LexaceLexace Ask the AI ›
โš–๏ธ Ask the AI about your situation:๐Ÿš— Car Accident๐Ÿ’ผ Work / Job๐Ÿ  Housing / Eviction๐Ÿ‘ช Family / Divorce๐Ÿ“‹ Contract Dispute๐Ÿ’ฐ Money Owed

RAMESH CHILWAL @ BOMBAYYA versus STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

Citation: [2012] 6 S.C.R. 558 · Decided: 20-07-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM, RANJAN GOGOI · Disposal: Disposed off

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2012] 6 S.C.Ft 558 
RAMESH CHILWAL @ BOMBAYYA 
v. 
STATE OF UTIARAKHAND 
(Criminal Appeal Nos.1072-1073 of 2012) 
JULY 20, 2012 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.) 
Sentence/Sentencing: Conviction of accused-appellants 
under i) s.302 /PC alongwith life imprisonment; ii) s.213 of the 
C Gangsters Act a/ongwith 10 years rigorous imprisonment and 
iii) s. 27 of the Arms Act a/ongwith 7 years rigorous 
imprisonment - Conviction affirmed by both High Court and 
Supreme Court - Clarification given by Supreme Court as 
regards the sentencing part - Held: Considering the fact that 
D the trial court had awarded life sentence for offence u/s.302, 
/PC; in view of s.31, Cr.P.C., all the sentences imposed under 
the /PC, Gangsters Act and Arms Act would run concurrently 
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.31. 
E 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No. 1072-1073 of 2012. 
F 
G 
H 
From the Judgment & Order dated 11.11.2011 of the High 
Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Criminal Appeal Nos. 15 & 
16 of 2006. 
Gaurav Agrawal for the Appellant. 
Abhishek Atrey, Shivika Jain for the Respondent. 
The order of the Court was delivered 
ORDER 
1. Leave granted. 
558 
RAMESH CHILWAL @ BOMBAYYA v. STATE OF 
559 
UTTARAKHAND 
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as for 
A 
the respondent-State. 
3. On 9th April, 2012, this Court issued notice confining 
to the question of sentence only that too for clarifying that all 
the sentences to run concurrently. 
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has brought 
to our notice that the trial Judge has convicted and sentenced 
the appellant in the following order: 
i) 
The accused Ramesh Chilwal @ Bambayya is 
convicted in Case Crime No.580/2004, Special 
Session Triable Case No.28/2005 under Section 
302 l.P.C. and sentence for the rigorous 
imprisonment of life and a fine of Rs.1,00,000.00 
(Rupees one lakh). In default for the payment of fine, 
he shall also serve a simple imprisonment for a ยท 
period of six months. Out of this Rupees One Lac, 
Rs.50,000.00 (Rupees fifty thousand) is awarded 
as compensation to the family of the deceased. 
ii) 
The accused Ramesh Chilwal @ Bambayya is 
convicted in Case Crime No. 580/2004, Special 
Session Triable Case No.28/2005 under Section 2/ 
3 [3(1)) Gangsters Act and sentence for the rigorous 
imprisonment of 10 (ten) years and a fine of 
Rs.50,000.00 (Rupees fifty thousand). In default for 
the payment of fine, he shall also serve a simple 
imprisonment for a period of four months. Out of this 
Rs.50,000.00 (Rupees fifty thousand), rupees 
twenty five thousand is awarded as compensation 
to the family of the deceased. 
iii) 
Accused Ram.esh Chilwal @ Bambayya is 
convicted in Case Crime No. 737/2004, Sessions 
Triable Case No. 118/2005 under Section 27 of the 
Arms Act and sentence for the rigorous 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
560 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 6 S.C.R. 
imprisonment of 7 (seven) years and a fine of 
Rs.25,000.00 (Rupees twenty five thousand). In 
default for the payment of fine, he shall also serve 
a simple imprisonment for a period of four months. 
Out of this Rs.25,000.00, half of the amount is 
awarded as compensation to the family of the 
deceased." 
5. By the impugned order, the said conviction and 
sentences were confirmed by the High Court. 
C 
6. Since this Court issued notice only to clarify the sentence 
awarded by the trial Judge, there is no need to go into all the 
factual details. We are not inclined to modify the sentence. 
However, considering the fact that the trial Judge has awarded 
life sentence for an offence under Section 302, in view of 
o Section 31 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, we make 
it clear that all the sentences imposed under the IPC, the 
Gangsters Act and the Arms Act are to run concurrently. 
7. While confirming the conviction, we clarify that all the 
sentences are to run concurrently. To this extent, the judgment 
E of the trial Court as affirmed by the High Court is modified. 
8. The appeals are disposed of accordingly. 
B.B.B. 
Appeals disposed of.