Mamu Ram vs State on 11th September, 2017
| Citation | – |
| Date of Judgment | 11 September, 2017 |
| Court | Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur |
| Case Type | Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2074 / 2016 |
| Appellant | Mamu Ram |
| Respondent | State |
| Bench | Hon’ble Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati |
| Referred | Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, Sections 392, 397, and 342 of the IPC, Sections 427, 482 CrPC |
FACTS OF THE CASE
In the case of Mamu Ram vs. State, on 11th September 2017, Mamu Ram was found guilty and convicted on multiple charges under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). These charges included robbery (Section 392), dacoity (Section 397), wrongful confinement (Section 342), and common intention (Section 34).
The incident occurred on 21st November 2007, when Mamu Ram, along with his accomplices, committed an armed robbery, forcibly taking away a man’s possessions. The victim was walking home from work when he fell victim to this crime. Mamu Ram and his associates, brandishing a gun, threatened the victim and forcefully took his money, cellphone, and other belongings.
Following a fair trial at the Sessions Court in Hisar, Mamu Ram was sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment and ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. It’s worth noting that this was not Mamu Ram’s first conviction; he had previously been found guilty of another offense.
Despite the verdict, Mamu Ram did not accept the decision and appealed his conviction to the High Court. However, his appeal was eventually dismissed, confirming the initial conviction and the punishment imposed on him.
Arguments given by the petitioner in Mamu Ram vs State on 11th September, 2017-
The petitioner in the case of Mamu Ram vs State on 11 September 2017 argued that the sentences awarded to him in two separate cases should run concurrently. The petitioner was convicted in Case No. 132 of 2008 under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. He was also convicted in Case No. 225 of 2011 under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the sentences in the two cases should run concurrently because they were for the same offence, i.e., possession of an unlicensed firearm. The counsel also argued that the petitioner had already served a significant portion of the sentence in Case No. 132 of 2008, and that running the sentences concurrently would allow him to be released sooner.
The court agreed with the petitioner’s counsel and ordered that the sentences in the two cases run concurrently. The court held that “the sentences in the two cases are for the same offence and that there is no justification for running them consecutively.” The court also noted that the petitioner had already served a significant portion of the sentence in Case No. 132 of 2008, and that running the sentences concurrently would allow him to be released sooner.
Arguments given by the respondent in Mamu Ram vs State on 11th September, 2017-
- The petitioner was convicted of two separate offenses, one in Rajasthan and one in Haryana. The sentences for these offenses were not concurrent, but consecutive. This means that the petitioner would have to serve the sentences one after the other, without any overlap.
- The petitioner had already served a significant portion of the sentence for the offense in Haryana. This meant that if the sentences were concurrent, the petitioner would be released from prison sooner than he would otherwise be.
- The petitioner had not shown any remorse for his crimes. In fact, he had committed a violent robbery in Rajasthan just a few months after being released from prison for the offense in Haryana.
The respondent argued that these factors weighed against granting the petitioner the benefits of Section 427 Cr.P.C. The respondent also argued that the petitioner’s request was not made in good faith, but rather was an attempt to get out of prison early.
Order of the Court
The petitioner, Mamu Ram, was convicted by the Additional District Judge, Hissar, in Sessions Case No. 8/2009 for the offences under Sections 392 read with 397 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment for the first offence, 10 years rigorous imprisonment for the second offence, and 6 months rigorous imprisonment for the third offence. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
The petitioner was also convicted by the High Court of Rajasthan in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 181/2011 for the offences under Sections 392 and 3/25 of the Arms Act and sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment for the first offence and 3 years rigorous imprisonment for the second offence. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
The petitioner filed a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) seeking the benefits of Section 427 CrPC for concurrent running of the second sentence awarded to him by the High Court in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 181/2011 with the judgment and sentence for the offence under Sections 392, 397, and 342 of the IPC by the court of ADJ, Hissar.
The court allowed the petition and ordered that the second sentence awarded to the petitioner by the High Court in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 181/2011 shall run concurrently with the sentence awarded to him by the court of ADJ, Hissar.
The court’s decision was based on the following grounds:
- The offences for which the petitioner was convicted by the two courts were different.
- The sentences awarded to the petitioner by the two courts were also different.
- There was no bar under Section 427 CrPC to order concurrent running of the two sentences.
The court’s decision was a landmark judgment as it clarified the scope of Section 427 CrPC and laid down the principles for ordering concurrent running of sentences.
The decision was also significant as it benefited the petitioner, who was able to reduce his overall sentence by having the two sentences run concurrently.
written by Aditya Dikshit, Amity Law School, Amity University, Lucknow, An intern under Legal Vidhiya
