TRILOCHAN SOREN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application Under Section 482 from jail seeking the direction for the sentences passed against the petitioner to run concurrently instead of consecutively as had been directed by the learned Sessions Judge, Keonjhar, in Sessions Trial No. 45/42 -K of 1981. The petitioner was made to stand trial Under Sections 366, 376 and 379 IPC and having been found guilty, was convicted and was sentenced Under Section 366 IPC to five years' R. I. and pay fine of Rs. 500/ - in default to undergo R. I. for three months, Under Section 376 IPC to R. I. for ten years and fine of Rs. 500/ - in default to undergo R. I. for three months, and Under Section 379 IPC to R. I. for one year and fine of Rs. 1000/ -in default to undergo R. I. for six months. Out of the fine amounts, if realised, a sum of Rs. 1000/ - was directed to be paid to PW 4 as compensation. The learned Judge also directed the sentences to run consecutively.

(2.) SUCH direction for consecutive running of the sentences is on the face of it, hit by Clause (a) of the proviso to Section 31(2) Cr. P. C. which directs that in no case a person shall be sentenced to imprisonment for a period longer than fourteen years. The aggregate sentence as passed by the learned Judge is for a period of sixteen years and hence the direction has become illegal. The allegations for which the petitioner was tried were of his having duped a lady, PW 4 by taking her to different places on the promise of marriage, cohabit with her and thereafter having deserted her while taking away her ornaments as also Rs. 900/ -. The conviction was on 30 -3 -1982. The petitioner has already spent nearly ten years in the jail. Keeping the gravity of the offences in view, I think a concurrent running of the substantive sentences would meet the ends of justice and hence setting aside the direction in the judgment for the sentences to run consecutively, I direct that the substantive sentences imposed under the different Sections are to run concurrently.

(3.) IN that view of the matter, the sentences imposed on the petitioner to be undergone in the event of default in payment of fines, have of necessity to run consecutively.