TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (11) TMI 1259
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... other accused ill-treated and tortured Lillikutty, compelling her to take the extreme step of putting an end to her life by committing suicide. During the marital life, Lillikutty had a premature delivery. When she became pregnant again in 1993, it is alleged that A-1 provided her with some tablets and Lillikutty had a miscarriage. During her marital life Lillikutty delivered a child who did not live long. On 23.2.1996 Lillikutty poured kerosene oil on herself and also drank some, which was later cleared away. On 23.2.1996, a mediation talk had been scheduled and PW-1 and the relatives of Lillikutty were also to attend the mediation talks but when the meeting was so scheduled, Lillikutty committed suicide by hanging. On the first information by PW-1, a neighbour of the accused, law was set in motion. Initially FIR was registered for unnatural death Under Section 174 Code of Criminal Procedure and on subsequent complaint, the same was altered to one for the offences punishable Under Sections 498A and 306 Indian Penal Code. PW-4 conducted autopsy and submitted the post-mortem report. PW-14, investigating officer, had taken up the investigation and seized the documents and material o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arch, 2014, notice was issued limited only to the question whether the direction whereby the sentences were ordered to run consecutively is legally tenable. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in Mohd. Akhtar Hussain alias Ibrahim Ahmed Bhatti v. Assistant Collector of Customs (Prevention), Ahmedabad and Anr. (1988) 4 SCC 183 and Manoj alias Panu v. State of Haryana (2014) 2 SCC 153 and argued that when an accused is found guilty of more than one offence at the same trial, though separate conviction is recorded on each of the different charges and different sentences are imposed, such sentences are required to be directed to run concurrently. This Court in Mohd. Akhtar Hussain alias Ibrahim Ahmed Bhatti case (supra) at para (10) held as under: The basic rule of thumb over the years has been the so-called single transaction rule for concurrent sentences. If a given transaction constitutes two offences under two enactments generally, it is wrong to have consecutive sentences. It is proper and legitimate to have concurrent sentences. But this rule has no application if the transaction relating to offences is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e that general rule is that sentences will run one after the other and exception is that punishments will run concurrently. He further submitted that the judicial guideline in Mohd. Akhtar Hussain is in no way in conflict with Section 31 Code of Criminal Procedure. 7. We have heard Ms. Bina Madhavan learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent-State of Kerala also, who supported the view taken by the courts below. Learned Counsel placed reliance on the recent judgment of this Court in Duryodhan Rout v. State of Orissa: 2014 (8) SCALE 96. 8. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the matter and perused the materials on record. 9. Section 31 Code of Criminal Procedure relates to the quantum of punishment that the court has jurisdiction to pass where the accused is convicted for two or more offences at one trial. Section 31 Code of Criminal Procedure reads as follows: Section 31. Sentence in cases of conviction of several offences at one trial.- (1) 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 punis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1, make it clear that Section 31 Code of Criminal Procedure 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 Code of Criminal Procedure 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 Code of Criminal Procedure 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. 12. The words in Section 31 Code of Criminal Procedure "....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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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) Code of Criminal Procedure 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. 15. In Ramesh Chilwal v. State of Uttarakhand (2012) 11 SCC 629, the accused was convicted Under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. Accused was also convicted Under Sections 2/3 [3(1)] of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and Under Section 27 of the Arms Act sentenced to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. Considering the fact that the trial court had awarded life sentence Under Section 302 Indian Penal Code, this Court directed that all sentences imposed Under Section 302 Indian Penal Code, Sections 2/3 [3(1)] of the Gangsters Act and Section 27 of the Arms Act to run concurrently. 16. When the prosecution is based on single t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1 Code of Criminal Procedure in those cases was not necessitated. 19. As pointed out earlier, Section 31 Code of Criminal Procedure 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. 20. Under Section 31 Code of Criminal Procedure 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 ....