JIMEE Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN interesting question that the sentences imposed upon the accused in different cases and decided vide different judgments should be allowed to run concurrently or can legally be ordered to run consecutively, needs consideration of this Court in the present petition. The petitioner, a convict, initially was booked by the police of Police Station, Barotiwala under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code vide FIR No. 215 of 2006, registered on 18.11.2006 and subsequently, by the police of Police Station, Sarkaghat, District Mandi under Sections 302 and 392 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code vide FIR No. 320 of 2008, registered on 9.12.2008.

(2.) IN the second case registered against him under Sections 302 and 392 of Indian Penal Code, learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Mandi vide judgment dated 3.6.2011, Annexure P -3 in Sessions Trial No. 23 of 2009 has convicted him under Sections 392 and 304 -II of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/ - under Section 392 of Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 5,000/ - under Section 304 -II of Indian Penal Code. The sentences so awarded against him have been ordered to run concurrently.

(3.) SIGNIFICANTLY , the judgment of conviction, Annexure P -1, supra, under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code though appealed by the petitioner -convict in Sessions Court at Solan, however, affirmed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solan vide judgment dated 17.3.2012 in Criminal Appeal No. 5 -NL/10 of 2011, Annexure P -2. No ground to allow the subsequent sentence of one year to run concurrently with earlier sentence of five years, seems to have been urged before learned appellate Court as the judgment, Annexure P -2 does not contain any such discussion or findings.