, the accused was convicted under Section 3(1) of the Gangsters Act attracting rigorous imprisonment and a separate fine, with part directed as compensation, and also convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act for possession of arms attracting rigorous imprisonment and a fine. The High Court confirmed these convictions and sentences, and this Court, while limiting its scope to clarifying the mode of sentence execution, directs that all sentences imposed under the Indian Penal Code, the Gangsters Act, and the Arms Act must run concurrently.
(B) The key legal principle is that when a life sentence is imposed, the sentencing procedure under Section 31 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires clarity that all other sentences run concurrently, and appellate confirmation of conviction does not automatically entail a detailed re-examination of facts.
Facts of the case:
The accused was convicted in multiple cases involving offences under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 3(1) of the Gangsters Act, and Section 27 of the Arms Act, with sentences including rigorous imprisonment, fines, and compensation, which were confirmed by the High Court.
Findings of Court:
The trial courts conviction and sentence were confirmed, and it was clarified that all sentences under the IPC, the Gangsters Act, and the Arms Act are to run concurrently as required by Section 31 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, modifying the order of the trial court only in this respect.
Issues:
Whether the sentences awarded in multiple cases should run concurrently or cumulatively, and whether the High Courts confirmation required any re-appreciation of facts.
Ratio Decidendi:
Appellate confirmation of conviction coupled with a life sentence necessitates a specific direction under Section 31 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for concurrent execution of all other sentences, and this Court exercises jurisdiction only to clarify that direction without re-examining factual findings.
Result:
The appeals are disposed of with confirmation of convictions and a clarified direction that all sentences under the IPC, the Gangsters Act, and the Arms Act shall run concurrently.
(A) The appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code carrying a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life along with a monetary fine, of which a portion was directed as compensation under Section 31 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Concurrently, the accused was convicted under Section 3(1) of the Gangsters Act attracting rigorous imprisonment and a separate fine, with part directed as compensation, and also convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act for possession of arms attracting rigorous imprisonment and a fine. The High Court confirmed these convictions and sentences, and this Court, while limiting its scope to clarifying the mode of sentence execution, directs that all sentences imposed under the Indian Penal Code, the Gangsters Act, and the Arms Act must run concurrently.
(B) The key legal principle is that when a life sentence is imposed, the sentencing procedure under Section 31 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires clarity that all other sentences run concurrently, and appellate confirmation of conviction does not automatically entail a detailed re-examination of facts.
Facts of the case:
The accused was convicted in multiple cases involving offences under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 3(1) of the Gangsters Act, and Section 27 of the Arms Act, with sentences including rigorous imprisonment, fines, and compensation, which were confirmed by the High Court.
Findings of Court:
The trial courts conviction and sentence were confirmed, and it was clarified that all sentences under the IPC, the Gangsters Act, and the Arms Act are to run concurrently as required by Section 31 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, modifying the order of the trial court only in this respect.
Issues:
Whether the sentences awarded in multiple cases should run concurrently or cumulatively, and whether the High Courts confirmation required any re-appreciation of facts.
Ratio Decidendi:
Appellate confirmation of conviction coupled with a life sentence necessitates a specific direction under Section 31 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for concurrent execution of all other sentences, and this Court exercises jurisdiction only to clarify that direction without re-examining factual findings.
Result:
The appeals are disposed of with confirmation of convictions and a clarified direction that all sentences under the IPC, the Gangsters Act, and the Arms Act shall run concurrently.
Judgment :
1) Leave granted.
2) Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as for the respondent-State.
3) On 9th April, 2012, this Court issued notice confining to the question of sentence only that too for clarifying that all the sentences to run concurrently.
4) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has brought to our notice that the trial Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant in the following order:
i) The accused Ramesh Chilwal @ Bambayya is convicted in Case Crime No.580/2004, Special Session Triable Case No.28/2005 under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentence for the rigorous imprisonment of life and a fine of Rs.1,00,000.00 (Rupees one lakh). In default for the payment of fine, he shall also serve a simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Out of this Rupees One Lac, Rs.50,000.00 (Rupees fifty thousand) is awarded as compensation to the family of the deceased.
ii) The accused Ramesh Chilwal @ Bambayya is convicted in Case Crime No. 580/2004, Special Session Triable Case No.28/2005 under Section 2/3 [3(1)] Gangsters Act and sentence for the rigorous imprisonment of 10 (ten) years and a fine of Rs.50,000.00 (Rupees fifty thousand). In default for the payment of fine, he shall also serve a simple imprisonment for a period of four months. Out of this Rs.50,000.00 (Rupees fifty thousand), rupees twenty five thousand is awarded as compensation to the family of the deceased.
iii) Accused Ramesh Chilwal @ Bambayya is convicted in Case Crime No. 737/2004, Sessions Triable Case No. 118/2005 under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentence for the rigorous imprisonment of 7 (seven) years and a fine of Rs.25,000.00 (Rupees twenty five thousand). In default for the payment of fine, he shall also serve a simple imprisonment for a period of four months. Out of this Rs.25,000.00, half of the amount is awarded as compensation to the family of the deceased.”
5) By the impugned order, the said conviction and sentences were confirmed by the High Court.
6) Since this Court issued notice only to clarify the sentence awarded by the trial Judge, there is no need to go into all the factual details. We are not inclined to modify the sentence. However, considering the fact that the trial Judge has awarded life sentence for an offence under Section 302, in view of Section 31 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, we make it clear that all the sentences imposed under the IPC, the Gangsters Act and the Arms Act are to run concurrently.
7) While confirming the conviction, we clarify that all the sentences are to run concurrently. To this extent, the judgment of the trial Court as affirmed by the High Court is modified.
8) The appeals are disposed of accordingly.