(Jagdish Singh Khehar and Arun Mishra, JJ.)
Kuldeep Singh _____________________________________ Appellant
v.
State of Haryana & Another ________________________ Respondent(s)
Criminal Appeal No(s). 773 of 2016 [Arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 10845 of 2015], decided on August 17, 2016
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the rival parties. When this court issued notice in the present case, the same was limited to the question of sentence. In this behalf, the Motion Bench Order dated 29th January, 2016, is extracted hereinbelow:
“Issue notice limited to the question of sentence.
Dasti, in addition, as prayed for, is also permitted.”
3. The trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty Thousand only), in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years; and under Section 148 read with Section 149 of the IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years.
4. Insofar as the sentence under Section 307 IPC is concerned, the High Court while disposing of the appeal, reduced the sentence awarded to Kuldeep Singh under Section 307 of the IPC, to rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years. The sentence under Sections 148 and 149 of the IPC was not altered.
5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, that since the occurrence was common, it would be just and appropriate and in the fitness of the matter, that in exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 31 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the sentence should have been ordered to run concurrently.
6. Since the occurrence is the same, and the punishment is under different provisions of the IPC, for the same incident, we are satisfied that the sentence awarded under the different provisions of the IPC ought to have been ordered to run concurrently, specially keeping in mind the facts and circumstances of the present case. Ordered accordingly.
7. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
8. In case the appellant has suffered imprisonment in terms of the instant order, he shall be released from custody forthwith, unless he is required in any other criminal case.
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 10845/2015
Kuldeep Singh ______________________________________ Petitioner
v.
State of Haryana & Another ________________________ Respondent(s)
(with interim relief and office report)
Date : 17/08/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today.
(Before Jagdish Singh Khehar and Arun Mishra, JJ.)
For Petitioner(s) Mr. S.K. Pabbi, adv.
Mr. Shikha Roy, Adv.
Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Shekhar Raj Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
9. Leave granted.
10. In case the appellant has suffered imprisonment in terms of the instant order, he shall be released from custody forthwith unless he is required in any other criminal case.
11. Appeal is allowed to the extent indicated in the signed order.
———
