SURJA RAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application of Surja Ram son of Ratiram from jail under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) THE petitioner Surja Ram was convicted by the Court of the Sessions Judge of ganganagar on the 19th of July, 1948 under Sections 302, 307 and 309, Bikanet penal Code and he was sentenced to death under Section 302 and to 10 years' and 9 months' rigorous imprisonment under Sections 307 and 309 Bikaner Penal code respectively. The judgment of the Sessions Judge was confirmed by the High court of Bikaner and also by Bikaner State Council. There after His Highness the maharaja of Bikaner commuted the death sentence into a sentence of imprisonment for life by his order dated the 13th of December, 1948 (vide copy of the order at page 5 of the paper book ). In the said order it was further mentioned that life imprisonment was deemed, to be imprisonment for 20 years only. After the comtiu-tation of the sentence of death, the Superintendent of Jail referred the matter to the Sessions Judge, Ganganagar, for clarification if the sentence of life imprisonment and the other two sentences of imprisonment passed against Surja ram should be executed concurrently or consecutively. The Sessions Judge, ganganagar, by his order dated the 4th of January, 1949, informed the superintendent of Jail that the sentence of life imprisonment and the sentences of imprisonment under Sections 307 and 309 Bikaner Penal Code shall have to be undergone by the petitioner consecutively as the two orders were passed separately. Probably the learned Sessions Judge thought that Section 397, criminal Procedure Code was applicable to the case and that the two sentences had been passed separately against the accused. Surja Ram has now moved this court by an application submitted through jail dated the 16th of March, 1962. This application came up for hearing on an earlier occasion but as the record of the bikaner State High Court and of the Council of that State in which the sentences were confirmed were not before this Court, they were sent for. In spite of long correspondence and search, the said records could not. be traced out and the matter has again come up before us in exactly the same condition as it stood when it had come before the Court on the earlier occasion. We take it that the facts that have been verified in the endorsement of the Superintendent of Jail, btkaner, which have been mentioned above, are authentic and we proceed to determine the case on those facts.

(3.) THE question that arises for decision is whether the sentence of life imprisonment and the other two sentences of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner should be deem-ed to be executable consecutively or concurrently. Section 35 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code lays down :