Kuldeep Singh v. State Of Haryana And ANR











 

 








 !"!#$

%&%"

'

()


*%+,-
.!#&(


.



 /0 #
1
# (/

 

2$


 34
2 
 .
  .
 
2.  
 









  

 

 


 



 

  
 

 


! 

  "

# 
$
#$%
&' 

  # 
()


%
&
&'
( %
*  +++++







































  .
 
2.)

"




,-
./0

/1///0%   


)
( )%
) %
 
 
'  % 
 


  %




) /

2 
  
2
3 
 


42 245 

 

&
 %


'


 )
10

-

2
3 
 


4-245


 
  

  


 

1




 


1%11167%

 





 
    

  


 





) 89


)
8/
-2

 
  

  
  
 %

)


2 
.

//96 %
'
  
  

1018 11
3&:


75





&



)


;

 %
) 

 &
  





2 
 2 
&
.)7/ /7)<

11 %
4= 
) 


;

 ) 


)

* 4%




2 
'   

 1  18
3&:


7 5%

%
'


)
10

89


)
8/
-2



%
' %

2 

  


>  




)
10
-2
%

 


  

  


 



 
1
 





 


:






   

)
10
-2 5 .%



 

2 
 
 



 



 

 

 

 



  

 




  

  
 



 

  
)
10

89


)
8/
-2


2 








 



'
 

1018 1 %

 
2 

 





 

 


 

  '

 

) %

 


  




2 
&
. )7/ /7)<

11 %







  
2 







* 
2 


  

 >  




  

)
89
 
)
8/
-2%
 



)
10
-2%





 



 

  
1
 


  



  




 

 


 
   
&    

 





2 


  
$


) %
//0


 

?



 





)


 )
89


)
8/
-2





)
10 -2

 

 %
 
  

 

 


  '


 


 
 


 


 
2  

 
 4


;%


  






 
 
<
'
 
 


 %



 





1 1? 1@


 







!  
;% ) %

 

  %

 
 





 
2 

 2 




 


  
 *4
)  
2 

 & / 6


7"
# / +
%/ %
 #8"

!&

!#

9:

9/!;!# +:
< )
2 #6
+!

"

#%
7" .



 /0 #

9:
.
 5)
2
(/!

#
=
( #> ( # 7"
.



*/ + #,
 (/"

9:

9/!;!# +:
<
 2(,
>(

/
%""

!#
+!

"
?/ (!;
(;,
(

!
7"
""!"

#

++ /

%"

;"
9 /8# !#:)
(;, ?

,
#,
 (/"
< 9:
.
5)




 





  
 
 
  %








 


  '


 

 

  


 
* 
2 

.;

2(/ 6
!?!
7" .




"

( #
#,
# (/
<
9:
4
9

6:
<

*% 

%



 

  '


 @ 2 


)%



%

 
  
 






 



 


 

  



  
  

'

%
 
* 
2 

   


:


>  


> 
)
10 -2
%



'



) 89


)
8/
-2
*

%
%


 
'

  






 %


 
'

 








 
'  

*4
)  
2 


  



 
2 

2 
&
.)7/ /7)<

11
'
 







2 

:  



  

& 

?


0


2  

- 




:  
  $


2 %

 
  
'


  



 




' *




 

)



2 2
  



'

 

 
' 
  

 
 
  

  

 


  %


  





: 

 

  '%



2 
 


    

 
-

  
 %





 
2 


&
2 




  



 

  %

 
  '

*%
' %






 4



 





 


 









)
10
-2




)
89


)
8/
-2





 


?
 %






 


 


&
2 

 -

 

 
 %







, 
<
  


2 

 #&
.!#&(
7"
.


%#6 ?)

9:

9/!;!# +:
55)

 

2 

 

 

$



 

 :  


 
2 


&
2 


'  2 




:  
 %


'    
-





 

$

 
 $




 

'




)
89

8 0

2 
  
2

 

  
 

%
 



2 
 
 :  

  

& 

?6

0


< -
'
  








  

 





 
'

 


  


   ) 

 
 
    
'

 



 


 
 

'


 
 

2 









 
  
 


  '
  


> 





 



 

)

2 2



 %
 




'

' 



  
>  

  


2 
'
  







 




 "7    



When a person is convicted at one trial of two or more offences, the Court may, subject to the provisions of section 71 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860 ), sentence him for such offences, to the several punishments prescribed therefor which such Court is competent to inflict; such punishments when consisting of imprisonment to commence the one after the expiration of the other in such order as the Court may direct, unless the Court directs that such punishments shall run concurrently.

