Nihal Singh and anr. vs State of Haryana

S. S Grewal, J.—This is a petition under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure praying for the sentence awarded in Criminal Appeal No. 282SB of 1984 decided on 19111984 and sentence awarded in Criminal Appeal No. 46DB of 1984 decided on 1651984 to run concurrently.

In brief, the facts are that the petitioners were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment by Additional Sessions Judge, Hissar, on 16.121983 under Section 302/34 IPC and a fine of Rs. 500/ each, and in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for six months each on two counts i.e. for causing the murder of Hawa Singh, and for causing murder of Rattan Singh. They were also convicted and sentenced under Sections 325/34 IPC. R.I. for two years and fine of Rs. 500/ each, and in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for six months each, for causing, grievous hurt to Narinder Singh, PW and under Section 447 IPC R.I. for three months each for committing criminal trespass. The substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. This occurrence took place on May 9, 1982

The petitioners filed Criminal Appeal No. 46DB of 1984 against the aforesaid order of conviction and sentence passed against them by the trial Court. In that appeal, conviction of the petitioners, was converted from me under Sections 302/34 IPC to one under Section 304, Part 1, IPC and ordered that they shall undergo R.I. for ten years each and pay a fine of Rs. 25,00,0/ each on both the counts In default of payment of fine, they were ordered to undergo R.I. for three gears each. Their conviction and sentence on other counts was maintained.

The second criminal case also relates to the present petitioners for causing injuries to Santosh and Kamla. This occurrence took place on 1661980, Nihala was convicted and sentenced to R I for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/, or, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for six months under Section 307 IPC. On appeal, the conviction and sentence of Nihala petitioner under section 207 IPC was set aside. He was convicted and sentenced under sections 326/149 IPC along with others including his two copetitioners in the present case.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the substantive sentences of imprisonment awarded to the petitioners may be ordered to run concurrently. Reliance in this regard was placed on Joginder Singh v. State of Haryana, 1984(2), CLR 394, wherein, sentence of imprisonment passed under Section 324 IPC as well as sentence passed. in another criminal case under sections 394 and 397/34 IPC were directed to run concurrently.

Reliance was also placed on the case of Mehal Singh v. State of Haryana, 1987(2) Recent Criminal Reports 240 , wherein sentence of imprisonment in an earlier case under Section 392, 307, 353, 332 IPC was ordered to run concurrently with the subsequent conviction and sentence of the petitioner concerning under Sections 302/34 I.P.C.

Reliance was further placed on the case of Harchand Singh @ Chand Singh v. State of Punjab, 1987(1) Recent Criminal Reports 177 , wherein sentence of imprisonment awarded in an earlier case under Section 302 IPC was ordered to run concurrently with subsequent sentence of imprisonment for life passed against the same convict by virtue of Section 427 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure.

The above cited authorities of this Court are at variance with the authoritative pronouncement of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Akhtar Hussain alias Ibrahim Ahmed Bhatti v. Assistant Collector of Customs (Prevention), Ahmedabad & others, 1989 Criminal Law Journal 283 wherein it was held as under :

"The basic rule of thumb over the years has been the socalled single transaction rule for concurrent sentences. If a given transaction constitutes two offences under two enactments generally, it is wrong to have consecutive sentences. It is proper and legitimate to have concurrent, sentences. But this rule has no application if the transaction relating to offences is not the some, or the facts constituting the two offences are quite different.

It is pertinent to note that the occurrences in the aforesaid criminal cases took place on two different dates and the transactions relating to commission of offence have no nexus with each other. Therefore, the view of the apex Court in Mohd. Akhtar Hussain''s case (supra) has to be followed.

For the foregoing reasons, it is not a fit case for exercise of power under Section 427 (2) of Cr.P.C. on inherent powers under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure for directing the sentence awarded in the aforesaid two criminal cases to run concurrently. This petition is accordingly dismissed.