SHISHRAM @ SHISHO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C has been filed by the accused-petitioner Shishram Shisho, who has been convicted and sentenced in three different criminal cases in the following manner: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_208_LAWS(RAJ)11_2010.html</FRM>

(2.) In case No. 11/05, sentence of 10 years was awarded by the trial Court, which was modified in his appeal by this Court to 7 years. Petitioner has contended that he has remained in confinement during trial for different spells (as indicated above) which period is more than 2 years in all the three cases. Except the sentence of five years for offence under Section 399 of Indian Penal Code and three years for offence under Section 402 of Indian Penal Code awarded to him in the same trial in Case No.23/06, which were ordered to run concurrently, petitioner has now been required to undergo full term of sentence consecutively in each of these cases, which in effect would mean that despite there being a common and overlapping period of confinement in all the three cases, he would have to separately undergo the sentence of 7 years, 5 years and 5 years respectively, thus in total for a period of 17 years.

(3.) Mr. Azad Ahmed, learned Counsel citing provisions of Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure argued that even if sentences have been awarded in different trials by separate judgments, they are nevertheless required to run concurrently because it is the same person who is convicted. Learned Counsel in support of this argument has cited Judgment of Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Madan Lal, (2009) 5 SCC 238 , Division Bench judgment of this Court in Vimal Mehra v. State and Ors., 2008 (3) WLC (Raj.) 624 , and Single Bench Judgments of this Court in Achaichand Sancheti v. State of Raj., 2010 (3) WLC (Raj.) 304 ; Mahavir Sharma v. State, 2007 WLC (Raj.) UC 786 ; Hardeva and Ors. v. State, 2004 (1) WLC (Raj.) 295 .