DHARMENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Reportable The appeals have been filed by the accused-appellants against the judgment dated 18.5.2017, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.20, Jaipur Metropolitan (Head-Quarter Chomu) in Session Case No.5/2013 (13/11), (25/11) (54/11), thereby, the accused have been convicted and sentenced for different offences. During the course of hearing of the appeals, learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that despite murder of two persons and conviction for it, sentence has not been given separately for each offence. It is required as per section 31 Cr.P.C. and Section 71 IPC. The trial in regard to several offences can be one as per section 220 Cr.P.C. but sentence in case of conviction should be for each offence.

(2.) Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the allegation against the accused-appellants is not only for conspiracy but commission of offence u/s 302 IPC where two persons have been killed. One was wife of accused Dharmendra and other was his daughter. The appellants conspired and committed murder of two persons punishable u/s 302 IPC. They have been convicted but separate sentence for each offence has not been given despite conviction for two murders. The trial court should have given separate sentence for separate offences. The prayer is to remit the matter to the trial court for passing appropriate order on sentence while keeping appeal pending before this court. A reference of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mathuramalingam and Ors. vs. State (2016) 8 SCC 313 has been given. There the issue was decided in reference to section 31 Cr.P.C. apart from other provisions.

(3.) The accused Dharmendra in person and learned counsel Mr. Rakesh Bhargava, in the connected appeal of Prerana have contested the issue. They stated that separate charges for each murder have not been framed thus trial court has rightly passed the order of conviction only for offence u/s 302 IPC. It is taking charge to be composite and otherwise no purpose would remain in sending matter back to the trial court. The sentence of life imprisonment has already been given and, even for second murder, if the same sentence is inflicted, it would run concurrently and not consecutively. The life imprisonment is for the natural life thus one cannot serve two life imprisonment, thereby, there is no purpose for remittance of the case. It is moreso when the appellant Dharmendra is behind bars for last 8 years. The prayer is not to remit the matter to the trial court, rather, if any error exists, this court may rectify it after hearing the appeal. This court itself may enhance the sentence. The prayer is accordingly not to accept the arguments raised by the learned Public Prosecutor.