RAM ORAON Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was convicted in ST. No. 313/95 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302, IPC vide judgment and order dated 28.1.1999. While he was serving imprisonment, he was again convicted in ST. No. 557/95 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302, IPC vide judgment and order dated 19.2.1999. The petitioner thus filed an application before the trial Court, i.e., in S.T No. 557/95 under Section 427 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the relief that the sentence awarded in this Sessions trial to the petitioner be ordered to run concurrently in view of Section 427 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The trial Court rejected the said petition vide order dated 26.7.2000. This application has been filed challenging the order aforesaid. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in view of the provision under Section 427(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the sentence awarded to the convict subsequently would run concurrently. G.P.I., however, fairly stated that submission of the learned counsel is in accordance with law.

(2.) In this regard, it would be apt to mention that in the case of Ranjit Singh V/s. Union Territory of Chandigarh & another, 1991 4 SCC 304, the apex Court has held that in view of Section 427 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to a convict who is already in jail as convict of 302, IPC, the subsequent sentence would run concurrently. Similar view has been expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hari Narain Singh & others V/s. State of Bihar & others, 1995 2 PLJR 801. Section 427 (2) Cr PC is in unambiguous terms which is quoted here in below : "427(2) When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for life is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment for a term of imprisonment for life, the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence."

(3.) The aforesaid provision is in exception to sub-section (1) of Section 427, Cr PC. From perusal of the provision, it is evident that in case the person is under imprisonment serving sentence of life imprisonment and he is again convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life in subsequent case the sentence awarded in subsequent case shall run concurrently. It is, however, made clear that in no way, it shall be considered that sentences awarded in subsequent case would be retrospective rather it would be prospective, meaning thereby from the date of judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed in subsequent case. The remission granted in earlier case cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of release in any manner in subsequent case of conviction and sentence.