Concurrent Sentences Appeal: FIR No. 67/2011 & Others

In the case of the appellant versus the State in regards to FIR No. 67/2011, the High Court has made a significant decision regarding the running of sentences concurrently. This unique ruling takes into account the appellant’s family circumstances and history of convictions. Stay tuned for more details on this groundbreaking legal development.


  • The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
  • The appeal is confined to the appellant’s prayer seeking concurrent running of sentences.
  • The High Court of Judicature at Delhi passed the impugned judgment on 20.05.2016 in Criminal Appeal No.1496 of 2013.
  • The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant and also his application for concurrent running of sentences.
  • The appellant has been convicted in several cases.
  • Details of the cases pertaining to the appellant were obtained from the Director General (Prison) by order dated 13.12.2019.
  • The prosecution’s case states that on 28.04.2011, the appellant and co-accused committed robbery and inflicted injuries on the complainant to steal Rs.2700/- and a mobile phone.
  • Charges were framed against the appellant and co-accused under relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code.
  • FIR No.67/2011 was registered for the incident on 28.04.2011 at 10:25 PM.
  • The appellant was in custody for 01 year 02 months and 17 days during the trial of the case in FIR No.67/2011.
  • After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused.
  • The trial court sentenced the appellant to seven years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/- in FIR No.67/2011.
  • The High Court rejected the prayer for concurrent sentences due to the appellant’s criminal history and the severity of the crimes committed in FIR No.67/2011.
  • The appellant is currently serving the seven-year sentence from FIR No.67/2011 as per the Status Report filed by the DGP on 16.01.2020.
  • The High Court upheld the verdict of conviction and quantum of sentence imposed on the appellant as fair.
  • As of 11.12.2019, the appellant has served 1 year 4 months and 28 days of the sentence with 6 days remission earned.
  • The trial court convicted the appellant under Sections 392 and 394 IPC while acquitting him of the charge under Section 397 IPC based on the evidence presented by the prosecution.

Also Read: Judgment on Service of Summons and Authenticity of Power of Attorney


  • The appellant is a young man with roots in his family, and his father is the sole breadwinner working as a carpenter.
  • The appellant has already served 10 years of imprisonment in FIR No.64/2011, and his mother is suffering from cancer due to their poor economic condition.
  • The family of the appellant is willing to reunite with him, and his elder sister is currently living in her maternal house due to domestic violence in her in-laws’ house.
  • Neighbors reported in favor of the appellant and his family.
  • The Supreme Court recognized the single transaction rule for concurrent sentences in cases where the prosecution is based on a single transaction, despite different complaints being filed.
  • The sentences in FIR No.67/2011 started after the completion of the previous sentence in FIR No.64/2011, and the appellant is also convicted in FIR No.263/2009.
  • Section 427 Crl.P.C. deals with subsequent sentences running concurrently, unless specifically directed otherwise by the court.
  • The court considered the case in FIR No.263/2009 due to the overall circumstances and the background of the appellant.
  • Reference made to the Supreme Court decision in Mohd. Akhtar Hussain case recognizing convictions arising from a single transaction for concurrent running of sentences.
  • In Benson v. State of Kerala (2016) 10 SCC 307, the Supreme Court directed sentences to run concurrently with the one imposed in Crime No.8.
  • The benefit of concurrent running of sentences applies only to substantive sentences, not to sentences of fine or default sentences.
  • Provisions of Section 427 Crl.P.C. do not allow for concurrent running of default sentence for non-payment of fine.
  • Anil Kumar v. State of Punjab (2017) 5 SCC 53 stated that subsequent imprisonment normally begins after the completion of the prior imprisonment.
  • In Madan Lal case (2009) 5 SCC 238, sentences within the first two groups were to run inter-se concurrently.
  • V.K. Bansal v. State of Haryana and Another (2013) 7 SCC 211 favored exercise of discretion in cases based on a single transaction.
  • The sentence of imprisonment in this case is ordered to run concurrently, considering the unique facts and circumstances.
  • The decision is made in light of the appellant’s mother’s illness and should not be used as a precedent in other cases.
  • Based on the Probation Officer’s report, the family background of the appellant, and the interest of justice, the concurrent sentence is deemed fit.
  • Due to the appellant’s poor economic background, fines imposed on him are set aside to prevent default imprisonment.
  • Exercise of discretion in directing concurrent imprisonment serves the interest of justice in this particular case.

Also Read: Balaji v. Nargolkar: Auction Sale Set Aside


  • The appellant’s fine of Rs.10,000/- each in FIR No.67/2011 and FIR No.263/2009 has been set aside.
  • The appellant is not required to undergo default sentence of imprisonment.
  • The appellant has already served ten years of rigorous imprisonment in FIR No.64/2011.
  • The sentence in FIR No.64/2011 is ordered to run concurrently with the sentences in FIR No.67/2011 and FIR No.263/2009.
  • The appellant is to be released immediately.
  • The sentences in FIR No.64/2011, FIR No.67/2011, and FIR No.263/2009 are ordered to run concurrently.
  • The appeal has been disposed of accordingly.

Also Read: Jurisdiction of Family Court in Cases under Muslim Women’s Protection Act


Case Number: Crl.A. No.-000208-000208 / 2020

Click here to read/download original judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *