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. In the case of Nagaraja Rao (supra), this Court expounded on this legal obligation upon the Court of first instance in the following terms:-
“11. The expressions “concurrently” and “consecutively”
mentioned in the Code are of immense significance while
awarding punishment to the accused once he is found guilty
of any offence punishable under IPC or/and of an offence
punishable under any other Special Act arising out of one trial
or more. It is for the reason that award of former enure to the
benefit of the accused whereas award of latter is detrimental
to the accused’s interest. It is therefore, legally obligatory
upon the court of first instance while awarding sentence to
specify in clear terms in the order of conviction as to whether
sentences awarded to the accused would run “concurrently”
or they would run “consecutively”.”
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 526 OF 2021
SUNIL KUMAR @ SUDHIR KUMAR Vs THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Dated: MAY 25, 2021
Print Page