Karnataka High Court
Smt. Daisy vs The State on 22 December, 2020
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4098 OF 2020
Between:
Smt.Daisy,
W/o Palani,
Aged about 32 years,
R/a No.392, 9th Cross,
Maruthi Nagar,
Bapujinagar, Mysore Road,
Bangalore - 560 026. ... Petitioner
(By Sri. Dilraj Jude Rohit Sequeira, Advocate)
And:
1. The State,
Represented by the
Public Prosecutor,
By Byatarayanapura Police,
Represented by the
State Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Karnataka,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. T.Kodandarama, Major,
S/o not known to the petitioner,
Byatarayanapura Police Station,
Represented by the
Bangalore - 560 026. ... Respondents
(By Smt.Namitha Mahesh, HCGP for R1;
R2 served)
Crl.P.No.4098/2020
2
-----
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C praying to direct the jail authorities to release the
petitioner forth with by ordering the sentences in
C.C.No.8973/2013 arising out of Cr.No.122/2013 For the
offences P/U/S 224 and 225 of IPC dated 19.01.2016 and in
S.C.No.733/2004 arising out of Cr.No.266/2004, For the
offences P/U/S 498-A, 304(b), 302 read with Section 34 of
IPC dated 09.11.2005 both pertaining to Byatarayanapura
Police Station to be run concurrently.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission, this day,
the Court made the following:
ORDER
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction to the jail authorities to release the petitioner forthwith by ordering the sentences in C.C.No.8973/2013 arising out of Crime No.122/2013 for the offences punishable under Section 224 and 225 of IPC dated 19.01.2016 and in S.C.No.733/2004 arising out of Crime No.266/2004 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304(b), 302 read with 34 of IPC dated 09.11.2005 to run concurrently.
Crl.P.No.4098/20203
2. The facts leading of the above are; the petitioner was convicted in S.C.No.733/2004 and sentenced to life imprisonment.
3. In C.C.No.8973/2013 she was convicted and sentenced to one year imprisonment for violation of Section 224 of IPC, these two sentences to run concurrently.
4. Sri. Dilraj Jude Rohit Sequeria, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has served a sentence of nearly 12 years 06 months as regards the conviction in S.C.No.733/2004. In C.C.No.8973/2013 where the Sessions Court has directed for the sentences to run concurrently, of these sentences were directed to run concurrently with that of the sentence in S.C.No.733/2004, the petitioner would be entitled to be released immediately and as such, the above relief is being sought for.
Crl.P.No.4098/20204
5. He relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Muthuramalingam & Others Vs. State Represented by Inspector of Police reported in AIR 2016 SC 3340 more particularly para No.31 thereof it is reproduced hereunder:
31. In conclusion our answer to the question is in the negative. We hold that while multiple sentences for imprisonment for life can be awarded for multiple murders or other offences punishable with imprisonment for life, the life sentences so awarded cannot be directed to run concurrently. Such sentences would, however, be super imposed over each other so that any remission or commutation granted by the competent authority in one dos not ipso facto result in remission of the sentence awarded to the prisoner for the other.
6. Per contra, Smt. Namitha Mahesh, learned HCGP would submit that the power under Section 427 of Cr.P.C. can only be exercised by the appellate Court and not by Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. She further submits that where there is no order passed by the sentencing Court directing the sentence to run concurrently, it is deemed that the sentences to run consequently. Crl.P.No.4098/2020 5
7. In this regard, she has relied upon the decision in case of Ranjit Singh Vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh and another reported in AIR 1991 SC 2296.
8. She further submits that when the sentences for a fixed term is passed after a sentence for a life imprisonment it is only after the sentence of life imprisonment is served that the sentence for term will have to be served by the convicted person.
9. In the present case the life imprisonment term still being served, it is only after it comes to an end that the sentence for the offences under Sections 224 and 225 of IPC would have to be served by the petitioner, therefore the Court ought not to direct that the sentence in the different maters run concurrently.
10. Heard Sri. Dilraj Jude Rohit Sequeria, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Namitha Mahesh, learned HCGP for the respondent No.1-State and perused the papers.
Crl.P.No.4098/20206
11. The questions that would arise for determination of this Court are;
1. Whether this Court exercising the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can alter the sentence or direct the sentences awarded to run concurrently?
2. Whether a sentence passed in two different proceedings would automatically run concurrently or automatically run consecutively?
3. What order?
12. Question No.1: Whether this Court exercising the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can alter the sentence or direct the sentences awarded will run concurrently? 12.1. A reading of Section 235 of Cr.P.C. indicates that it is the Court which has heard the arguments and passed the judgment who can convict and sentence the accused if required after hearing the said accused. Thus the power to pass sentence is only vested with that Court.
Crl.P.No.4098/20207 12.2. On an appeal, the appellate Court could vary the sentence if so required in the circumstances of the case.
12.3. In terms of Section 432 of Cr.P.C, the appropriate government could suspend or remit sentences and in terms of Section 433 of Cr.P.C. the appropriate government could also commute the sentence.
12.4. Though Section 482 of Cr.P.C. provides inherent jurisdiction to this Court, the inherent jurisdiction can only be exercised if it is not so specifically provided and reserved to be exercised by the authorities and/or the Court, in other proceedings.
12.5. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Ranjit Singh case (quoted supra) has also held that it is the direction of the sentencing Court which is to be given effect to and the Hon'ble Apex Court also refused to interfere with the sentence Crl.P.No.4098/2020 8 directing them to be concurrent under Section 427 Cr.P.C. by stating that the said action or the said power is vested with the trial Court alone and as such, the Hon'ble Apex Court refused to exercise direct the sentences to run concurrently.
12.6. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that this Court cannot exercise the Jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and cannot direct the sentence already passed in two different proceedings to run concurrently it was for the sentencing Court and for the appellate Court to exercise jurisdiction in relation thereto.
13. Question No.2: Whether a sentence passed in two different proceedings would automatically run concurrently or automatically run consecutively? 13.1. In the present case, the petitioner has been convicted in S.C.No.733/2004 for life imprisonment and C.C.No.8973/2013 for one Crl.P.No.4098/2020 9 year six months under Section 224 and 225 of IPC. Sessions Court while passing sentence in C.C.No.8973/2013 has directed the sentence as regards violation of Section 224 and 225 of IPC to run concurrently. But has not opined as regards running of the sentence concurrently to that imposed in S.C.No.733/2003. Even though the said Court was aware of the facts and circumstances in both the matters, the sentencing Court has not exercised the power to direct the sentence to run concurrently under Sections 235 or 427 of Cr.P.C. I am of the considered opinion that this Court cannot substitute the directing the sentencing Court and direct the sentences to run concurrently in exercising under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
14. Question No.3: What order?
14.1. The petition is dismissed.
Crl.P.No.4098/202010
In view thereof, the petitioner seeking for direction to jail authority to release the petitioner forthwith would not survive.
Sd/-
JUDGE ssb