SUNIL KUMAR @ SUDHIR KUMAR & ANR. versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Citation: [2021] 6 S.C.R. 630 · Decided: 25-05-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DINESH MAHESHWARI, ANIRUDDHA BOSE · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
630
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 6 S.C.R.
[2021] 6 S.C.R. 630
630
SUNIL KUMAR @ SUDHIR KUMAR & ANR.
v.
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
(Criminal Appeal No. 526 of 2021)
MAY 25, 2021
[DINESH MAHESHWARI AND ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.]
Sentence/Sentencing: Sentences to run concurrently or
consecutively – Duty of Court of first instance to specify – Held: It
is legally obligatory upon the court of first instance while awarding
multiple punishments of imprisonment to specify in clear terms as to
whether the sentences would run concurrently or consecutively – If
the Court of first instance does not specify the concurrent running
of sentences, the inference, primarily, is that the Court intended
such sentences to run consecutively, though, the Court of first
instance ought not to leave this matter for deduction at the later
stage – Moreover, if the Court of first instance is intending
consecutive running of sentences, there is yet another obligation
on it to state the order (i.e., the sequence) in which they are to be
executed.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.31(1) – Held: s.31(1)
vests complete discretion with the Court to order the sentences for
two or more offences at one trial to run concurrently having regard
to the nature of offences and the surrounding factors – There cannot
be any straitjacket approach in the matter of exercise of such
discretion by the Court; but this discretion has to be judiciously
exercised with reference to the nature of the offence/s committed
and the facts and circumstances of the case – However, if the
sentences (other than life imprisonment) are not provided to run
concurrently, one would run after the other, in such order as the
Court may direct.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.220 – The ‘single
transaction’ principle is essentially referable to s.220 which
provides that if more offences than one are committed in one series
of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction, then
the accused may be charged with and tried at one trial for every
such offence – In a given case, after such trial for multiple offences,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
631
if the accused is convicted and awarded different punishments,
concurrent running thereof may be provided depending on the facts
and the relevant surrounding factors.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 It is beyond a shadow of doubt that Section 31(1)
CrPC vests complete discretion with the Court to order the
sentences for two or more offences at one trial to run concurrently
having regard to the nature of offences and the surrounding
factors. Even though it cannot be said that consecutive running
is the normal rule but, it is also not laid down that multiple
sentences must run concurrently. There cannot be any straitjacket
approach in the matter of exercise of such discretion by the Court;
but this discretion has to be judiciously exercised with reference
to the nature of the offence/s committed and the facts and
circumstances of the case. However, if the sentences (other than
life imprisonment) are not provided to run concurrently, one would
run after the other, in such order as the Court may direct.
[Para 10][639-B-D]
1.2 For what has been provided in Section 31(1) CrPC read
with the expositions of this Court, it follows that the Court of
first instance is under legal obligation while awarding multiple
sentences to specify in clear terms as to whether they would run
concurrently or consecutively. [Para 11][639-D-E]
Nagaraja Rao v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2015)
4 SCC 302 : [2015] 12 SCR 424 – relied on.
1.3
If the Court of first instance does not specify the
concurrent running of sentences, the inference, primarily, is that
the Court intended such sentences to run consecutively, though,
as aforesaid, the Court of first instance ought not to leave this
matter for deduction at the later stage. Moreover, if the Court of
first instance is intending consecutive running of sentences, there
is yet another obligation on it to state the order (i.e., the sequence)
in which they are to be executed. The disturbing part of the matter
herein is that not only the Trial Court omitted to state the requisite
specifications, even the High Court missed out such flaws in the
order of the Trial Court. [Para 12][639-H; 640-A-B]
SUNIL KUMAR @ SUDHIR KUMAR v. THE STATE OF UTTAR
PRADESH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
632
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 6 S.C.R.
2. The ‘single transaction’ principle is essentially referable
to Section 220 CrPC, which provide

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.