Supreme Court limits jail term in kidnapping and rape case: Sunil Kumar vs. State of UP (25 May 2021)

Date of the Judgment: 25 May 2021
Citation: 2021 INSC 337
Judges: Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Aniruddha Bose
Can a court impose consecutive sentences without specifying the order in which they should be served? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a case involving the kidnapping and rape of a minor. The court clarified the obligations of trial courts when awarding multiple sentences and ultimately reduced the total jail time for the accused.

Case Background

On February 3, 2008, a case was registered at Police Station, T.P. Nagar, Meerut, concerning the disappearance of a 13-year-old girl. The complainant stated that his daughter had not returned from school on January 15, 2008. Investigations revealed that the accused, Faimuddin @ Feru @ Sonu, had enticed her. Subsequently, the victim was recovered, and a charge-sheet was filed against Faimuddin and another accused, Sunil Kumar @ Sudhir Kumar, for offences under Sections 363 (kidnapping), 366 (kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage) and 376(1) (rape) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted the appellants for offences under Sections 363, 366, and 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. They were sentenced to 5 years rigorous imprisonment for Section 363, 7 years for Section 366, and 10 years for Section 376(1), along with fines. However, the Trial Court did not specify whether the sentences would run concurrently or consecutively, nor did it specify the order of execution if consecutive.

Only Sunil Kumar @ Sudhir Kumar (appellant No. 1) appealed to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The High Court confined its examination to the question of the sentence, upholding the conviction. The High Court modified the default stipulations for non-payment of fine, reducing the additional imprisonment terms. However, the High Court also failed to clarify whether the sentences would run concurrently or consecutively.

Due to the lack of clarity regarding concurrent or consecutive sentences, the Jail Superintendent stated that the accused were serving a total of 22 years of imprisonment. This led the accused to approach the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around Section 31 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), which deals with sentences in cases of conviction for several offences at one trial. Section 31(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 states:

“When a person is convicted at one trial of two or more offences, the Court may, subject to the provisions of Section 71 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), sentence him for such offences, to the several punishments prescribed therefore which such Court is competent to inflict; such punishments, when consisting of imprisonment to commence the one after the expiration of the other in such order as the Court may direct, unless the Court directs that such punishments shall run concurrently.”

This provision grants the court discretion to decide whether sentences for multiple offenses should run concurrently or consecutively.

Arguments

Submissions by the Appellants:

• The appellants argued that the Trial Court and the High Court failed to specify whether the sentences would run concurrently or consecutively.
• Relying on Nagaraja Rao v. Central Bureau of Investigation: (2015) 4 SCC 302 and Gagan Kumar v. State of Punjab: (2019) 5 SCC 154, the appellants contended that it is obligatory for the court to specify whether sentences run concurrently or consecutively.
• The appellants argued that the omission by the courts cannot be detrimental to the accused.
• They contended that the sentences should run concurrently, relying on O.M. Cherian alias Thankachan v. State of Kerala & Ors.: (2015) 2 SCC 501, which stated that it is not the normal rule that multiple sentences are to run consecutively.
• The appellants also argued for the application of the ‘single transaction’ principle, citing Sections 31(1) and 220(1) CrPC, and relying on Mohan Baitha & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Anr. : (2001) 4 SCC 350; Mohd. Akhtar Hussain alias Ibrahim Ahmed Bhatti v. Assistant Collector of Customs (Prevention), Ahmedabad & Anr. : (1988) 4 SCC 183; and Manoj alias Panju v. State of Haryana : (2014) 2 SCC 153.
• They cited State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh & Ors. : (1996) 2 SCC 384 and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Anoop Singh : (2015) 7 SCC 773, where similar offenses resulted in concurrent sentences.
• The appellants argued that since the Supreme Court allowed appellant No. 2 to file a Special Leave Petition, he should also benefit from the reduced default sentence.
• The appellants emphasized that they had already served over 13 years of imprisonment, and a total of 22 years would be disproportionate.

