Summary
Where an accused was convicted of rash driving and causing death by negligence in one trial, the Magistrate had to specify whether the imprisonment terms would run concurrently or consecutively. The appellate and revisional courts also failed to correct that omission. The Supreme Court directed concurrent running of the six-month and two-year terms while affirming the convictions and sentences otherwise.
Issues
- Whether the sentencing order should specify concurrent or consecutive running of imprisonment for multiple offences tried together.
Provisions considered
- Section 31, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Required the sentencing court to specify the relationship between the imprisonment terms imposed for the two offences; concurrent running was directed on these facts. (¶ 16–21)
Held
- The Magistrate’s failure to specify whether the sentences would run concurrently or consecutively breached the requirement under Section 31. The Sessions Court and High Court should have corrected that error. (¶ 16–19)
- Having regard to the circumstances, both sentences were directed to run concurrently. No ground existed to interfere with the concurrent findings supporting the convictions; the order was modified only as to concurrent running. (¶ 20–24)
Result
Appeal partly allowed; imprisonment terms under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC to run concurrently. Convictions and sentences otherwise confirmed.