Penal Code and both the sentences were
directed to run concurrently. No separate sentence was awarded
for the conviction of the appellant under section ... default sentence remains unaltered so also the sentence imposed
for the offence under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. No
separate sentence is imposed
Penal Code and both the
sentences were directed to run concurrently. No separate
sentence was awarded for the offence under section ... sentence imposed thereunder by the
learned trial Court is also fully justified. The sentences imposed
on two counts as noted above shall run concurrently
days
each. The substantive sentences were directed to run
3
concurrently and the default sentences were directed to run
consecutively.
So far as the other ... Arms Act and the substantive sentences were
directed to run concurrently and the default sentences were
directed to run consecutively.
3. The two petitioners namely
Indian Penal Code. The appellants Pravat Mohanty and
P.K. Choudhury were sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment five years and eight years respectively ... Indian Penal Code and all the sentences
were directed to run concurrently.
The appeal of the appellant Pravat Mohanty was
presented on 30.08.1988 which
well as sections 6 and 10 of the POCSO Act and
sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years
Page 2 of 27
Signature ... section 6 of the POCSO
Act. All the substantive sentences were directed to run
concurrently. The appellant was acquitted of the charges under
sections 354D
order dated 26.06.2012 found the appellant guilty of the offences
charged and sentenced him to undergo S.I. for six months ... both the substantive sentences of
imprisonment were directed to run concurrently.
3
2. The factual matrix of the prosecution case, as per the
written report
under sections 302 / 34 and 201 / 34 of Indian Penal Code and
sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine ... Indian Penal Code and both the
substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. The prosecution case, as per the First information
report
also under section 3(1)(xv) of the 1989
Act and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for seven years and to
pay a fine ... both the substantive sentences were directed to
run concurrently.
The petitioner preferred an appeal before this Court in
Criminal Appeal
vide impugned judgment and
order dated 22.01.2020 found the appellant guilty and sentenced
him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of twenty
years ... sentences were directed to run concurrently, however no
separate sentence was awarded for the offence under sections
under sections 376-D and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The
sentences passed under both the offences are also justified,
however, in my humble ... that both the sentences awarded
to the appellants under sections 376-D and 506 of the Indian
Penal Code to run concurrently instead of consecutively
