O.M. CHERIAN @ THANKACHAN versus STATE OF KERALA & ORS.

Citation: [2014] 11 S.C.R. 140 · Decided: 11-11-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2014] 11 S.C.R. 140 
O.M. CHERIAN @ TflANKACHAN 
v. 
STATE OF KERALA & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 2387 of 2014) 
NOVEMBER 11, 2014 
[T.S. THAKUR, ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND 
R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 31 - Sentences 
C in cases of conviction of several offences at one trial - To run 
concurrently or consecutively - Accused-husband convicted 
u/ss.498 and 306 !PC and sentenced for the respective 
offences - Direction by courts below that sentences to run 
consecutively - Challenge to - Held: Under Section 31, it is 
D left to the full discretion of the Court to order the sentences to 
run concurrently in case of conviction for two or more offences, 
having regard to the nature of offences and attendant 
aggravating or mitigating circumstances - In view of the facts 
and circumstances of the case, the sentences imposed on the 
E appellant for the offences punishable ulss. 498A and 306 !PC 
to run concurrently. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Under Section 31 Cr.P.C. it is left to the 
F full discretion of the Court to order the sentences to run 
concurrently in case of conviction for two or more 
offences , having regard to the nature of o1ffences and 
attendant aggravating or mitigating circumstances. It is 
difficult to lay down any straitjacket approach in the 
• 
G matter of exercise of such discretion by the courts. By 
and large, trial courts and appellate courts have invoker! 
and exercised their discretion to issue directions for 
concurrent running of sentences favouring the benefit to 
be given to the accused. There is no reason to hold that . 
H 
140 
• 
O.M. CHERIAN @ THANKACHAN v. STATE OF 
KERALA 
141 
normal rule is to order the sentence to be consecutive 
A 
and exception is to make the sentences concurrent. Of 
course, if the Court does not order the sentence to be 
concurrent, one sentence may run after the other, in such 
order as the Court may direct. [Para 19, 20, 21] [152-C-G] 
1.2. It is brought on evidence that in a period of eight 
B 
years of marriage from 1988-1996, the appellant-husband 
came on leave to India for only four times and finally he 
visited India while he was on leave during January-
February 1996. The appellant also appears to have taken 
efforts for mediation to settle the differences and but his 
C 
wife committed suicide on 23.02.1996-day scheduled for 
mediation. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and 
circumstances of the case, the sentences imposed on the 
appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 
498A and 306 IPC are ordered to run concurrently. [Para 
D 
23] [153-G-H; 154-A-B] 
Mohd. Akhtar Hussain alias lbrahm Ahmed Bhatti vs. 
Asstt. Collector of Customs (Prevention), Ahmedabad & Anr. 
(1988) 4 SCC 183: 1988 (2) Suppl. SCR 747; Duryodhan 
E 
Rout v. State of Orissa 2014 (8) SCALE 96; Ramesh Chilwal 
vs. State of Uttarakhand (2012) 11 SCC 629: 2012 (6) 
SCR 558; V.K. Bansal vs. State of Haryana & Anr. (2013) 7 
SCC 211: 2013 (7) SCR 617; Manoj alias Panu vs. State of 
Haryana (2014) 2 SCC 153 - referred to. 
F 
Case Law Refer~e: 
2014 (8) SCALE 96 
Referred to 
Para 7 
2012 (6) SCR 558 
Referred to 
Para 15 
G 
2013 (7) SCR 617 
Referred to 
Para 16 
(2014) 2 sec 153 
Referred to 
Para 17 · 
1988 (2) Suppl. SCR 747 
Referred to 
Para 17, 
19 
H 
• 
142 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 11 S.C.R. 
A 
CRIMINAL APP ELLA TE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
B 
c 
No. 2387 of 2014. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 27.11.2013 of the High 
Court of Kera la at Ernakulam in Crl. A No. 910 of 2006. 
Jayanth Muth Raj, Nishe Rajen Shanker for the Appellant. 
Bina Madhavan, Ramesh Babu M.R., for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. This appeal arises out of the judgrJ1ent dated 
27 .11.2013 passed in Crl. Appeal No. 910/2006 by which the 
High Court of Kerala confirmed the conviction of the appellant/ 
D 1st accused under Sections 498A and 306 IPC and also the 
sentence of imprisonment imposed on him. 
3. Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that the 1st 
accused married Lillikutty and their marriage was solemnized 
E on 11.2.1988 and they continued their stay in House bearing 
No. MP. Vlll/84 of Karulayai Amsom along with other accused, 
who are the father, mother and brother of the appellant. The 
allegation levelled is that in the matrimonial house, the 
appellant/1st accused and other accused ill-treated and tortured 
Lillikutty, compelling her
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.