BHUPINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
LAWS(P&H)-2016-1-578
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on January 21,2016

BHUPINDER SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Petitioner Bhupinder Singh alias Bhinda was convicted and sentenced by Learned Session Judge, Amritsar under Sections 302 and 449 IPC. He was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5000/- in default thereof, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years under Section 302 IPC. He was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay fine of Rs.3000/-. In default thereof, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 449 IPC. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the present petitioner preferred an appeal before this Court. A Division Bench of this Court heard the appeal and vide judgment dated 3.8.2012 dismissed the same.
(2.) The Lower Court order as well as judgment of Division Bench of this Court is silent on this point that whether the sentence would run concurrently or consecutively. However, in view of Section 31 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in such cases the sentence will run consecutively i.e. one after the other.
(3.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner stating that under Section 427 Cr.P.C. the sentences under Sections 302 and 449 should be directed to run concurrently. For this purpose, reliance has been placed upon the judgment passed in CRM-M- 18435-2015 by Coordinate Bench of this Court on 4.9.2015. The question will arise as to whether by way of separate petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court is competent to order that the sentences will run concurrently. Section 427 Cr.P.C provides as under :- "427.Sentence on offender already sentenced for another offence (1) When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment or imprisonment for life, such imprisonment or imprisonment for life shall commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he has been previously sentenced, unless the Court directs that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence: Provided that where a person who has been sentenced to imprisonment by an order under section 122 in default of furnishing security is, whilst undergoing such sentence, sentenced to imprisonment for an offence committed prior to the making of such order, the latter sentence shall commence immediately. (2) When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for life is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment for a term or imprisonment for life, the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence.";


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.