Karnataka High Court
Sri Ravi @ Ravikumar vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 October, 2023
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:35846
CRL.A No. 1669 of 2022
C/W CRL.A No. 1683 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1669 OF 2022
C/W
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1683 OF 2022
IN CRL.A No.1669/2022:
BETWEEN:
SRI RAVI @ RAVIKUMAR
@ JANARDHANACHARI@ BABU
S/O LATE SHIVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
RESIDING AT RAMPURA VILLAGE
BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 560 049.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI BASAVARAJU T A, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYANA
MURTHY RAJASHRI AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
MAHADEVAPURA POLICE STATION
BENGALURU.
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI RANGASWAMY R, HCGP)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:35846
CRL.A No. 1669 of 2022
C/W CRL.A No. 1683 of 2022
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF
SENTENCE DATED 22.05.2020 PASSED BY THE LIII
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS SPECIAL JUDGE,
BENGALURU IN SPL.C.C.NO.55/2014 AND THE
APPELLANT/ACCUSED IS CONVICTED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
363, 506, 376, 392 OF IPC AND SECTION 5(L) R/W 6 OF
POCSO ACT AND ETC.,
IN CRL.A.No.1683/2022:
BETWEEN:
SRI JANARDHANACHARI @ BABU
@ RAVI @ RAVIKUMAR @ PHYCHO RAVI
S/O LATE SHIVAPPACHARI
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
RESIDING AT RAMPURA VILLAGE
K.R.PURAM HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 560 049.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI BASAVARAJU T A, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
VEMGAL POLICE STATION
TALUKA AND DISTRICT : KOLAR.
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI RANGASWAMY R, HCGP)
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 4.08.2016 AND
ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 06.08.2016 PASSED BY THE
PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE, KOLAR IN S.C.No.109/2014-
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:35846
CRL.A No. 1669 of 2022
C/W CRL.A No. 1683 of 2022
CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S 366A, 342 OF IPC AND ETC.,
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Crl.A. No. 1669/2022 is filed challenging the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
22.05.2020 passed in Spl.C.C. No. 55/2014 by the LIII
Additional City Civil and Sessions Special Judge,
Bengaluru, whereunder the appellant - accused has been
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven
years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- for offence under
Section 363 of IPC and in default to undergo
imprisonment for two years; further sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of
Rs.10,000/- for offence under Section 376 of IPC and in
default to undergo imprisonment for three years; further
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven
years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- for offence under
Section 392 of IPC and in default to undergo imprisonment
for two years; further sentenced to undergo imprisonment
NC: 2023:KHC:35846
CRL.A No. 1669 of 2022
C/W CRL.A No. 1683 of 2022
for two years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for offence
under Section 506 of IPC and in default to undergo
imprisonment for six months and further sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay
fine of Rs.10,000/- for offence under Section 5(l) read with
Section 6 of POCSO Act and in default to undergo
imprisonment for three years. The trial Court has ordered
all sentences to run concurrently and appellant - accused
is entitled for setoff under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
2. Crl.A. No. 1683/2022 is filed challenging the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
04.08.2016 passed in S.C. No. 109/2014 by the Principal
Sessions Judge at Kolar whereunder the appellant -
accused has been sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for one year for offence under Section 342
of IPC and further sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of
Rs.10,000/- and in default to undergo further
imprisonment for one year for offence under Section 366-
NC: 2023:KHC:35846
CRL.A No. 1669 of 2022
C/W CRL.A No. 1683 of 2022
A of IPC. The trial Court has ordered both the sentences to
run concurrently and has given the benefit of set off.
3. Learned counsel for appellant - accused in both
the appeals filed an application under Section 482 read
with Section 427(1) of Cr.P.C. praying for concurrent
running of sentences passed in S.C. No. 109/2014 and
Spl.C.C. No. 55/2014.
4. Heard learned counsel for appellant - accused and
learned HCGP for respondent - State.
5. Learned counsel for appellant - accused would
contend that incident in S.C.No. 109/2014 has taken place
on 23.08.2013 and the incident in Spl.C.C. No. 55/2014
has taken place on 14.07.2013 and both the alleged
offences have taken place within a span of two months. He
further submitted that in both cases it is alleged that with
an intention to rob the golden ornaments the appellant -
accused enticed the victims. He further contended that
appellant - accused has already completed 10 years 1
month of imprisonment and prayed for allowing the
NC: 2023:KHC:35846
CRL.A No. 1669 of 2022
C/W CRL.A No. 1683 of 2022
applications and order for concurrent running of the
sentences passed in both the cases. He placed reliance on
the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anil
Kumar Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2017 (1) SCR
418 and other decisions of other High Courts. Learned
counsel for appellant - accused submits that he is not
going to argue on the merits of the appeals.
6. Per contra, learned HCGP appearing for
respondent - State would contend that there are 16 cases
pending against the appellant - accused and imprisonment
certificate itself shows that he has completed sentence in
four cases. He contends that the appellant - accused is a
psycho and he is a habitual offender committing similar
offences. With this he prayed to reject the applications.
7. Considering the arguments advanced by both the
learned counsel the following point arises for
consideration:
Whether the appellant - accused has
made out grounds for passing final order for
NC: 2023:KHC:35846
CRL.A No. 1669 of 2022
C/W CRL.A No. 1683 of 2022
running of both sentences in S.C. No. 109/2014
and Spl.C.C. No. 55/2014 concurrently?
8. On perusal of the facts of both the appeals it is
clear that the appellant - accused, with an intention to rob
the golden ornaments, had kidnapped victims and in one
case he has committed sexual assault on the victim.
