SURESH NAYAKA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner herein is accused of offence punishable under Section 395 of IPC in SC. No. 211/2002 which is said to have committed by him in the intervening night of 6th and 7th of April 2002, in which he is found guilty and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 10 years. It is seen that he is also apprehended with reference to similar offence said to have committed by him on the intervening night of 18th and 19th of April 2002, which is subject matter of S.C. No. 3/2009, wherein his guilt is proved and he is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 8 years. It is stated that presently petitioner is undergoing imprisonment which is imposed on him in the aforesaid two proceedings. He has come up in this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking an order to convert the aforesaid two separate sentences to run concurrently i.e., the sentence imposed in S.C. No. 211/2002 for a period of 10 years and the sentence so far it pertains to S.C. No. 3/2009 for a period of 8 years to run concurrently.

(2.) This Court is not inclined to grant the relief sought in this petition, for the reason that, the very fact that this petitioner is found to be guilty of a very same offence on two different occasions indicates that he is a habitual offender. The offence alleged against him is committing dacoity in the night with the help of deadly weapons. Admittedly, petitioner herein is a person with track record of involving himself in committing an heinous offence, which attracts punishment of over seven years. It is further not in dispute that he was tried and proved to be guilty of the said offence. Under the circumstance, to consider his prayer to convert the order of punishment handed down to him in two different and separate proceedings to run concurrently would mean letting him loose on the society by extending such concession and it is nothing but doing injustice to the society. It is in the interest of society that he shall undergo the sentence independently even if it goes beyond 10 years of sentence, which is imposed on him in S.C. No. 211/2002.

(3.) In fact, an order directing the sentences to run concurrently, is in effect, giving a sort of sop to the accused for committing a repetitive offence of similar nature, which would be in the nature of encouraging him to indulge in very same act. The counsel for the petitioner tried to justify his prayer on the ground that similar request is considered by this Court on earlier occasion. It is no doubt true that, if an accused is convicted for different offences in the same crime and held to undergo imprisonment for different length of periods, for each offence, such punishment would run concurrently. However, the same analogy cannot be extended either for same or different offences committed at different period of time. If the punishment imposed for offences on different occasions and if they are made to run concurrently, the effect of that would be catastrophic and it would be more in the nature of encouraging the accused for committing the same or different offences, at different period, with an assurance that the punishment for said offences would run concurrently. In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to accept the argument tendered by the learned counsel for petitioner and is not inclined to permit the accused to undergo both the sentences concurrently.