Supreme Court of India
O.M. CHERIAN @ THANKACHANversusSTATE OF KERALA & ORS.
- Citation
- 2014 INSC 768
- Decided
- 11 November 2014
- Disposal
- Case Partly allowed
- Bench
- T S THAKUR
Holding
Section 31 CrPC gives courts full discretion to order concurrent sentences for multiple offences, and in this case the sentences for Sections 498A and 306 IPC must run concurrently.
Summary
The appellant O.M. Cherian (Thankachan) was convicted under Sections 498A and 306 IPC for the suicide of his wife and was sentenced to two years and seven years of rigorous imprisonment respectively, with the sentences ordered to run consecutively by the trial court and the Kerala High Court. The appeal before the Supreme Court was limited to the question of whether the sentences could be ordered to run concurrently under Section 31 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The Court held that Section 31 vests full discretion on the court to order concurrent sentences for multiple offences, and that there is no presumption that consecutive sentences are the normal rule. Considering the facts – the appellant’s limited presence in India, his attempts at mediation and the totality of circumstances – the Court exercised its discretion and directed that the sentences for Sections 498A and 306 IPC run concurrently. The appeal was partly allowed, modifying the earlier orders.
Issues considered
- The scope of discretion conferred by Section 31 CrPC on courts to order concurrent versus consecutive sentences for multiple convictions.
- Whether the trial and appellate courts erred in refusing to exercise that discretion in the present case.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 31(1), s. 31(2), s. 31(3)
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 306, s. 498A, s. 71
Subjects
Section 31 CrPCconcurrent sentencesconsecutive sentencesmultiple convictionssentencing discretionSection 498ASection 306 IPCsuicidecruelty
Judgment
A
[2014] 11 S.C.R. 140
O.M. CHERIAN @ TflANKACHAN
•
v.
STATE OF KERALA & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 2387 of 2014)
NOVEMBER 11, 2014
B
[T.S. THAKUR, ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND
R. BANUMATHI, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 31 - Sentences
C in cases of conviction of several offences at one trial - To run
concurrently or consecutively - Accused-husband convicted
u/ss.498 and 306 !PC and sentenced for the respective
offences - Direction by courts below that sentences to run
consecutively - Challenge to - Held: Under Section 31, it is
D left to the full discretion of the Court to order the sentences to
run concurrently in case of conviction for two or more offences,
having regard to the nature of offences and attendant
aggravating or mitigating circumstances - In view of the facts
and circumstances of the case, the sentences imposed on the
E appellant for the offences punishable ulss. 498A and 306 !PC
to run concurrently.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1. Under Section 31 Cr.P.C. it is left to the
F full discretion of the Court to order the sentences to run
concurrently in case of conviction for two or more
offences , having regard to the nature of o1ffences and
attendant aggravating or mitigating circumstances. It is
difficult to lay down any straitjacket approach in the
G matter of exercise of such discretion by the courts. By
and large, trial courts and appellate courts have invoker!
and exercised their discretion to issue directions for
concurrent running of sentences favouring the benefit to
be given to the accused. There is no reason to hold that .
H 140
• O.M. CHERIAN @ THANKACHAN v. STATE OF
KERALA
normal rule is to order the sentence to be consecutive
and exception is to make the sentences concurrent. Of
141
A
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. [Para 19, 20, 21] [152-C-G]
B
1.2. It is brought on evidence that in a period of eight
years of marriage from 1988-1996, the appellant-husband
came on leave to India for only four times and finally he
visited India while he was on leave during January-
February 1996. The appellant also appears to have taken
efforts for mediation to settle the differences and but his C
wife committed suicide on 23.02.1996-day scheduled for
mediation. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and
circumstances of the case, the sentences imposed on the
appellant for the offences punishable under Sections
498A and 306 IPC are ordered to run concurrently. [Para D
23] [153-G-H; 154-A-B]
Mohd. Akhtar Hussain alias lbrahm Ahmed Bhatti vs.
Asstt. Collector of Customs (Prevention), Ahmedabad & Anr.
