Sentences for offences forming part of the same transaction may be directed to run concurrently under Section 427 CrPC.

The petitioner was convicted in C.C. No. 3993 of 2013 for offences under Sections 457 and 380 IPC and sentenced to five and three years’ rigorous imprisonment, respectively, with those sentences directed to run concurrently.

He was later convicted in S.C. No. 5032 of 2013 for offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and Section 98 of the Karnataka Police Act; the sentences imposed in that case were directed to run concurrently with one another.

The prosecution case in the latter matter concerned the murder of a person with whom the petitioner had allegedly been involved in the earlier theft; the Sessions Court recorded that the murder motive related to distribution of the gold ornaments stolen in that theft.

The petitioner sought an order that the sentences in the Sessions case run concurrently with those imposed in the earlier case.

1. Whether the sentences imposed in S.C. No. 5032 of 2013 should be directed to run concurrently with those imposed in C.C. No. 3993 of 2013

2. Whether the offences underlying the two convictions were sufficiently connected as part of the same transaction to warrant exercise of the court’s discretion in favour of concurrent sentences

Section 427(1) CrPC provides that a sentence imposed on a person already serving a sentence ordinarily commences after the earlier sentence, unless the court directs that the sentences run concurrently; the court’s discretion must be exercised judicially, having regard to the offences and circumstances.

The general rule is that convictions arising from different transactions, crime numbers and judgments do not ordinarily attract concurrent sentences, although a court may order concurrency in an appropriate case.

In assessing whether offences form part of the same transaction, relevant considerations include proximity of time and place, unity of purpose or design, continuity of action, commonality of evidence, and whether the offences are interconnected.

Although the theft and murder were prosecuted in separate cases and occurred on successive dates, the Court found a direct factual connection: the Sessions Court had identified the distribution of the stolen gold as the motive for the subsequent offence.

It considered the short interval between the offences, the same accused, the common property nexus, the evidentiary connection and the asserted continuity of action.

Taking those factors cumulatively, the Court held that the offences formed part of the same transaction and that concurrency was justified.