+
  • HOME»
  • Karnataka High Court: If Life Imprisonment Is Imposed On Murder Convict, Term Sentence For Other Offences Runs Concurrently

Karnataka High Court: If Life Imprisonment Is Imposed On Murder Convict, Term Sentence For Other Offences Runs Concurrently

The Karnataka High Court in the case Ramachandra Reddy & ANR And State of Karnataka in the case observed and has clarified that the term of life imprisonment under section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 is being imposed on an accused and another fixed term sentence is imposed for another charge, then the both […]

The Karnataka High Court in the case Ramachandra Reddy & ANR And State of Karnataka in the case observed and has clarified that the term of life imprisonment under section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 is being imposed on an accused and another fixed term sentence is imposed for another charge, then the both the sentences will run concurrently and not consecutively.
The Single judge bench headed by Justice M Nagaprasanna in the case observed and has given the larification while allowing the petition filed by convicts Ramachandra Reddy and another and it has been directed that the sentences imposed upon the petitioners in terms of the impugned order of conviction dated 25.11.2010.
Therefore, the session court convicted the petitioners in terms of its order dated 09.12.2010 and have sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and pay fine of Rs.50,000 for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and in default of the payment made they shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. The said court also convicted them and has sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and payment of Rs.50,000 each and in default to pay fine, wherein to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
In the said case the petitioner approached the court contending that they are in prison since 22.09.2002, which is more than twenty years as of now and are entitled to seek remission or premature release in terms of the Rules and guidelines. The court further stated that the petitioner even after completing twenty years in prison are not entitled to seek remission on the ground that the sentence for offence punishable under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is in operation.
The bench also observed that there being no indication in the order whether the sentences would run concurrently or one after the other and the issue with regards to such finding is left unattended by the concerned Court. The court imposed the maximum punishment initially against the petitioners is imprisonment for life for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and later the imprisonment for 10 years under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code.
Accordingly, the court directed that the sentence imposed upon the petitioners by the impugned order of conviction dated 25.11.2010 which is being passed by by District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura would run concurrently.

Tags:

Advertisement