Binoy vs State Of Kerala
2025 Latest Caselaw 10537 Ker

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 10537 Ker
Judgement Date : 5 November, 2025

Kerala High Court

Binoy vs State Of Kerala on 5 November, 2025

                                                            2025:KER:83780
W.P(C) NO.5549/2023
                                     1

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                  PRESENT

           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR

     WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 / 14TH KARTHIKA,

                                   1947

                      WP(C) NO. 5549 OF 2023

PETITIONER:

            BINOY
            AGED 50 YEARS
            KODATHUSSERIL HOUSE, ACHANKANAM BHAGAM, THANKAMANY
            VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT NOW UNDERGOING
            IMPRISONMENT AS CONVICT NO. 1659, CENTRAL PRISON
            AND CORRECTIONAL HOME, POOJAPPURA,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695012


            BY ADV SRI.M.RAJESH


RESPONDENTS:

       1    STATE OF KERALA
            REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF
            KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, STATUE,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

       2    DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PRISONS AND CORRECTIONAL
            SERVICES, CENTRAL PRISON AND CORRECTIONAL HOME,
            POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695012

            SRI.U.JAYAKRISHNAN, PP



       THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON    05.11.2025,   THE   COURT    ON    THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
                                                     2025:KER:83780
W.P(C) NO.5549/2023
                                 2


                           JUDGMENT

The petitioner stands convicted in two offences,

both under the Protection of Children from, Sexual Offences

Act, 2012 by the Special Court under the POCSO Act,

Thodupuzha.

2. The cases are SC No.163/2016 and SC

No.327/2016. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced

in both the cases to undergo rigorous imprisonment for

ten years in addition to fine. In SC No.163/2016, the

imprisonment was reduced to five years by this Court, in

appeal.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that, as the

things stand at present, he has to undergo imprisonment for

a total period of 15 years, unless this Court permits him to

undergo the imprisonment concurrently.

4. According to the petitioner, in both the above

cases, he was sentenced on the same day by the same court.

Therefore, he filed this writ petition under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India, for a direction to the respondents

to permit him to undergo both the sentences concurrently.

2025:KER:83780

5. The petition was strongly opposed by the learned

Public Prosecutor on the ground that in the light of Section

427(1) of Cr.P.C, the remedy of of the petitioner is to

approach the court which convicted him subsequently.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted

that in one case the petitioner has already moved the

Supreme Court by filing SLP against the conviction as

confirmed by this Court and as such he expressed doubt as

to whether this Court or the Trial Court could entertain the

prayer raised in this petition.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the

petitioner submitted that this is a question of law and as

such it could be raised at any stage.

8. Section 427(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973, reads as follows:

"Section 427- Sentence on offender already

sentenced for another offence:

(1)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 2025:KER:83780

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."

9. According to the learned counsel for the

petitioner, since both the convictions are on the same day,

one cannot be treated as subsequent to the other and as

such sub-section (1) of Section 427 will not apply in this

case and as such it is to be treated that both the sentences

shall run concurrently.

10. From the evidence on record, it is revealed

that the petitioner was convicted in two different offences

in two separate trials, but the only similarity is that the

sentences were imposed on the same day, one after the

other.

11. The learned counsel could not bring to the