Sentence For Subsequent Conviction Must Run Concurrently With Life Term: Gujarat High Court Orders Release Of Convict
The Gujarat High Court ordered release of a murder convict who was sentenced to life imprisonment, but was later awarded separate two-year sentence by the trial court for absconding while on temporary bail. In doing so, the Court found a “grave error” committed by the Trial Court and Appellate Court in directing the subsequent sentence to run consecutively, holding that under 427(2) of...
The Gujarat High Court ordered release of a murder convict who was sentenced to life imprisonment, but was later awarded separate two-year sentence by the trial court for absconding while on temporary bail.
In doing so, the Court found a “grave error” committed by the Trial Court and Appellate Court in directing the subsequent sentence to run consecutively, holding that under 427(2) of the CrPC the later sentence is required to run concurrently, as the detention of the petitioner in the second offence after completion of the imprisonment becomes “illegal”.
Justice M.R. Mengdey observed, “...neither learned trial Court nor the Appellate Court got any powers or discretion to order the sentence imposed upon the petitioner on subsequent conviction, to run after the imprisonment of life was over. Therefore, the learned trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court have committed grave error in ordering the sentence imposed upon the petitioner in subsequent conviction to run consecutively, in view of the provisions of Section 427(2) of the Cr.P.C. The detention of the petitioner in second offence after completion of punishment of life imprisonment becomes illegal. Therefore, the present petition deserves to be allowed and the same is hereby allowed.”
"From the jail remarks of the petitioner produced on record, it appears that the petitioner has already completed all the sentence imposed upon him and therefore, he is ordered to be released forthwith," the court said.
The FIR was registered against the petitioner – convict for the offences under Sections 302 (murder) and 498A (cruelty) IPC wherein he was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. During his incarceration, he was granted temporary bail for 30 days by the High Court and was released on March 2003 with a direction to surrender within a month. However, he did not surrender to the jail authorities and absconded.
Consequently, a separate offence was registered against him under Section 51(B) (punishes a prisoner who escapes, attempts to escape, or fails to return to custody after temporary release) of the Prisons Act.
He was convicted and sentenced to two years simple imprisonment by Magistrate Court in February 2004. Aggrieved by this, he approached Sessions Court which dismissed his appeal affirming Magistrate court's order. He was then granted remission in the life sentence by the Government and released on July 2025 in respect to the offences of murder and cruelty.
However, as the two-year sentence was directed to commence after the completion of life imprisonment, the petitioner continued to remain in the custody and was undergoing the said sentence.
The counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner while undergoing life imprisonment for offences under IPC absconded after released on temporary bail and was subsequently convicted under the Prisons Act wherein, he was sentenced to two years' simple imprisonment. Further he contended that the second conviction arose during the life sentence under Section 427(2) of CrPC that mandates concurrent running of sentences, therefore the courts erred in directing the sentence to run consecutively. The counsel then sought quashing of the impugned orders and his release relying on the case of Prabhatji Sukhaji Dabhi v. State of Gujarat.
The APP opposed the petition contending that relied under Section 427(2) CrPC is discretionary and the considering the conduct of the petitioner, absconding during the release while serving life imprisonment wherein another offence was committed under the Prisons Act, no discretion should be exercised in his favour by the Court. The state's counsel sought for dismissal of the petition relying on Mohd. Zahid v. State through NCB
The Court after hearing the respective parties, observed that the petitioner's case falls under Section 427(2) of CrPC wherein, a person already undergoing life imprisonment and is later sentenced again whether for a term or life imprisonment, the subsequent sentence is mandatorily required to run concurrently.
Referring to the jail remarks placed on record, the Court noted that the petitioner has already undergone the entire sentence imposed upon him and ordered his release forthwith.
Case Title: Ramjanbhai Hasambhai Khraj vs State of Gujarat & Ors.
Case Number: Special Criminal Application (Direction) No. 1034 of 2025