Concurrent sentencing for offences from a single transaction prevailed, with consecutive terms modified on mitigating circumstances.

Where offences arise out of a single transaction, sentences should ordinarily run concurrently rather than consecutively under Section 31 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, unless exceptional reasons justify a departure. The Court held that the direction for consecutive sentences was contrary to this settled principle and modified the punishment to run concurrently. The conviction was left undisturbed, but the manner of operation of the sentences was changed after taking into account the offender's age as a mitigating circumstance. The total sentence was accordingly reduced.

---

---

Issues: Whether the sentences imposed for offences arising out of a single transaction should run concurrently rather than consecutively under Section 31 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The appellant's liability for conviction was not disturbed, but the Court found that the direction making the sentences run consecutively was contrary to the settled rule that where offences arise from a single transaction, the punishment should ordinarily be concurrent. The appellant's age at the time of the offence was also treated as a relevant mitigating circumstance while reconsidering the manner in which the sentences were to operate.

Conclusion: The consecutive sentences were modified to run concurrently, and the total sentence was reduced to 10 years.

Ratio Decidendi: For offences arising from one transaction, sentences should ordinarily run concurrently and not consecutively, unless exceptional reasons justify a departure.

---