In the case of consecutive sentences, it shall not be necessary for the Court by reason only of the aggregate punishment for the several offences being in excess of the punishment which it is competent to inflict on conviction of a single offence, to send the offender for trial before a higher Court: Provided that*

 in no case shall such person be sentenced to imprisonment for longer period than fourteen years;

 the aggregate punishment shall not exceed twice the amount of punishment which the Court is competent to inflict for a single offence.



 For the purpose of appeal by a convicted person, the aggregate of the consecutive sentences passed against him under this section shall be deemed to be a single sentence."

 
 


> %



 
'%


'



A 
<
3
;

 5
;

 

 *4
)  
2 

2
(/!

#
=
( #> ( #
7"
.


*/ + #,
 (/"

9:

<,  %
 





> %
B

 
 



 
  


  '

 
 C


 


 





 
  


)  
2 

2(,
>(

/
%""

!#
+!

"

?/ (!;
(;,
(

!
7"
""!"

#
++ /

%"

;"

/8# !#:)
(;, ?

,
#,
 (/"
<
9:
.
5
 #6
+!

"

#%
7"
.



 /0 #

9:
.
 5)




%

 

)

2 2




 2 
5 
 ' 

)

2 2
'


 


 
1

8

9





 "7   Section 31 Cr.P.C. relates to the quantum of punishment which may be legally passed when there is (a) one trial and (b) the accused is convicted of "two or more offences". Section 31 Cr.P.C. says that subject to the provisions of Section 71 IPC, Court may pass separate sentences for two or more offences of which the accused is found guilty, but the aggregate punishment must not exceed the limit fixed in the



proviso (a) and (b) of sub*section (2) of Section 31 Cr.P.C. In Section 31(1) Cr.P.C., since the word "may" is used, in our considered view, when a person is convicted for two or more offences at one trial, the court may exercise its discretion in directing that the sentence for each offence may either run consecutively or concurrently subject to the provisions of Section 71 IPC. But the aggregate must not exceed the limit fixed in proviso (a) and (b) of sub*section (2) of Section 31 Cr.P.C. that is - (i) it should not exceed 14 years and (ii) it cannot exceed twice the maximum imprisonment awardable by the sentencing court for a single offence.

 The words "unless the court directs that such punishments shall run concurrently" occurring in sub*section (1) of Section 31, make it clear that Section 31 Cr.P.C. vests a discretion in the Court to direct that the punishment shall run concurrently, when the accused is convicted at one trial for two or more offences. It is manifest from Section 31 Cr.P.C. that the Court has the power and discretion to issue a direction for concurrent running of the sentences when the accused is convicted at one trial for two or more offences. Section 31 Cr.P.C. authorizes the passing of concurrent sentences in cases of substantive sentences of imprisonment. Any sentence of imprisonment in default of fine has to be in excess of, and not concurrent with, any other sentence of imprisonment to which the convict may have been sentenced.

  The words in Section 31 Cr.P.C "8.sentence him for such offences, to the several punishments



prescribed therefor which such Court is competent to inflict; such punishments when consisting of imprisonment to commence the one after the expiration of the other in such order as the Court may direct" indicate that in case, the Court directs sentences to run one after the other, the Court has to specify the order in which the sentences are to run. If the Court directs running of sentences concurrently, order of running of sentences is not required to be mentioned. Discretion to order running of sentences concurrently or consecutively is judicial discretion of the Court which is to be exercised as per established law of sentencing. The court before exercising its discretion under Section 31 Cr.P.C. is required to consider the totality of the facts and circumstances of those offences against the accused while deciding whether sentences are to run consecutively or concurrently.

 Section 31 (1) Cr.P.C. enjoins a further direction by the court to specify the order in which one particular sentence shall commence after the expiration of the other. Difficulties arise when the Courts impose sentence of imprisonment for life and also sentences of imprisonment for fixed term. In such cases, if the Court does not direct that the sentences shall run concurrently, then the sentences will run consecutively by operation of Section 31 (1) Cr.P.C. There is no question of the convict first undergoing the sentence of imprisonment for life and thereafter undergoing the rest of the sentences of imprisonment for fixed term and any such direction would be unworkable. Since sentence of imprisonment for life means jail till the

 

end of normal life of the convict, the sentence of imprisonment of fixed term has to necessarily run concurrently with life imprisonment. In such case, it will be in order if the Sessions Judges exercise their discretion in issuing direction for concurrent running of sentences. Likewise if two life sentences are imposed on the convict, necessarily, Court has to direct those sentences to run concurrently.

