Trial Court’s Failure To Specify How Sentences Would Run After Conviction Does Not Mean Sentences Are To Run Consecutively: Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan High Court has held that mere absence of a direction by the trial court on how a sentence would run does not mean that the court intended for the sentences to run consecutively.

While dealing with an NDPS case where the trial court failed to mention how the sentences of the accused, who were awarded 14 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 8/15 of NDPS Act and 10 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 8/18 of NDPS Act, would run, Justice Farjand Ali said that it is not obligatory for the trial court to direct in all cases that the sentences shall run concurrently but it is well-established that failure to specify the same causes trouble in interpretation in future.

"According to Section 31(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, sentences would run consecutively unless they are specifically ordered to run concurrently. The court of first instance is required by law to clarify in clear terms whether multiple sentences would run concurrently or consecutively when pronouncing the sentence," said the court.

The bench said that the basic rule is that sentences must be directed to run concurrently if the accused is found guilty of two or more offences that are arising out of one and the same transaction.

While referring to the facts and circumstances of the case and the judgments of the Apex Court, the bench observed, “...both the offences have arisen from a single transaction. Given these facts and circumstances, the two sentences passed by the trial court should ordinarily be ordered to run concurrently according to the enunciation of law made in the cases referred. As a result, the learned trial judge erred by failing to order that both the sentences shall run concurrently.”

While referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in Nagaraja Rao Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2015) 4 SCC 302, the bench held that the mandate under Section 31 Cr.P.C. was not followed in the NDPS case as the trial court did not mention the order in which the substantive sentences would be served by the accused-appellants.

“Even there is no classification as to which sentence would be served first and which after completion of the first, thus, the judicial work has been left upon the sole discretion of a jailor which in my considered opinion is not a good and valid act on the part of trial judge. The jail authorities are not to be given any authoritative discretion as it is the sole prerogative and domain of a judicial officer".

The bench further observed that the exercise of discretion under Section 31 Cr.P.C. cannot be expected from a jailor. While calling out the omission on the part of the trial court, the bench observed that the judicial error would result in the appellants suffering a total imprisonment of twenty four years instead of fourteen years.

The bench held that unless there are special circumstances to pass an order regarding running of sentence consecutively, an order to run the sentence concurrently should be passed in a routine manner otherwise the accused would suffer way harsher punishment than the legislature ever intended.

While referring to the circumstances of the appellants and considering the fact that they were aged 38 and 30 respectively, the bench said, “considering that if they are sentenced to suffer a period of 24 years of imprisonment then there would be nothing left in the remainder of their lives as per common life expectancy to go back to, as reformed individuals in the society, and the purpose of law concerning reform, according to which an accused should be given an opportunity to correct himself/herself, reform his/her ways and rehabilitate if the factors surrounding the matter allow for the same, would face utter defeat.”

While allowing the application seeking concurrency of the sentences, the bench ordered that both the substantive sentences awarded to the accused-appellants by the trial court shall run concurrently. The bench further directed that the time already spent by the appellants until now in prison shall be deemed as having been run concurrently and the total term of imprisonment shall not exceed 14 years.

Case Title: Sohanlal & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan S.B. Criminal Misc. Appli No. 13/2023

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.R.Godara

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaurav Singh, AGA

Click Here To Read/Download Order