Courts Should Not Order Concurrent Sentences For Serial Offenders Accused Of Committing Heinous Crimes: Punjab & Haryana High Court
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has said that the Courts should not order for concurrent running of sentences in case where the person is a serial offender and that too for committing heinous crimes.Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi observed, "A sentencing policy which is unusually mild and sympathetic in its operation would have a disastrous effect on society and would do more harm than good...
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has said that the Courts should not order for concurrent running of sentences in case where the person is a serial offender and that too for committing heinous crimes.
Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi observed, "A sentencing policy which is unusually mild and sympathetic in its operation would have a disastrous effect on society and would do more harm than good to public confidence in the efficacy of law. It is therefore, the duty of every Court to award appropriate sentence having regard to the nature of the offence."
Therefore, in cases where a person is a serial offender and that too for committing heinous crimes, the Courts would do well in not wanting to exercise their powers under Section 427(1) Cr.P.C. to order concurrent running of sentences, added the Court.
The Court was hearing the plea of Brij Mohan under Section 482 read with Section 427(1) of the CrPC, seeking directions that the sentence awarded in a 2006 in attempt to murder case (FIR No. 422) and the sentence in another trial for murder (FIR No. 376) In the same year be run concurrently.
Mohan was awarded 6 years in attempt to murder case and life imprisonment in a murder case in 2006.
The sentence awarded in another murder case (FIR No. 372, third case) wherein he was sentenced to life imprisonment in 2001 was ordered to run concurrently with the sentence awarded in the Trial emanating out of the murder conviction in 2006.
The counsel for the petitioner contended that in terms of Section 427(1) CrPC the High Court could direct that the subsequent sentence would run concurrently with the previous sentence. In case, the discretion was not exercised by this Court, the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss and injustice.
After hearing the submissions, the Court referred to Section 427(2) and said, it is in the nature of a positive mandate to the Court that it shall in all cases order sentences to run concurrently in a case where the first sentence is of life and the second sentence is for a fixed term or for life.
The Judge observed that the exercise of powers under Section 427(1) CrPC are the subjective satisfaction of the Court based on certain parameters.
Referring to Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab, 1996(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 74., the High Court said the power was exercised in the case, as the accused therein had been convicted for the same offence in five different cases by separate judgments on the same day and by the same Court.
Justice Bedi noted that "in FIR No.422 dated 24.11.1999 the conviction was recorded on 19.07.2006/24.07.2006 by the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Faridabad. The subsequent FIR Nos.376 and 374 were both under Section 302 IPC and lead to separate convictions by separate Courts of Addl. Sessions Judge, Faridabad."
There is absolutely no justifiable reason for this Court to exercise its discretionary power under Section 427(1) Cr.P.C. as the offences in question in each case are completely different do not arise out of the same transaction and are otherwise heinous offences, said the Court.
It added that if the argument was to be accepted that in every case the Court ought to exercise its powers under Section 427(1) CrPC then there would be multiple convictions for varying periods of time by different Courts for different offences and the Courts would be obligated to order concurrent running of sentences "which defeats the very purpose of imposition of a sentence which must be not only deterrent in nature but must be befitting the crime."
In the light of the above, the plea was dismissed.
V.S. Rana, Advocate for the petitioner.
Kanwar Sanjiv Kumar, Asstt. A.G., Haryana.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 114
Title: Brij Mohan @ Brijesh v. State of Haryana