(1988) 4 SCC 183: 1988 (2) Suppl. SCR 747; Duryodhan E
Rout v. State of Orissa 2014 (8) SCALE 96; Ramesh Chilwal
vs. State of Uttarakhand (2012) 11 SCC 629: 2012 (6)
SCR 558; V.K. Bansal vs. State of Haryana & Anr. (2013) 7
SCC 211: 2013 (7) SCR 617; Manoj alias Panu vs. State of
Haryana (2014) 2 SCC 153 - referred to. F
Case Law Refer~e:
2014 (8) SCALE 96 Referred to Para 7
2012 (6) SCR 558 Referred to Para 15
G
2013 (7) SCR 617 Referred to Para 16
(2014) 2 sec 153 Referred to Para 17 ·
1988 (2) Suppl. SCR 747 Referred to Para 17,
19 H
A
142 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 11 S.C.R.
CRIMINAL APP ELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
•
No. 2387 of 2014.
From the Judgment & Order dated 27.11.2013 of the High
Court of Kera la at Ernakulam in Crl. A No. 910 of 2006.
B Jayanth Muth Raj, Nishe Rajen Shanker for the Appellant.
Bina Madhavan, Ramesh Babu M.R., for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
c R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises out of the judgrJ1ent dated
27 .11.2013 passed in Crl. Appeal No. 910/2006 by which the
High Court of Kerala confirmed the conviction of the appellant/
D 1st accused under Sections 498A and 306 IPC and also the
sentence of imprisonment imposed on him.
3. Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that the 1st
accused married Lillikutty and their marriage was solemnized
E on 11.2.1988 and they continued their stay in House bearing
No. MP. Vlll/84 of Karulayai Amsom along with other accused,
who are the father, mother and brother of the appellant. The
allegation levelled is that in the matrimonial house, the
appellant/1st accused and other accused ill-treated and tortured
Lillikutty, compelling her to take the extreme step of putting an
F 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
G 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 Lillik{Jtty\
• were also to attend the mediation talks but when the meeting
was so scheduled, Lillikutty committed suicide by hanging. On
H
• O.M. CHERIAN @ THANKACHAN v. STATE OF 143
KERALA [R. BANUMATHI, J]
the first information by PW-1, a neighbour of the accused, law A
was set in motion. Initially FIR was registered for unnatural death
under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and on subsequent complaint, the
same was altered to one for the offences punishable under
Sections 498A and 306 !PC. PW-4 conducted autopsy and
submitted the post-mortem report. PW-14, investigating officer, B
had taken up the investigation and seized the documents and
material objects and examined the witnesses and laid the
charge sheet against the appellant and other accused. In the
trial court, PWs 1 to 15 were examined and Exs. P-1 to P-25
were marked and MOs 1 to 18 were identified. The accused c
were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and they denied
all the incriminating evidence and circumstances brought out
in evidence against them.
4. Upon consideration of evidence, the trial court convicted
the appellant/1st accused under Section 498A I PC and D
sentenced him to undergo two years of rigorous imprisonment
and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine,
to undergo further imprisonment of one year. For the offence
punishable under Section 306 !PC, the trial court sentenced him
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay E
a fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to
undergo further imprisonment of three years. The substantive
sentences of the appellant were ordered to run consecutively.
Accused 2 to 4 were convicted under Section 498A !PC and
were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for two years and to F
pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default clause of one year. The High
Court confirmed the conviction and also the sentence of
imprisonment imposed upon all the accused.
5. Being aggrieved, the appellant/1st accused has G
preferred this appeal. This Court issued notice only on the
limited question as to whether the sentence can be made to
run concurrently, instead of running consecutively. This Court by
order dated 18.7.2014 observed that Section 31 Cr.P.C. was
not noticed by this Court in Mohd. Akhtar Hussain alias Ibrahim
H
144 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 11 S.C.R. •
A Ahmed Bhatti vs. Asstt. Collector of Customs (Prevention),
Ahmedabad & Anr. (1988) 4 SCC 183 and referred the matter
to be considered by a larger Bench in order to settle the law
and thus, the matter is before us. The order of Reference is as
follows:
.
J,
B
"The petitioner herein was concurrently convicted for
offences under Section 498A and Section 306 IPC and
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years
and 7 years respectively on the above-mentioned two
counts apart from paying certain amounts of fine, the
c details of which may not be necessary.
Both the Courts directed that the sentences should
run consecutively.
D By an order dated 31st March, 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
E reliance on the judgments of this Court in Mohd. Akhtar
Hussain alias Ibrahim Ahmed Bhatti vs. Assistant
Collector of Customs (Prevention), Ahmedabad and
Another (1988) 4 SCC 183 and Manoj alias Panu vs.
State of Haryana (2014) 2 SCC 153 and argued that when
F 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.
G
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.
