Cap of 14 Years Rule on aggregate Punishment is not applicable to Sessions Court: SC Constitution Bench [Read Judgment]

The Constitution Bench of Supreme of India Today has finally corrected the wrong interpretation given to Section 31(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure Code, by holding that the cap of 14 years Rule on aggregate punishment is not applicable to Sessions Court.The Bench comprising of Chief Justice TS Thakur and Justices FMI Kalifulla, A.K. Sikri, S.A. Bobde and R. Banumati has made this clarification while examining the question “whether consecutive life sentences can be awarded to a convict on being found guilty of a series of murders for which he has been tried in a single trial?”The Court has examined the Cases in which Section 31(2) were interpreted. In Duryodhan Rout’s case the prisoner was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 302, 376 (2)(f) and 201 of the IPC and sentenced to death for the offence of murder and rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f). Imprisonment for a period of one year was additionally awarded under Section 201 of IPC with a direction that the sentences would run consecutively. In appeal, the High Court altered the sentence of death to imprisonment for life while leaving the remaining sentences untouched. The petitioner then approached this Court to argue that the sentences ought to run concurrently and not consecutively as directed by the Courts below. Relying upon Gopal Vinayak’s case and several other subsequent decisions on the subject this Court held that the sentence of imprisonment for life means imprisonment for the remainder of the life of the prisoner. TheCourt further held that Section 31 of the Cr.P.C. would not permit consecutive running of life sentence and the term sentence since the aggregate punishment of the petitioner would go beyond the outer limit of 14 years stipulated in the proviso to Section 31(2) of the Cr.P.C.Today the Constitution Bench held that “While we have no doubt about the correctness of the proposition that two life sentences cannot be directed to run consecutively, we do not think that the reason for saying so lies in the proviso to Section 31 (2)”.The Court has added that Section 31(2) of the Cr.P.C. deals with situations where the Court awarding consecutive sentences is not competent to award the aggregate of the punishment for the several offences for which the prisoner is being sentenced upon conviction. The Bench has clarified that Section 31(2) of the Cr.P.C. deals with situations where the Court awarding consecutive sentences is not competent to award the aggregate of the punishment for the several offences for which the prisoner is being sentenced upon conviction.Chief Justice Thakur who wrote the Judgment explained the position as follows:A careful reading of sub-Section (2) would show that the same is concerned only with situations where the Courts awarding the sentence and directing the same to run consecutively is not competent to award the aggregate of the punishment upon conviction for a single offence. The proviso further stipulates that in cases falling under sub-section (2), the sentence shall in no case go beyond 14 years and the aggregate punishment shall not exceed twice the amount of punishment which the Court is competent to award. Now in cases tried by the Sessions Court, there is no limitation as to the Court’s power to award any punishment sanctioned by law including the capital punishment. Sub-section (2) will, therefore, have no application to a case tried by the Sessions Court nor would Sub-section (2) step in to forbid a direction for consecutive running of sentences awardable by the Court of Session. Duryodhan Rout case; held not a good lawThe Bench has concluded that, to the extent Duryodhan Rout case relies upon proviso to Sub-section (2) to support the conclusion that a direction for consecutive running of sentences is impermissible, it does not state the law correctly, even when the conclusion that life imprisonment means for the full span of one’s life and consecutive life sentences cannot be awarded is otherwise sound and acceptable.When LiveLaw reported the Duryodhan Rout case on 3rd July 2014, M.A.Rashid commented as follows:“Judgment is in direct conflict with Section 31 of Cr.P.C and precedents. The Court proceeded on the assumption that the embargo that in a sentence for conviction for several offences, accused cannot be sentenced to imprisonment for a period longer than 14 years is applicable to all the cases. In fact it is a proviso attached to S.31 (2) only and not to S.31. Section 31 (2) deals with a situation where the aggregate punishment for the several offences being in excess of the punishment, which a Court is competent to inflict on conviction of a single offence. So this 14 years rule is not applicable to a Sessions Judge or Additional Sessions Judge since he may pass any sentence authorized by law [S.28]”.On 8th July 2015, LiveLaw had published an Article written by Justice V.Ramkumar ,in which he explained S.31(2) in the following words“Let us now...

Cap of 14 Years Rule on aggregate Punishment is not applicable to Sessions Court: SC Constitution Bench [Read Judgment]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Cap of 14 Years Rule on aggregate Punishment is not applicable to Sessions Court: SC Constitution Bench [Read Judgment]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers