SC: Court may order concurrent sentences under Section 427 Cr.P.C. in peculiar facts; benefit granted considering reformation and family hardship

Case Name: Vicky @ Vikas v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
Date of Judgment: JANUARY 31, 2020
Citation: 2020 INSC 120; Criminal Appeal No. 208 of 2020
Bench: Hon’ble Ms. Justice R. Banumathi and Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.S. Bopanna

Held: The Supreme Court held that although Section 427(1) Cr.P.C. prescribes that subsequent sentences normally run consecutively, the Court has discretion to order them to run concurrently in appropriate cases, guided by judicial principles. Given the appellant’s family circumstances, poor economic background, and potential for reformation, the Court exercised discretion to allow concurrent running of sentences in three separate FIRs.

Summary: The appellant was convicted in multiple cases, including FIR Nos. 64/2011 (10 years RI), 67/2011 (7 years RI), and 263/2009 (4 years RI). Both Trial Court and High Court directed the sentences to run consecutively, citing his habitual criminal conduct. On appeal limited to concurrency, the Supreme Court considered his having already served 10 years in FIR 64/2011, his mother’s illness, poverty, positive family report from the Probation Officer, and his willingness to reform. Relying on precedents like Mohd. Akhtar Hussain v. Asst. Collector of Customs (1988) and V.K. Bansal v. State of Haryana (2013), the Court held that discretion under Section 427 can be exercised where justice demands.

Decision: Appeal allowed. Sentences in FIR Nos. 64/2011, 67/2011, and 263/2009 directed to run concurrently. Fine amounts of Rs. 10,000/- each in FIRs 67/2011 and 263/2009 set aside, releasing the appellant forthwith.