Therefore, the offences alleged to have been committed by
the appellant - accused in both the cases are similar. Even
the imprisonment certificate dated 04.08.2023 produced
by the learned counsel for appellant - accused will also
indicate that the appellant - accused has been convicted in
four other cases for offence under Section 363 of Cr.P.C.
and other offences which indicate that he used to abduct
the victims with an intention to rob them.
9. Section 427 of Cr.P.C. reads as under:
427. Sentence on offender already
sentenced for another offence. (1) When a
person already undergoing a sentence of
imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent
NC: 2023:KHC:35846
CRL.A No. 1669 of 2022
C/W CRL.A No. 1683 of 2022
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.
2. 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.
10. The general rule that there cannot be
concurrency of sentence if conviction relates to two
different transactions, can be changed by an order of the
Court. There is no strait jacket formula for the Court to
NC: 2023:KHC:35846
CRL.A No. 1669 of 2022
C/W CRL.A No. 1683 of 2022
follow in the matter of issue or refusal of a direction within
the contemplation of Section 427(1) Cr.P.C. Depending on
the special and peculiar facts and circumstances of the
case, it is for the Court to make the sentence of
imprisonment in the subsequent trial run concurrently with
the sentence in the previous one.
11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anil
Kumar v. State of Punjab, reported in (2017) 1 S.C.R.
418 has held as under:
"7. After referring to V.K. Bansal's case,
in Benson v. State of Kerala (2016) 10 SCC 307
: 2016 (9) SCALE 670, this Court directed the
substantive sentences imposed on the appellant
Benson to run concurrently. The appellant
therein was convicted for the offences punishable
under Section 379 and Section 414 read with
Section 34 IPC in at least eleven cases. By a
separate judgment, the appellant was convicted
and sentenced in each of the aforesaid cases and
total length of sentences in aggregate was
around nineteen years.
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:35846
CRL.A No. 1669 of 2022
C/W CRL.A No. 1683 of 2022
8. In the present case, the appellant was
earlier convicted under Section 22 NDPS Act and
subsequently convicted under Section 27(b)(ii)
and Section 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act,
1940. Considering the nature of the offences for
which the appellant was convicted and the facts
and circumstances of the case, we deem it
appropriate to direct that the sentences imposed
on the appellant in FIR No.37 and complaint
No.638 shall run concurrently. However, the fine
amount and the default sentence or sentences
are maintained. If the fine amount is not paid,
the default sentence will run consecutively and
not concurrently."
12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Benson Vs.
State of Kerala reported in 2016 (10) SCC 307 by referring
to V.K. Bansal's case has directed substantive sentence
imposed on appellant to run concurrently as the appellant
therein was convicted for the offence punishable under
Sections 379 and 414 read with Section 34 of IPC in
atleast 11 cases. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC:35846
CRL.A No. 1669 of 2022
C/W CRL.A No. 1683 of 2022
Iqram Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported
in 2023 (3) SCC 184 has held as under:
"11. In Mohd. Zahid v. State, this Court interpreted the
provisions of Section 427 Cr P.C after duly considering
the precedents in the following terms: (SCC p. 440,
para 17)
"17. Thus from the aforesaid decisions of this
Court, the principles of law that emerge are as
under:
17.1. If a person already undergoing a
sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a
subsequent conviction to imprisonment, such-
subsequent term of imprisonment would
normally commence at the expiration of the
imprisonment to which he was previously
sentenced.
17.2. Ordinarily the subsequent sentence
would commence at the expiration of the first
term of imprisonment unless the court directs
the subsequent sentence to run concurrently
with the previous sentence.
17.3. The general rule is that where there are
different transactions, different crime numbers
and cases have been decided by the different
judgment, concurrent sentence cannot be
awarded under Section 427 Cr.P.C.
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC:35846
CRL.A No. 1669 of 2022
C/W CRL.A No. 1683 of 2022
17.4. Under Section 427(1) Cr.P.C. the court
has the power and discretion to issue a
direction that all the subsequent sentences run
concurrently with the previous sentence,
however discretion has to be exercised
judiciously depending upon the nature of the
offence or the offences committed and the
facts in situation. However, there must be a
specific direction or order by the court that the
subsequent sentence to run concurrently with
the previous sentence."
12. The trial Judge, in the present case, granted a set-
off within the ambit of Section 428/Section 31 Cr.P.C.
No specific direction was issued by the trial court within
the ambit of Section 427(1) so as to allow the
subsequent sentences to run concurrently. All the
convictions took place on the same day."
13. In the said decision the Hon'ble Apex Court has
observed that "High Court ought to have intervened in the
exercise of its jurisdiction by setting right the miscarriage
of justice which would occur in the above manner, leaving
the appellant to remain incarcerated for a period of 18
years in respect of his conviction and sentence in the nine
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC:35846
CRL.A No. 1669 of 2022
C/W CRL.A No. 1683 of 2022
Sessions trials for offences essentially under the Electricity
Act."
Considering the above, if offences committed are
similar, the Court can exercise its discretion and order to
run the sentences concurrently. As the appellant - accused
is also alleged to have committed offences of abduction
with an intention to commit robbery in both the cases, he
is entitled for an order of running of the sentences
concurrently in both the cases. The point is answered
accordingly.
In the result, the following;
ORDER
i. Both the appeals are disposed off.
ii. Sentence imposed in S.C. No. 109/2014 by the
Principal Sessions Judge, Kolar, dated 04.08.2016
and sentence imposed in Spl.C. No. 55/2014 by the
LIII Additional City Civil and Special Judge,
Benglauru are ordered to run concurrently.
- 14 -
NC: 2023:KHC:35846
CRL.A No. 1669 of 2022
C/W CRL.A No. 1683 of 2022
iii. Default sentence will run consecutively after
completion of substantive sentences in case of
default of payment of fine amount.
iv. I.A. No. 1/2023 in both the appeals stands allowed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
LRS