Submissions by the Respondent (State):

• The State argued that Section 31 CrPC gives discretion to the Trial Court to direct whether sentences run concurrently.
• The State submitted that given the gravity of the offenses (kidnapping and rape of a minor), the Trial Court did not specify concurrent sentences, implying they should run consecutively.
• The State argued that the ‘single transaction’ principle does not mandate concurrent sentences, citing O.M. Cherian (supra).
• They referred to Muthuramalingam & Ors. v. State: (2016) 8 SCC 313, stating that sentences run consecutively unless directed otherwise.
• The State argued that concurrent sentences depend on the facts of each case and cannot be claimed based on parity with other cases.
• The State maintained that the Trial Court’s failure to specify the order of running sentences does not mean they should run concurrently.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the sentences awarded to the appellants should run concurrently or consecutively, given that neither the Trial Court nor the High Court specified this in their orders.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

Cases Relied Upon by the Court:

On the obligation to specify concurrent or consecutive sentences:

• Nagaraja Rao v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2015) 4 SCC 302 (Supreme Court of India): This case emphasized the legal obligation of the court of first instance to specify whether sentences run concurrently or consecutively.
• Gagan Kumar v. State of Punjab (2019) 5 SCC 154 (Supreme Court of India): This case reiterated the need for courts to clearly specify how sentences are to run.

On the discretion of the court regarding concurrent or consecutive sentences:

• O.M. Cherian alias Thankachan v. State of Kerala & Ors. (2015) 2 SCC 501 (Supreme Court of India): This case clarified that Section 31 CrPC gives discretion to the court to order sentences to run concurrently, depending on the nature of the offenses and circumstances. It also stated that the normal rule is not to order sentences to run consecutively.
• Muthuramalingam & Ors. v. State (2016) 8 SCC 313 (Supreme Court of India): This Constitution Bench decision clarified that sentences awarded for several offenses run consecutively unless the court directs otherwise, except for life imprisonment which must run concurrently.

On the ‘single transaction’ principle:

• Mohan Baitha & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Anr. (2001) 4 SCC 350 (Supreme Court of India): This case discussed the meaning of ‘same transaction’ but in the context of inquiry and trial, not sentencing.
• Mohd. Akhtar Hussain alias Ibrahim Ahmed Bhatti v. Assistant Collector of Customs (Prevention), Ahmedabad & Anr. (1988) 4 SCC 183 (Supreme Court of India): This case indicated that consecutive sentences are generally wrong if a transaction constitutes two offenses under two enactments, but this does not apply if the offenses are distinct.
• Manoj alias Panju v. State of Haryana (2014) 2 SCC 153 (Supreme Court of India): This case involved offenses under the Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act, and the court did not discuss the ‘single transaction’ principle in the context of concurrent sentences.

On similar cases with concurrent sentences:

• State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh & Ors. (1996) 2 SCC 384 (Supreme Court of India): This case involved similar offenses (Sections 363, 366, and 376) with a minor victim, where the Supreme Court awarded concurrent sentences.
• State of Madhya Pradesh v. Anoop Singh (2015) 7 SCC 773 (Supreme Court of India): This case also involved similar offenses with a minor victim, where the Supreme Court awarded concurrent sentences.

Legal Provisions Considered by the Court:

• Section 31(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section provides the court the discretion to decide whether sentences for multiple offenses should run concurrently or consecutively.
• Section 220 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section deals with the trial of multiple offenses committed in the same transaction.
• Section 71 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with the limit of punishment of an offense made up of several offenses.
• Section 433 and 433A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: These sections deal with the powers of the appropriate government to commute sentences.
• Section 55 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with the commutation of sentences of imprisonment for life.

Authorities Table

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court relied on Nagaraja Rao v. Central Bureau of Investigation [CITATION] and Gagan Kumar v. State of Punjab [CITATION] to emphasize the legal obligation of the court to specify whether sentences run concurrently or consecutively. The Court also relied on O.M. Cherian alias Thankachan v. State of Kerala & Ors. [CITATION] to clarify the court’s discretion under Section 31 CrPC. The Court referred to Muthuramalingam & Ors. v. State [CITATION] to clarify that sentences run consecutively unless directed otherwise, except for life imprisonment. The Court noted that Mohan Baitha & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Anr. [CITATION], Mohd. Akhtar Hussain alias Ibrahim Ahmed Bhatti v. Assistant Collector of Customs (Prevention), Ahmedabad & Anr. [CITATION], and Manoj alias Panju v. State of Haryana [CITATION] did not support the appellants’ arguments regarding the ‘single transaction’ principle. The Court distinguished the facts in State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh & Ors. [CITATION] and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Anoop Singh [CITATION], stating they could not be adopted as precedents for the present case.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by several factors. While acknowledging the legal principle that sentences should run consecutively if not specified otherwise, the Court also considered the long period of imprisonment already served by the appellants (13 years and 2 months). The Court was also concerned that a total of 22 years of imprisonment would be disproportionate to the actual punishment they needed to suffer. The Court also noted that the offenses were committed in 2008, before the amendment of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 by the Amending Act 13 of 2013. The Court also considered the fact that there was nothing adverse in regard to their conduct while serving the sentences.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s decision was more influenced by the factual aspects of the case, such as the long period of imprisonment already served and the disproportionality of the total sentence, than by the legal principles alone.

Logical Reasoning

The Court considered and rejected the appellants’ arguments for concurrent sentences based on the ‘single transaction’ principle and parity with other cases. The Court also noted that the omission to specify the order of consecutive sentences does not lead to concurrent running of sentences.

The Court concluded that while the sentences should not run concurrently, the total imprisonment period should be capped at 14 years to achieve a just balance.

The Supreme Court held that:

• The omission to state whether sentences run concurrently or consecutively operates against the accused.
• The ‘single transaction’ principle cannot be applied to determine concurrent or consecutive running of sentences.
• The sentences should not run concurrently.
• The maximum period of imprisonment to be served by the appellants shall be 14 years and not beyond.

The Court stated, “For what has been discussed hereinabove, we are not inclined to accept the principal part of the submissions of learned counsel for the Appellants. However, the other part of his submissions, that requiring the appellants to serve a total term of 22 years in prison would be highly disproportionate to the actual punishment they need to suffer in this case, cannot be brushed aside as altogether unworthy of consideration.”

The Court also stated, “After anxious consideration of all the relevant factors, we are of the view that the requirements of complete justice to the cause before us could adequately be met by providing that the maximum period of imprisonment to be served by the appellants shall be 14 years and not beyond.”

The Court further clarified, “It goes without saying that this order of modification is passed only in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case.”

There were no dissenting opinions; the judgment was delivered by a bench of two judges.

Key Takeaways

• Trial courts must clearly specify whether sentences run concurrently or consecutively.
• Omission to specify concurrent running of sentences means the sentences run consecutively.
• The ‘single transaction’ principle cannot be used to mandate concurrent sentences.
• The Supreme Court can modify sentences to ensure they are proportionate to the offense and circumstances of the case.
• The total imprisonment period can be limited even if sentences are not concurrent.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the maximum period of imprisonment to be served by the appellants shall be 14 years and not beyond. The requirement of payment of fine and the default stipulations, as applicable to the appellant No.1 in terms of the order of the High Court and to the appellant No.2 in terms of the order of the Trial Court, shall remain intact. In default in payment of fine, the defaulter-appellant shall undergo respective default sentences consecutively and in the order they have been imposed, for offences under Sections 363, 366, and 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that while the omission to specify concurrent running of sentences means the sentences run consecutively, the Supreme Court can modify sentences to ensure they are proportionate to the offense and circumstances of the case. There is no change in the previous position of law but the court has clarified the obligation of the trial court to specify whether sentences run concurrently or consecutively.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Sunil Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh clarifies the obligations of trial courts when awarding multiple sentences. While the court upheld the principle that sentences run consecutively if not specified otherwise, it also emphasized the need for proportionate punishment. By capping the total imprisonment at 14 years, the Supreme Court balanced the legal requirements with the specific circumstances of the case, ensuring that justice was served without imposing a disproportionate sentence.

Category

Parent Category: Criminal Law
Child Category: Sentencing
Child Category: Concurrent Sentences
Child Category: Consecutive Sentences
Parent Category: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Child Category: Section 31, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Parent Category: Indian Penal Code, 1860
Child Category: Section 363, Indian Penal Code, 1860
Child Category: Section 366, Indian Penal Code, 1860
Child Category: Section 376, Indian Penal Code, 1860

FAQ

Q: What does it mean for sentences to run concurrently or consecutively?
A: When sentences run concurrently, they are served at the same time. When sentences run consecutively, they are served one after the other.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide in this case?
A: The Supreme Court held that if a court does not specify that sentences should run concurrently, they will run consecutively. However, the court also limited the total imprisonment period to 14 years, considering the circumstances of the case.

Q: What is the ‘single transaction’ principle?
A: The ‘single transaction’ principle refers to the ideathat if multiple offenses arise from the same transaction, they may be considered as one for the purpose of sentencing, potentially leading to concurrent sentences. However, the Supreme Court clarified that this principle does not mandate concurrent sentences.

Q: Why did the Supreme Court limit the total imprisonment period?
A: The Supreme Court limited the total imprisonment period to 14 years because it felt that a total of 22 years would be disproportionate given the facts of the case and the long period of imprisonment already served by the appellants.

Q: What is the significance of this judgment?
A: This judgment clarifies the legal requirements for specifying whether sentences run concurrently or consecutively and emphasizes the importance of proportionate punishment. It also highlights the Supreme Court’s power to modify sentences to ensure justice.