2019 (2) TMI 2036 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction & Sentencing under IPC Sections with Concurrent Sentences

Gagan Kumar Versus The State of Punjab

The Supreme Court confirmed the conviction and sentencing under Sections 279 and 304-A of the IPC. The Court emphasized compliance with Section 31 of the ... Prosecution and conviction for the offences punishable Under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 - whether the two punishments awarded to the Appellant Under Section 279 and Section 304-A Indian Penal Code would run concurrently or consecutively? - HELD THAT:- It was necessary for the Magistrate to have ensured compliance of Section 31 of the Code when she convicted and sentenced the Appellant for two offences in a trial and inflicted two punishments for each offence, namely, Section 279 and Section 304-A Indian Penal Code - In such a situation, it was necessary for the Magistrate to have specified in the order by taking recourse to Section 31 of the Code as to whether the punishment of sentence of imprisonment so awarded by her for each offence would run concurrently or consecutively. Indeed, it being a legal requirement contemplated Under Section 31 of the Code, the Magistrate erred in not ensuring its compliance while inflicting the two punishments to the Appellant. The Appellant was convicted and accordingly punished with a sentence to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment with a fine amount of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine amount to further undergo one month simple imprisonment Under Section 304-A and 6 months rigorous imprisonment with a fine amount of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine amount to further undergo 15 days simple imprisonment Under Section 279 Indian Penal Code - having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of controversy involved in the case, both the sentences awarded by the Magistrate to the Appellant would run 'concurrently'. So far as the merits of the case is concerned, when three Courts have, on appreciation of evidence, found that the prosecution was able to make out a case against the Appellant, there are no good ground to interfere in such finding. The appeal thus succeeds and is allowed in part. Issues involved: Conviction and sentencing under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Compliance with Section 31 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 regarding concurrent or consecutive sentences.Analysis:1. Conviction and Sentencing under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC:The appellant was convicted for offenses under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code by the Judicial Magistrate. The Magistrate sentenced the appellant to rigorous imprisonment and fines for both offenses. The appellant filed appeals and revisions against these orders, which were dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court. The Supreme Court considered the legality of the convictions and sentences imposed by the lower courts.2. Compliance with Section 31 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:The main issue raised in the appeal was whether the Magistrate erred in not specifying whether the sentences for the two offenses would run concurrently or consecutively, as required by Section 31 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appellant's counsel argued that the Magistrate failed to comply with this mandatory provision, leading to ambiguity in the sentencing. The Supreme Court agreed with the appellant's argument and held that it was necessary for the Magistrate to have specified whether the sentences would run concurrently or consecutively.3. Decision and Rationale:After hearing arguments from both parties and examining the case record, the Supreme Court found merit in the appellant's contention regarding the lack of clarity in the sentencing order. The Court emphasized that the Magistrate should have followed the provisions of Section 31 of the Code while awarding sentences for multiple offenses. Since the Magistrate failed to do so, the Supreme Court intervened and directed that the sentences for both offenses should run concurrently. The Court upheld the convictions and sentences imposed by the Magistrate but modified the order to ensure compliance with the procedural requirements.4. Confirmation of Conviction and Sentence:The Supreme Court confirmed the finding of conviction and sentencing under both Sections 279 and 304-A of the IPC. Despite attempts by the appellant's counsel to question the findings on merits, the Court found no substantial grounds for interference. The appeal was allowed in part, modifying the impugned order to specify that the sentences for both offenses would run concurrently. The Court upheld the convictions but clarified the sentencing aspect to align with the legal provisions.In conclusion, the Supreme Court's judgment focused on ensuring procedural compliance with Section 31 of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding the specification of concurrent or consecutive sentences for multiple offenses. The Court upheld the convictions but modified the sentencing order to remove ambiguity and ensure clarity in the implementation of the sentences imposed by the Magistrate.