R.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) The petitioner has made a limited prayer before this Court, namely, that in D.B. Criminal Appeal No.325/2003, vide judgment dated 22nd September 2011, this Court had reduced his conviction from offence under Section 302 IPC to conviction under Section 304 Part-I read with Section 34. He was also convicted for offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC and for offence under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC. He was sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment. In another case, he has been convicted for offence 224 IPC by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Railways) Ajmer and has been sentenced to two years of simple imprisonment and imposed with the fine of Rs.500/-, and further directed to undergo three months of simple imprisonment, in default thereof.
(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that if the sentences were not directed to run concurrently, he would be required to serve twelve years of imprisonment. Therefore, he has prayed that this Court may direct the sentences to run concurrently, rather than consecutively.
(3.) In order to buttress his contention that this Court has ample power to direct the sentences to run concurrently, the learned counsel has relied on the case of Vimal Mehra v. State of Rajasthan [2008(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 789], and on the case of Rakesh v. State of Rajasthan, [2008 (2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1227].;