The opening words "in the case of consecutive sentences" in sub*section (2) of Section 31 Cr.P.C. make it clear that this sub*section refers to a case in which "consecutive sentences" are ordered. The provision says that if an aggregate punishment for several offences is found to be in excess of punishment which the Court is competent to inflict on a conviction of single offence, it shall not be necessary for the Court to send the offender for trial before a higher court. Proviso (a) is added to sub* section (2) of Section 31 Cr.P.C. to limit the aggregate of sentences * that in no case, the aggregate of consecutive sentences passed against an accused shall exceed fourteen years. "Fourteen years rule" contained in clause (a) of the proviso to Section 31 (2) Cr.P.C. may not be applicable in relation to sentence of imprisonment for life, since imprisonment for life means the convict will remain in jail till the end of his normal life.

 XX XX XX XX  XX XX XX XX   XX XX XX XX While referring the matter to a larger Bench, the Bench observed that in Mohd. Akhtar Hussain's case, Section 31 Cr.P.C. was not noticed by this Court. It is to be pointed out that in Mohd. Akhtar



Hussain's case and Manoj's case, the appellants who were convicted for different counts of offences arose out of a single transaction, favouring the exercise of discretion to the benefit of the accused that the sentences shall run concurrently. Those decisions are not cases arising out of conviction at one trial of two or more offences and therefore, reference to Section 31 Cr.P.C. in those cases was not necessitated.

! As pointed out earlier, Section 31 Cr.P.C. deals with quantum of punishment which may be legally passed when there is * (a) one trial and (b) the accused is convicted of two or more offences. Ambit of Section 31 is wide, covering not only single transaction constituting two or more offences but also offences arising out of two or more transactions. In the two judgments in Mohd. Akhtar Hussain and Manoj (supra), the issue that fell for consideration was the imposition of sentence for two or more offences arising out of the single transaction. It is in that context, in those cases, this Court held that the sentences shall run concurrently.

 Under Section 31 Cr.P.C. it is left to the full discretion of the Court to order the sentences to run concurrently in case of conviction for two or more offences. It is difficult to lay down any straitjacket approach in the matter of exercise of such discretion by the courts. By and large, trial courts and appellate courts have invoked and exercised their discretion to issue directions for concurrent running of sentences, favouring the benefit to be given to the accused. Whether a direction for



concurrent running of sentences ought to be issued in a given case would depend upon the nature of the offence or offences committed and the facts and circumstances of the case. The discretion has to be exercised along the judicial lines and not mechanically.

 Accordingly, we answer the Reference by holding that Section 31 Cr.P.C. leaves full discretion with the Court to order sentences for two or more offences at one trial to run concurrently, having regard to the nature of offences and attendant aggravating or mitigating circumstances. We do not find any reason to hold that normal rule is to order the sentence to be consecutive and exception is to make the sentences concurrent. Of course, if the Court does not order the sentence to be concurrent, one sentence may run after the other, in such order as the Court may direct. We also do not find any conflict in earlier judgment in Mohd. Akhtar Hussain and Section 31 Cr.P.C." 3 
5  -
'


'%






2 

  


 

 %


 

  '

 

)

35
2 2

 > 



 
1
'

        2 > %


  
 %
 

2 



 




 %


 


 



*4
)  
2 
 

'%





  '



 %


%

 



 
 
  

 
 



@ 2 


)

 



   




 





 ' -


  


'



 





 


2 

2  &
.
)7/ /7)<

1



 %
 
 %


 



  

  

)
10
-2


 
  

  


 
)
89


)
8/ -2


, 
<
  


2 

Jang Singh's 

 5%








 

  %


 

  


*4 )  
2 

2 
*%,8
7"
.



#,(/ / ,"()
'

9:

9/!;!# +
@

;;

"!
#,
# (/
7"
#"- / 
+! )
7 ++!0 # %/
#,
 (/")


.%-/;
%/
5  


 
2 





 

$





 




' 

  



 

 
%








  
$


 

$




  
'



)
89

8 0

2 2

   




'


 
2 %
&
2 
 
' 
2 


 

 

 ' 
 
 



'


:  

  



  

'


)

89
 0
2 2

 
, 
<
  
 

'%











* 
2 

& 

?6

0
 
2  

-

D:  


:   
  
 
* 
2 


:


 

& 

?6

0



'


 
 


 6 ' 


* 
2 

 

)  
2 



:


 
 






'
%
 




  


* 
2 
 

  *' %


  
 %


'
:









* 
2 


'



'






 

   %

  
 

 



< -
'


'%

 


 



 

 

 

9
  .
 
2.
:

%&%"

'

()


  Harish