R.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) This jail appeal has been received from the Central Jail, Udaipur. Vide over dated 3.2.2006, this Court appointed Mr. Rajesh Bhati as amicus curiae in order to argue the case on behalf of the appellant.
(2.) The learned counsel for the appellant has stated that he does not wise to argue the case on merits. But, he would like to argue this case only with regard to the sentence imposed by the learned trial Court. According to him, vide judgment dated 6.12.2005, the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Pratapgarh while acquitting the appellant for offence under Section 302 I.P.C.. had convicted him for offences under Sections 452, 325, 323 I.P.C. For offence under Section 452 I.P.C, the learned Judge had sentenced him to four years of rigorous imprisonment, and had imposed a fine of Rs. 500/-, and had directed the appellant to further undergo a period of two months imprisonment in default thereof. For offence under Section 325 I.P.C, the learned Judge had sentenced him to five years of rigorous imprisonment, and had imposed a fine of Rs. 500/-, and directed the appellant to further undergo a period of two months of imprisonment in default thereof. For offence under Section 323 I.P.C, he had sentenced him to one year of rigorous imprisonment, and had imposed a fine of Rs. 250/-, and had directed the appellant to further undergo a period of one month of imprisonment in default thereof.
(3.) The learned counsel contends that the learned trial Court has directed that all the sentences will run consecutively and not concurrently. Therefore, the appellant is bound to undergo a sentence of almost ten years. The learned counsel has pleaded that since all the offences had occurred in a single transaction, the learned Judge ought to have directed that the sentence should run concurrently and not consecutively. Lastly, in case the sentences were directed to run concurrently, the appellant has completed more than five years of sentence, therefore, he would be set at liberty. Therefore, he has.prayed that the impugned judgment be modified to the extent that the sentences should run concurrently, rather than consecutively.;