Sentences for offences committed in the same transaction should ordinarily run concurrently absent reasons for consecutive terms.

The appellant was convicted by the Principal Special Court (POCSO Act), Sivagangai, under Sections 342 and 323 of the IPC and Section 9(m) read with Section 10 of the POCSO Act, and sentenced to imprisonment for each offence, with the sentences directed to run consecutively.

In appeal, counsel did not challenge the conviction and confined the arguments to sentence, relying on the appellant’s lack of previous antecedents and the fact that the offences arose from the same transaction.

Whether the appellant’s conviction was sustainable.

Whether the sentences should be reduced and directed to run concurrently, given the mitigating circumstances and that the offences arose from the same transaction.

Section 10 of the POCSO Act provides a sentence of imprisonment from five to seven years for the aggravated sexual assault offence considered in this case.

Section 31 of the Cr.P.C. gives the court discretion to direct sentences for multiple offences to run consecutively or concurrently, but that discretion must be exercised judicially.

The Court relied on Mohd. Akhtar Hussain v. Collector of Customs, (1988) 4 SCC 183; V.K. Bansal v. State of Haryana, (2013) 7 SCC 211; Manoj v. State of Haryana, (2014) 2 SCC 153; O.M. Cherian v. State of Kerala, (2015) 2 SCC 501; Muthuramalingam v. State, (2016) 8 SCC 313; and Sunil Kumar v. State of U.P., (2021) 5 SCC 560, for the principle that sentences for offences committed in the course of the same transaction ordinarily should run concurrently, absent reasons for departure.

The Court upheld the conviction, noting that the victim’s evidence was corroborated by her friend and the medical evidence.

On sentence, it found that the Trial Court had not adequately considered the appellant’s status as a first-time offender, lack of previous bad antecedents, and the simple nature of the injuries. It therefore reduced the POCSO sentence from seven years to the statutory minimum of five years.

Because the IPC and POCSO offences arose from the same transaction and the Trial Court had given no specific reason for consecutive sentences, the Court directed that all sentences run concurrently.

The sentences under Sections 342 and 323 IPC were otherwise left undisturbed, but all sentences were directed to run concurrently.