H
• O.M. CHERIAN @ THANKACHAN v. STATE OF
KERALA [R. BANUMATHI, J.]
If a given transaction constitutes two offences under two
145
A
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 not the same or the facts constituting
the two offences are quite different." B
In Manoj alias Panu vs. State of Haryana (supra) the
Bench simply followed the earlier judgment.
From the judgment in Mohd. Akhtar Hussain alias
Ibrahim Ahmed Bhatti case (supra), it appears that C
Section 31 of the Criminal Procedure Code was not
noticed by this Court when this Court observed as
extracted above.
Section 31 (1) of the Cr. P.C. reads as follows:- D
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 E
punishments prescribed therefore 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.' F
(2) .............. .
(3) ............... "
Therefore, the statutory stipulation is clear that normally G
sentences in such cases are to run consecutively.
Hence we find it difficult for us to accept the statement
of law made in the above mentioned two cases. We,
therefore, deem it appropriate that the matter be H
A
146 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 11 S.C.R.
considered by a Bench of appropriate strength to settle the
•
law. We direct the Registry to place the papers before
Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders."
6. Learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Jayanth Muthraj
contended that when a person is. convicted at one trial for two
B
or more offences, Section 31 Cr.P.. C. vests a discretion in the
Court to direct that the punishment shall run concurrently and
in the present case the trial court and the appellate court have
not properly exercised such discretionary power vested in
them. Learned counsel submitted that the section provides that
c where several sentences are imposed for two or more offences,
such sentences will run· one after the other in such order as
Court directs, unless the Court directs running of punishments
concurrently and the Court's discretion to order concurrent
running of sentences is not in any manner restricted. It was
D contended that there is no reason to presume 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 Cr.P.C.
E
7. We have heard Ms. Bina Madhavan learned counsel
appearing for the respondent-State of Keraia also, who
supported the view taken by the courts below. Learned counsel
placed reliance on the recent judgment of this Court in
F 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 Cr.P.C. relates to the quantum of punishment
G that the court has jurisdiction to pass where the accused is
convicted for two or more offences at one trial. Section 31
Cr.P.C. reads as follows:-
"S.31. Sentence in cases of conviction of several
offences at one trial.. -(1) When a person is convicted
H
I
• O.M. CHERIAN @ THANKACHAN v. STATE OF
KERALA [R. BANUMATHI, J.]
at one trial of two or more offences, the Court may, A
147
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 B
the expiration of the other in such order as the Court may
direct, unless the Court directs that such punishments
shall run concurrently.
(2) In the case of consecutive sentences, it shall not C
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:
D
Provided that-
(a) in no case shall such person be sentenced to
imprisonment for a longer period than fourteen
years;
E
(b) the aggregate punishment shall not exceed twice
the amount of punishment which the Court is
competent to inflict for a single offence.
(3) For the purpose of appeal by a convicted F
person, the aggregate of the consecutive sentences
passed against him under this section shall be deemed
to be a single sentence."
10. Section 31 Cr.P.C. relates to the quantum of
punishment which may be legally passed when there is (a) one G
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
H
148 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 11 S.C.R . •
A punis.hment 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
B 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
c maximum imprisonment awardable by the sentencing court for
a single offence.
11. 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
D 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
E 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
F which the convict may have been sentenced.
12. The words in Section 31 Cr.P.C " .... sentence him for
such offences, to the several punishments prescribed therefor"
which ·such Court is competent to inflict; such punishments
G when consisting of imprisonment to commence the one after
the expiration of the other in such order as the Court may
direcf' 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
H
• O.M. CHERIAN @ THANKACHAN v. STATE OF
KERALA [R. BANUMATHI, J.]
required to be mentioned. Discretion to order running of
149
A
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 B
while deciding whether sentences are to run consecutively or
concurrently.
13. Section 31 (1) Cr.P.C. enjoins a further direction by
the court to specify the order in which one particular sentence C
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 D
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 E
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 F
to direct those sentences to run concurrently.
14. 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 G
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
H
150 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 11 S.C.R. •
A (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
B 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 vs. State of Uttarakhand (2012)
11 sec 629, the accused was convicted under Se~tion 302
C · IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. Accused
was also convicted under Sections 213 [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
D rigorous imprisonment for seven years. Considering the fact that
the trial court had awarded life sentence under Section 302
IPC, this Court directed that all sentences imposed under
Section 302 IPC, Sections 213 [3(1 )] of the Gangsters Act and
Section 27 of the Arms Act to run concurrently.
