Karnataka HC Rejects Concurrent-Sentence Bid By Man Given Life For Murder And 5 Years For Threatening A Trial Witness

The petitioner was charged in S.C. No. 1359 of 2016 with offences under Sections 302 and 307 of the IPC.

While that case was pending, a separate case, S.C. No. 1171 of 2019, was registered against him for threatening a witness, under Sections 195A and 506 of the IPC.

He was convicted in the latter case on 19 August 2022 and sentenced to five years’ simple imprisonment for each offence, with those terms ordered to run concurrently.

On 6 January 2023, he was convicted in S.C. No. 1359 of 2016 and sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 and five years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 307; set-off was granted for pre-trial detention.

The petitioner sought a direction under Section 427 of the Cr.P.C. that the sentences in the two cases run concurrently.

Section 427(1) of the Cr.P.C. provides that a sentence imposed on a person already serving a sentence ordinarily begins after the earlier sentence expires, unless the sentencing court directs concurrency; the court has discretion to order concurrency, to be exercised judicially in light of the offences and circumstances.

In Mohd. Zahid v. State, (2022) 12 SCC 426, the Supreme Court stated that consecutive sentences are the general rule, particularly where offences arise from different transactions and are decided in separate cases, but that a court may direct concurrency by a specific order after considering the circumstances.

The Court also considered Senaul v. State of Gujarat, Ambarish S. Kapadia v. State, and Rajendra v. State of Maharashtra for the principles governing Section 427, the limited use of Section 482 to correct a failure of justice, and the need to avoid making sentences ineffective.

The Court treated the two cases as involving distinct offences and causes of action: the later case concerned witness intimidation, while the earlier case concerned murder and attempted murder.

Although the witness-threat case arose in connection with the pending first case, the Court considered that the offences did not occur simultaneously and that the later case was registered years after the first.

It therefore found no basis to depart from the ordinary rule under Section 427 and grant concurrency.

Finding no merit in the petition, it dismissed the petition.