Madhav Krishan Sareen, University School of Law and Legal Studies, GGSIPU
ABSTRACT
This research paper intricately examines the dynamics of consecutive and concurrent sentencing within the Indian legal framework, with a central focus on Sections 31 and 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It sheds light on the prevalent practice of concurrent sentencing, historically rooted in the efficacy of sentencing within a single court session, while illuminating exceptions like the 'single transaction rule.' This rule mandates concurrent sentences when multiple offences stem from a single transaction, ensuring a judicious and context-sensitive approach to sentencing.
An alternative perspective is explored through an analysis of cases such as Ranjit Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, wherein the judiciary deviated from the common trend of concurrent sentencing. The examination of this case reveals the court's exercise of authority to impose consecutive sentences, emphasising a balanced approach that considers the gravity of multiple offences. This departure from the typical concurrent sentencing trend underscores the judiciary's commitment to tailored sentencing, acknowledging the unique circumstances of each case.
In summary, this research contributes significantly to the ongoing discourse on sentencing practices within the Indian legal system. It advocates for a discerning application of the law, urging the judiciary to consider the interconnectedness of criminal acts, the severity of offences, and the distinctive circumstances of each case. Such an approach ensures that consecutive sentencing is not mechanically applied but rather serves as a thoughtful and context-sensitive response to the intricacies of criminal cases, ultimately fostering a more equitable and nuanced criminal justice system.
Comments