LAXMAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Convict - original accused no.2 - Laxman @ Popat Mohan Landage took exception to judgment and order of conviction passed by the Special Judge, Osmanabad dtd. 3/10/2017 in Special (POCSO) Case No.1 of 2016 holding him guilty for the offence punishable under Ss. 376(2)(n), 354-D of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under Ss. 4, 6 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act).

(2.) During pendency of the appeal, learned counsel for appellant placed on record Imprisonment Certificate exh.'X' dtd. 4/4/2024 issued by the Superintendent, Nashik Road Central Prison, certifying that convict has been given benefit of remission by the State Government and he has suffered 10 years, 5 months and 16 days imprisonment. On the strength of said certificate, learned Counsel for appellant pointed out that convict has already undergone the maximum sentence awarded, however, he pointed out that merely because in the operative part of the judgment of the trial Court, there is omission to state whether sentences for offence under Sec. 6 of the POCSO Act and for offence under Sec. 506 of the IPC to run concurrently or consecutively, effect is not given to the remission granted by the State Government. He submits that in such contingency, law is fairly settled that sentences are to always run concurrently and not consecutively and resultantly, he beseeched to apply such legal position and set appellant at liberty. He submits that even otherwise in view Imprisonment Certificate exh.'X', appellant has already suffered entire maximum sentence awarded.

(3.) Learned APP also pointed out that in the operative part of the judgment, against which appeal has been preferred, learned trial Court has not specified whether sentences for above offences are to be run concurrently or consecutively. He pointed out that sentences for both the offences are distinct. Though convict has suffered ten years imprisonment for offence under Sec. 6 of the POCSO Act, there is one year imprisonment awarded for offence under Sec. 506 of the IPC. Impugned order being silent as to whether sentences are to be suffered concurrently or consecutively, he pointed out that prison authorities are not giving effect to the remission. However, he fairly conceded that, in view of Imprisonment Certificate exh.'X' convict has already suffered 10 years, 5 months and 16 days imprisonment till 31/3/2024. He further conceded that this Court may pass appropriate order.