E
16. When the prosecution is based on single transaction
where it constitutes two or more offences, sentences are to run
concurrently. Imposing separate sentences, when the acts
constituting different offences form part of the single transaction
F is not justified. So far as the benefit available to the accused
to have the sentences to run concurrently of several offences
based on single transaction, in V.K. Bansal vs. State of
Haryana & Anr. (2013) 7 SCC 211, in which one of us (Justice
T.S. Thakur) was a member, this Court held as under:-
G " ... we may say that the legal position favours exercise
of discretion to the benefit of the prisoner in cases where
the prosecution is based on a single transaction no matter
different complaints in relation thereto may have been
filed as is the position in cases involving dishonour of
.H
• O.M. CHERIAN @ THANKACHAN v. STATE OF
KERALA [R. BANUMATHI, J.]
cheques issued by the borrower towards repayment of a
151
A
loan to the creditor."
· 17. This Court in the case of Mohd. Akhtar Hussain alias
Ibrahim Ahmed Bhatti vs. Asstt. Collector of Customs
(Prevention) Ahmedabad and Anr., (1988) 4 SCC 183,
B
recognized the basic rule of conviction arising out of a single
transaction justifying the concurrent running of the sentences.
The following passage in this regard is relevant to be noted :-
'The basic rule of thumb over the years has been the so-
called single transaction rule for concurrent sentences. If C
a given transacti()n 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 not the same or the facts constituting D
the two. offences are quite different."
In Manoj alias Panu vs. State of Haryana, (2014) 2 SCC 153,
the Bench followed Mohd. Akhtar Hussain's case.
18. While referring the matter to a larger Bench, the Bench E
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 conlticted for different counts of offences
arose out of a single transaction, favouring the exercise of F
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. G
19. 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
H
A
152 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014] 11 S.C.R.
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
B is in that context, in those cases, this Court held that the
sentences shall run concurrently.
20. 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
C 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
D 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 arid not
mechanically.
E
21. 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
F 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
concurrer.t. Of course, if the Court does not order the sentence
to be concurrent, one sentence may run after the other, in such
G 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.
22. Having answered the reference, the merits of the matter
can be gone into by the referring Bench; but we consider it
H
• O.M. CHERIAN@ THANKACHAN v. STATE OF
KERALA [R. BANUMATHI, J.]
153
appropriate to dispose of the appeal itself to avoid any further A
delay. Adverting to the present case, the learned counsel for
the appellant contended that the facts and circumstances of the
case were not kept in view to invoke the discretion for
concurrent running of sentences. It was submitted that appellant
is employed in Gulf countries and between 1988-1996, the B
appellant visited India only four times and there could not have
been any continuous harassment on his part and in the said
facts and circumstances of the case, the trial court and the High
Court ought to have judiciously exercised their discretion in
directing sentences to run concurrently and therefore, prayer for c
intervention of this Court was made.
23. The trial court directed the sentences imposed on the
appellant/accused under Sections 498A and 306 IPC to run
consecutively, which was affirmed by the High Court. When the
trial court declines to exercise its discretion under Section 31 D
Cr.P.C. rn issuing direction for concurrent running of sentences,
normally the appellate court will not interfere, unless the refusal
to exercise such discretion is shown to be arbitrary or
unreasonable. When the trial court as well as the appellate court
declined to exercise their discretion, normally we would have E
refrained from interfering with such direction of the courts for
consecutive running of sentences. But in the facts and
circumstances of the present case, in our view, the sentences
imposed on the appellant could be ordered to be run
concurrently. At the time of marriage, the appellant was F
employed as a Painter at Delhi and after marriage, it is stated
that the appellant had secured an employment in Gulf countries
and used to visit India once in two years only. It is brought on
evidence that in a period of eight years from 1988-1996, he
came on leave to India for only four times and finally he visited G
India while he was on leave during January-February 1996. The
appellant also appears to have taken efforts for mediation to
settle the differences and the mediation was scheduled to take
place on 23.2.1996; but Lillikutty committed suicide on the
H
154 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 11 S.C.R.
A same day. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and
•
circumstances of the case, the sentences imposed on the
appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and
306 IPC are ordered to run concurrently and the appeal is
disposed of with the above modifications.
8
24. The reference is answered accordingly and the appeal
allowed m part to the extent as indicated above.
Nidhi Jain Appeal partly allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Section 31 CrPC"Sign in to search