SUKUMARAN NAIR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER in Crl. R. P. 134 of 1988 is the first accused in C. C. 150 of 1986 on the file of judicial Magistrate of First Class, kodungallur, while petitioner in Crl. R. P. 233 of 1988 is the second accused therein. PETITIONERs challenge the conviction and sentence imposed on them. In crl. R. C. 102 of 1988, the aforesaid petitioners were directed to show cause, why the sentence imposed on them should not be enhanced.

(2.) COURTS below found petitioners guilty of offences under S. 457, 461 and 392 read with S. 34 IPC, on the charge that they in furtherance of their common intention, committed lurking, house trespass and robbery on the night of 29-12-1984. pw. 2-wife of pw. 1, was sleeping in her room with her sister-in-law. She woke up and switched on the light and saw the first accused standing near her bed, with a dagger pointed at her. She would say that, the second accused was also present, armed with a dagger. A1 asked pw2 to switch off the light, and then she was taken to another room by both the accused. They removed her gold chain and ear studs, putting her in fear of death. They took the keys, opened an almirah and removed articles kept therein. Pursuant to information given by first accused, a gold ingot was recovered. At an identification parade conducted by pw 6 Magistrate, Pw2 identified both the accused. On this evidence, COURTS below found the charge.

(3.) S. 427 of the Code, directs that, one sentence takes effect after the other. The sentencing Court has the discretion to direct concurrency. The investiture of such discretion, presupposes that it will be exercised on sound principles and not on impulses, whims or humour. Unprincipled exercise or unregulated benevolence, ill-behoves judicial function. Casual directions made regarding concurrency, often go against the express provisions of the Statute. Such exercises are not justified.