- (1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 26.6.2006 passed by Sri R. C. Chaudhary the then Addl. Sessions Judge, Court no. 3, Kanpur Nagar in S. T. no. 839/2004 State Vs. Madhan Tiwari and another u/s 328, 381, 411/34 IPC (arising out of Case crime no. 365/2002) P. S. Kalyanpur District Kanpur Nagar whereby both the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under : JUDGEMENT_371_LAWS(ALL)5_2014_1.html
(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties' at length and perused the original record of the case carefully.
(3.) At the outset learned counsel for the appellants has not challenged the conviction of the appellants on different counts, but they are primarily concerned with the latter direction regarding consecutive operation of the sentence. The contention is that the sum of substantive sentence awarded to each appellant comes to 19-years apart from total amount of fine Rs. 13,000/- and default imprisonment of 1-year and two months, which is wholly illegal in view of the clear and specific provisions of Section 31 Code of Criminal Procedure. The provisions of section 31 are quoted below: 31. Sentences in cases of conviction of several offences at one trial. (1) When a person is convicted at one trial of two or more offences, the Court may, subject to the provisions of section 71 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860 ), sentence him for such offences, to the several punishments prescribed therefor which such Court is competent to inflict; such punishments when consisting of imprisonment to commence the one after the expiration of the other in such order as the Court may direct, unless the Court directs that such punishments shall run concurrently. (2) In the case of consecutive sentences, it shall not be necessary for the Court by reason only of the aggregate punishment for the several offences being in excess of the punishment which it is competent to inflict on conviction of a single offence, to send the offender for trial before a higher Court: Provided that- (a) in no case shall such person be sentenced to imprisonment for longer period than fourteen years; (b) the aggregate punishment shall not exceed twice the amount of punishment which the Court is competent to inflict for a single offence. (3) For the purpose of appeal by a convicted person, the aggregate of the consecutive sentences passed against him under this section shall be deemed to be a single sentence." Proviso (a) aforesaid clearly mandates that the accused could not have been sentenced to imprisonment for a period more than fourteen years.;