If Life Imprisonment Is Imposed On Murder Convict, Term Sentence For Other Offences Runs Concurrently: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court has clarified that if a term of life imprisonment under section 302 of Indian Penal Code is imposed on an accused and another fixed term sentence is imposed for another charge, then both sentences will run concurrently and not consecutively.A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna gave this clarification while allowing the petition filed by convicts...
The Karnataka High Court has clarified that if a term of life imprisonment under section 302 of Indian Penal Code is imposed on an accused and another fixed term sentence is imposed for another charge, then both sentences will run concurrently and not consecutively.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna gave this clarification while allowing the petition filed by convicts Ramachandra Reddy and another and directed that the sentences imposed upon the petitioners in terms of the impugned order of conviction dated 25.11.2010, passed in S.C.No.02/2007, shall run concurrently.
The Sessions Court in terms of its order dated 09.12.2010, convicted the petitioners herein and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment and pay fine of Rs.50,000 for offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. They were also convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and payment of Rs.50,000 each and in default to pay fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 394 of the IPC.
The petitioners approached the court contending that they are in prison since 22.09.2002, which is more than twenty years as of now and are entitled to seek remission or premature release in terms of the Rules and guidelines. However, in the absence of a direction by the concerned court that the sentences should run concurrently, the petitioners even after completing twenty years in prison are not entitled to seek remission on the ground that the sentence for offence punishable under Section 394 of the IPC, is in operation.
The bench relied on the Supreme Court judgments in the case of Ramesh Chilwal @ Bambayya Vs State of Uttarakhand, (2012) 11 SCC 629. Gagan Kumar Vs State of Punjab, 2 (2019) 5 SCC 154 and Muthuramalingama and Others Vs State, Represented by Inspector of Police, (2016) 8 SCC 213, wherein the courts have held that “If the court directs the life sentence to start first it would necessarily imply that the term sentence would run concurrently. That is because once the prisoner spends his life in jail, there is no question of his undergoing any further sentence.”
Following which the bench observed “There is no indication in the order whether the sentences would run concurrently or one after the other. Therefore, the issue with regard to such finding is left unattended by the concerned Court. The maximum punishment that is imposed initially against the petitioners is imprisonment for life for offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and later imprisonment for 10 years under Section 394 of the IPC.”
It then held “I deem it appropriate to direct that the sentence imposed upon the petitioners by the impugned order of conviction dated 25.11.2010 in S.C.No.02 of 2007 passed by District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura would run concurrently.”
Case Title: Ramachandra Reddy & ANR And State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.3359 OF 2022 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION No.2096 OF 2021
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 80
Date of Order: 08-02-2023
Appearance: Advocate Nanjunde Gowda for petitioners.
HCGP K.P.Yashodha for respondent.