2014 (1) TMI 1919 - HC - Indian Laws

Court Orders Concurrent Running of Life Sentences, Corrects Oversight, Grants Relief

The court held that the petitioner's two life sentences imposed in separate cases should run concurrently under Section 427(2) Cr.P.C. The court clarified ... Moving of extraordinary original Habeas Corpus jurisdiction of this Court to direct the two life sentences imposed upon him - smaller sentences were directed to run concurrently with life imprisonment in terms of section 31 Cr.P.C. - HELD THAT:- Section 427(2) Cr.P.C. is a direction to the prison authorities to treat two life imprisonments as concurrent and there is no scope for Court's charity here, because it is a legislative guarantee. The Courts cannot take away this right nor the jail authorities deny the prisoner this right. It is manifestly clear that the prisoner need not have to invoke any jurisdiction, be it under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and cringe for mercy to have two life sentences run concurrently. Unfortunately in this case, the prisoner filed application in M.P. No. 170/2009 in Crl. A. No. 142/1996 without understanding the scope of Section 427[2] Cr.P.C., and obtained negative order from this Court on 15.03.2010. One can understand that the detenu may not be conversant with the nuances of law. Ignorantia juris non excusat [Ignorance of law is not an excuse] applies rigorously to the learned than to the lay. Even the prison authorities, who would have otherwise given the benefits of Section 427(2) Cr.P.C. automatically, will now remain hands tied and will be wondering as to when and where the prisoner will be undergoing the second life sentence after completing the first stint. The maxim Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit [An act of the Court shall prejudice no man] will surely come to our rescue in this case. Section 362 Cr.P.C. will not hinder us, because we are not in any way altering the substantive portion of the trial Court judgment or the appellate Court judgment that imposed the second life sentence on the prisoner. Sitting in the HCP jurisdiction, we have as our hand tool Article 226 of the Constitution of India with which we propose to do justice to the prisoner by simply saying that he will be entitled to the benefits of Section 427(2) Cr.P.C. This Habeas Corpus Petition is disposed of accordingly. Issues:1. Whether two life sentences imposed on the petitioner should run concurrently in terms of Section 427(2) Cr.P.C.Analysis:Issue 1: Whether two life sentences imposed on the petitioner should run concurrently in terms of Section 427(2) Cr.P.C.The petitioner sought direction for two life sentences imposed in two separate cases to run concurrently. The petitioner was convicted in S.C. No. 50/1994 and S.C. No. 175/1997 for various offenses and sentenced to life imprisonment in both cases. The petitioner's appeal against the convictions was dismissed by the High Court. The petitioner contended that the two life sentences should run concurrently under Section 427(2) Cr.P.C. The court examined the conflicting views in previous cases regarding the application of Section 427(2) Cr.P.C. and distinguished between Section 427(1) and 427(2) Cr.P.C. The court referred to relevant precedents such as Gopal Vinayak Gotse v. State of Maharashtra and Kamalananda v. State of Tamil Nadu to emphasize the concept of concurrent running of life sentences.The court highlighted that Section 427(2) Cr.P.C. mandates that when a person already serving a life sentence is sentenced to another life term, the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently. The court clarified that this provision is a legislative guarantee and does not require the petitioner to seek any jurisdiction for the sentences to run concurrently. The court criticized the previous order, which ignored the application of Section 427(2) Cr.P.C., and invoked the maxim 'Per incuriam' to rectify the error. By invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the court held that the petitioner is entitled to the benefits of Section 427(2) Cr.P.C., ensuring that the two life sentences would run concurrently. The court emphasized that it was not creating a new benefit but merely clarifying the legal position to dispel confusion among prison authorities.In conclusion, the court allowed the petitioner's plea and directed that the two life sentences imposed on him in separate cases should run concurrently in accordance with Section 427(2) Cr.P.C. The Habeas Corpus Petition was disposed of accordingly, providing relief to the petitioner regarding the concurrent running of his life sentences.