KAILASH SHANKER NAWEKAR (C.NO.6774) v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
Interpretation of Section 427 Cr.P.C. regarding Consecutive and Concurrent Sentences for Term and Life Imprisonment in Separate Trials.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-AUG:14177-DB
Decision Date: 02-04-2026
List of Laws
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; The Indian Penal Code, 1860; Article 226 of the Constitution of India
- Facts: The petitioner was convicted in two separate trials for distinct offences. In the first case (Sessions Case No. 100/2006), he was convicted for kidnapping and rape under Sections 363, 376, and 506 of the IPC and sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment. In the subsequent trial (Sessions Case No. 04/2007), he was convicted for the murder of a six-year-old girl, along with kidnapping and rape, and was sentenced to imprisonment for life. Having undergone over 19 years in jail, the petitioner sought a direction to treat the earlier term sentences and the subsequent life imprisonment as running concurrently to facilitate his premature release.
- Procedural Posture: The petitioner filed a Criminal Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad, seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent authorities to apply Section 427(2) of the Cr.P.C. to his sentences.
- Issue: Whether a convict who is first sentenced to a fixed term and subsequently sentenced to life imprisonment in a different trial is entitled to the benefit of concurrent sentences under Section 427(2) of the Cr.P.C. in the absence of a specific judicial direction.
- Holding: No, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit. The court held that the case falls under Section 427(1) of the Cr.P.C., meaning the sentences must run consecutively unless the court directed otherwise at the time of the subsequent conviction.
- Reasoning: The Court distinguished between sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 427 of the Cr.P.C. It reasoned that Section 427(2) is an exception that applies only when a person "already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for life" is subsequently sentenced to a term or life imprisonment. In the present case, the petitioner was first undergoing a "term sentence" when the life sentence was awarded, thus attracting Section 427(1). Under Section 427(1), the default rule is that the subsequent sentence commences after the expiration of the first, unless the court exercises its discretion to order concurrency. Furthermore, the Court noted that given the gruesome nature of the crimes (rape and murder of a minor), it was not a fit case to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 to grant concurrency where the trial court had not provided such a direction.
🔒 For Members Only