Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dilbagh Singh vs State Of Punjab on 13 August, 2013
CRM-M-4008 of 2011 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-4008 of 2011
Date of Decision : 13.08.2013
Dilbagh Singh .....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.P. NAGRATH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Mikhail Kad, AAG, Punjab.
R.P. Nagrath, J.
The petitioner alongwith others faced trial on the charge under Section 302, 148 and 149 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) in FIR No. 238 dated 31.12.1996, Police Station Lopoke in Sessions case No. 116 of 1997 (Sessions trial No. 17 of 1997). Vide judgment dated 12.07.1999, he was convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of ` 2,000/-, in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.
2. In a subsequent FIR No. 78 dated 19.05.2001, of the same Police Station the petitioner alongwith others faced trial in Sessions case No. 383 of 2003 (Sessions trial No. 74 of 2003) and Jitender Kumar 2013.09.18 10:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-4008 of 2011 -2- vide judgment dated 31.03.2003, he was again convicted of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act. He was awarded life imprisonment and to pay fine of ` 5,000/-, in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC apart from sentencing him under the Arms Act. It was also directed that if the petitioner was already undergoing life imprisonment, the sentence awarded to him was to commence after expiry thereof.
3. The prayer in the instant petition is to seek concurrent running of sentences awarded in both the cases by virtue of sub- section (2) of Section 427 Cr.P.C. of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Code'). Section 427 of the Code reads as under:-
"427.Sentence on offender already sentenced for another offence. -
(1) When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment or imprisonment for life, such imprisonment or imprisonment for life shall commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he has been previously sentenced, unless the Court directs that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence:
Provided that where a person who has been sentenced to imprisonment by an order under Section 122 in default of furnishing security is, whilst undergoing such sentence, sentenced to Jitender Kumar 2013.09.18 10:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-4008 of 2011 -3- imprisonment for an offence committed prior to the making of such order, the latter sentence shall commence immediately.
(2) When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for life is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment for a term or imprisonment for life, the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence."
4. It is, therefore, submitted that sentence awarded in subsequent case could not be consecutive in view of the clear mandate of sub-section (2) of Section 427 of the Code.
5. In support of his contention, the petitioner's counsel relied upon various decisions of this Court: (i) Gurbachan Singh Vs. State of Punjab, CRM-M-27915 of 2008 decided on 25.11.2009; (ii) Irfan Ahmed Vs. State of Haryana, CRM-M- 13923 of 2009 decided on 06.11.2009; and (iii) Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, CRM-M-33516 of 2011 decided on 23.01.2003.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned State counsel.
7. On giving my thoughtful consideration to the controversy, I am of the considered view that the principle on the subject as laid down by Apex Court in Ranjit Singh vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh and others, 1991 (4) SCC 304 must be followed. In the said case petitioner was convicted under Section 302 IPC on 06.03.1979 and sentenced to life imprisonment, which was confirmed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. While Jitender Kumar 2013.09.18 10:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-4008 of 2011 -4- the petitioner in that case was on parole after his conviction and sentence for first murder, he was tried for the second murder committed on 25.10.1980 and convicted under Section 303 IPC, which was altered to one under Section 302 IPC by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 30.09.1983, sentencing the petitioner to life imprisonment. While disposing of the appeal, Hon'ble Supreme Court directed as under:-
"We feel that life imprisonment would be the proper sentence that should be imposed upon the appellant. We accordingly reduce the sentence of death imposed upon him and sentence him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life. However, since the present murder was committed by him within a span of one year of his earlier conviction and that too when he was released on parole we are clearly of the view that the instant sentence of imprisonment for life awarded to him should not run concurrently with his earlier sentence of life imprisonment. We therefore, direct that in case any remission or commutation in respect of his earlier sentence is granted to him the present sentence should commence thereafter."
The petition, therefore, was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in terms of Section 427 (2) of the Code.
8. Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-
"9. We are not required to say anything regarding the practical effect of remission or commutation of the sentences since that question does not arise in Jitender Kumar 2013.09.18 10:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-4008 of 2011 -5- the present case. The limited controversy before us has been indicated. The only question now is of the meaning and effect of the above quoted direction in this Court's judgment dated 30.9.1983. It is obvious that the direction of this Court must be construed to harmonise with Section 427(2) Cr.PC which is the statutory mandate apart from being the obvious truth. The subsequent sentence of imprisonment for life has, therefore, to run concurrently with the earlier sentence of imprisonment for life awarded to the petitioner. The real exercise is to construe the last sentence in the direction which reads as under:
"We, therefore, direct that in case any remission or commutation in respect of his earlier sentence is granted to him the present sentence should commence thereafter."
It is in the background of this ultimate direction that the preceding portion has to be read. This last sentence in the direction means that in case, any remission or commutation is granted in respect of the earlier sentence of life imprisonment alone then the benefit of that remission or commutation will not ipso facto be available in respect of the subsequent sentence of life imprisonment which would continue to be unaffected by the remission or commutation in respect of the earlier sentence alone. In other words, the operation of the superimposed subsequent sentence of life imprisonment shall not be wiped out merely because in respect of the corresponding earlier sentence of life imprisonment any remission or commutation has been granted by the appropriate authority. The consequence is that the petitioner would not get any practical benefit of Jitender Kumar 2013.09.18 10:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-4008 of 2011 -6- any remission or commutation in respect of his earlier sentence because of the superimposed subsequent life sentence unless the same corresponding benefit in respect of the subsequent sentence is also granted to the petitioner. It is in this manner that the direction is given for the two sentences of life imprisonment not to run concurrently."
9. As per the judgment of conviction dated 12.07.1999 in Sessions trial No. 17 of 1997, the incident of murder took place on 13.12.1996. In the subsequent case in trial No. 74 of 2003 decided on 31.10.2003, the incident took place on 19.05.2001.
10. It is not disputed that the petitioner challenged his conviction recorded in Sessions Case No. 383 of 2003 in Crl. Appeal No. 168-DB of 2004 in this Court, and the same was dismissed on 23.04.2008 holding that sentence awarded by the trial Court calls for no variation/modification.
11. Following the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Ranjit Singh's case (supra), this petition is disposed of with the following direction:-
In case, any remission or commutation is granted in respect of the earlier sentence of life imprisonment alone then the benefit of that remission or commutation will not ipso facto be available in respect of the subsequent sentence of life imprisonment which would continue to be unaffected by the remission or commutation in respect of the earlier sentence alone. The operation of subsequent Jitender Kumar 2013.09.18 10:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-4008 of 2011 -7- sentence of life imprisonment shall not be wiped out merely because in respect of the corresponding earlier sentence of life imprisonment any remission or commutation has been granted by the appropriate authority. The consequence is that the petitioner would not get any practical benefit of any remission or commutation in respect of his earlier sentence because of the subsequent life sentence unless the same corresponding benefit in respect of the subsequent sentence is also granted to the petitioner.
The petition is, therefore, disposed of in the terms indicated above.
August 13, 2013 ( R.P. NAGRATH )
jk JUDGE
Jitender Kumar
2013.09.18 10:56
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh