Supreme Court Orders Concurrent Sentences for Habitual Offender in Robbery Cases: Vicky @ Vikas vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2020) INSC 68 (31 January 2020)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 31 January 2020
Citation: (2020) INSC 68
Judges: R. Banumathi, J., A.S. Bopanna, J.

Can a court order sentences to run concurrently when an individual is convicted in multiple cases? The Supreme Court of India recently examined this question in a case involving a repeat offender convicted of robbery. The core issue was whether the sentences imposed in separate robbery cases should run one after the other or at the same time. This judgment clarifies the principles guiding the courts when deciding on concurrent or consecutive sentences, especially for individuals with multiple convictions. The judgment was authored by Justice R. Banumathi, with Justice A.S. Bopanna concurring.

Case Background

On April 28, 2011, at approximately 10:25 PM, the appellant, Vicky @ Vikas, along with a co-accused, Yamin @ Sohail, allegedly robbed the complainant, Israr. They reportedly took Rs. 2700 and a mobile phone from Israr, inflicting injuries with a knife. Following this incident, FIR No. 67/2011 was registered.

The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 392 (punishment for robbery) and Section 394 (voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), while acquitting him of the charge under Section 397 (robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt) of the IPC. The trial court sentenced the appellant to seven years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000, clarifying that this sentence would run consecutively to a sentence imposed in a previous case, FIR No. 64/2011.

The High Court of Judicature at Delhi upheld the conviction and rejected the appellant’s plea for concurrent sentences, noting his extensive criminal history. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court, contesting only the consecutive nature of his sentences.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The core legal provision at play here is Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). This section addresses how sentences are to be served when a person already undergoing imprisonment is convicted of another offense.

Section 427(1) of the CrPC states:

“When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment or imprisonment for life, such imprisonment or imprisonment for life shall commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he has been previously sentenced, unless the Court directs that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence:
Provided that where a person who has been sentenced to imprisonment by an order under section 122 in default of furnishing security is, whilst undergoing such sentence, sentenced to imprisonment for an offence committed prior to the making of such order, the latter sentence shall commence immediately.”

Section 427(2) of the CrPC states:

“When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for life is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment for a term or imprisonment for life, the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence.”

In essence, Section 427 of the CrPC establishes that subsequent sentences will run consecutively unless the court specifically orders them to run concurrently.

Arguments

The appellant argued for concurrent sentences, emphasizing his young age, family background, and the possibility of reformation. The appellant’s counsel highlighted the poor economic condition of his family, his mother’s illness, and his potential for reintegration into society.

The State, on the other hand, did not make any specific arguments against concurrent sentences, but the High Court had previously noted the appellant’s involvement in sixteen criminal cases and his status as a habitual criminal while rejecting his plea for concurrent sentences.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. Whether the sentence of imprisonment in the cases in FIR No.64/2011, FIR No.67/2011 and FIR No.263/2009 are to be ordered to run concurrently.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court, after considering the facts, circumstances, and the submissions made by the parties, decided to allow the appeal and order the sentences to run concurrently.

The Supreme Court’s view on the authorities is as follows:

✓ Mohd. Akhtar Hussain alias Ibrahim Ahmed Bhatti v. Assistant Collector of Customs (Prevention), Ahmedabad and Another [CITATION]: The Court used the principle of single transaction rule which says that convictions arising out of a single transaction should generally result in concurrent sentences.

✓ V.K. Bansal v. State of Haryana and Another [CITATION]: The Court used the principle that discretion should be exercised in favor of the prisoner when prosecutions are based on a single transaction, even if different complaints are filed.

✓ Benson v. State of Kerala [CITATION]: The Court used this to direct that sentences should run concurrently, but clarified that this benefit applies only to substantive sentences and not to fines or default sentences.

✓ Anil Kumar v. State of Punjab [CITATION]: The Court used this to emphasize that the discretion to order concurrent sentences should be exercised judiciously, based on the facts and circumstances of each case.

✓ Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC): The Court considered the provision which states that subsequent sentences will run consecutively unless the court specifically orders them to run concurrently.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was significantly influenced by several factors, including the appellant’s family circumstances, his potential for reformation, and the need for a just outcome. The court emphasized the Probation Officer’s report, which highlighted the appellant’s poor family background, his mother’s illness, and the possibility of his reintegration into society. The court also considered the substantial period of imprisonment the appellant had already served.

The court’s reasoning was a combination of factual considerations, such as the appellant’s family situation and the possibility of his reformation, and legal considerations, such as the principles laid down in previous cases regarding concurrent sentences.

The court considered the argument that the appellant was a habitual offender, but ultimately decided that the circumstances of the case warranted concurrent sentences. The court reasoned that the appellant had already served a substantial period of imprisonment and that his family circumstances and potential for reformation were compelling factors.

The Supreme Court stated, “Considering the report of the Probation Officer, illness of the mother of the appellant, his family background, facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, in our view, this is a fit case for exercising discretion in directing the sentence of imprisonment to run concurrently.”

The Supreme Court also noted, “Since the appellant has a poor economic background, fine amount of Rs.10,000/- imposed on him each in FIR No.67/2011 and FIR No.263/2009 are set aside and therefore, the appellant need not to undergo default sentence of imprisonment.”

The Court further clarified, “This order to run the sentence of imprisonment concurrently has been made in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the illness of the appellant’s mother and hence, the same may not be quoted as precedent in other cases.”

Key Takeaways

• ✓ Courts have the discretion to order concurrent sentences, especially in cases involving multiple convictions.
• ✓ The “single transaction rule” remains a relevant factor when considering concurrent sentences.
• ✓ The court may consider the family background, potential for reformation, and other mitigating factors when deciding on concurrent sentences.
• ✓ The benefit of concurrent sentences applies to substantive sentences but not to fines or default sentences.
• ✓ This judgment is specific to the facts and circumstances of this case and should not be quoted as a precedent.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that:

• ✓ The sentences of imprisonment imposed upon the appellant in FIR No. 64/2011, FIR No. 67/2011, and FIR No. 263/2009 are to run concurrently.
• ✓ The fine amount of Rs. 10,000 imposed on the appellant in FIR No. 67/2011 and FIR No. 263/2009 are set aside.
• ✓ The appellant is to be released forthwith.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in cases involving multiple convictions, the courts have the discretion to order sentences to run concurrently, especially when there are mitigating circumstances such as the accused’s family background, potential for reformation, and the need for a just outcome. This judgment reinforces the principle that the “single transaction rule” is an important factor to consider when deciding on concurrent sentences. While the judgment does not establish a new legal principle, it emphasizes the importance of considering individual circumstances and the potential for rehabilitation when determining the nature of sentences.

Conclusion

In the case of Vicky @ Vikas vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), the Supreme Court ordered that the sentences of imprisonment imposed on the appellant in three separate FIRs should run concurrently. The court considered the appellant’s family background, his mother’s illness, and the Probation Officer’s report, which suggested the potential for reformation. This decision underscores the court’s willingness to exercise discretion in favor of the prisoner, particularly when there are mitigating circumstances. The judgment also clarifies that the benefit of concurrent sentences applies to substantive sentences but not to fines or default sentences.