 Good evening. And I can say after a lot of time, Justice V. Ramakmar, a former judge from Kerala High Court, would be sharing his sessions live. And that too on an interesting aspect, section 31, one of the CRPC, where it lays down that sentence and respect of conviction of several offenses at one trial, the manner in which it has to be done. That is the sentences for multiple offenses committed by a prisoner, how it has to be granted. This particular session, since it is in two parts, section 31, one and section 31, two. And three also. One, two and three. So we will take section 31, one in this part, section 31, one, two and three of their three parts. Two and three we will take next time. Right. Thank you everyone for staying connected with us. We get encouraged the manner in which you are encouraging the session. And if you actually like all our sessions, you can give a thumb up on the YouTube. And over to you sir and thank you for accepting our invite. Thank you Mr. Vikas. Good evening friends. We are today discussing the scope of section 31 clause one, section 31, subsection one of the code of criminal procedure. We are leaving aside clause of sections two and three for the next session. Now, let me first read the section 31 one CRPC. Section 31 has a title, sentence in cases of conviction of several offenses at one trial. In one trial, plurality of offenses, there's a conviction for plurality of offenses, more than one offense in one trial. What should be the basis for giving the sentence? That is the rule in section 31 one. Subsection one, when a person is convicted at one trial of two or more offenses, the court may subject to the provisions of section 71 of the Indian Penal Code, sentence him for such offenses to the several punishments prescribed therefore which such court is competent to inflict such punishments when consisting of imprisonment to commence when such punishments when consisting of imprisonment to commence the one after the expiration of the other in such order as the court may direct unless the court direct that such punishments shall run concurrently. Now, we'll see this subsection can be explained, the provision can be better elucidated by means of a concrete situation happening in a court. We will discuss a particular case so that when we apply section 31 one to that case, you will know the whole thing better. Now, I am going to give you the facts of a particular case. The prosecution version in that case is as follows. There are five accused persons, accused numbers one to five who had formed an unlawful assembly and they committed writing armed with deadly weapons like chopper, sword, iron rod, knives, etc. Then the case further proceeds. In prosecution of the common object of this unlawful assembly, A1 to A5 attacked one Rajesh and his friend Johnson at about 7pm from a public road. Rajesh died as a result of sustaining fatal injuries at the hands of A1 to A5 who also inflicted injuries including grievous earth on Johnson. Thereafter, the police after investigation and conclusion of investigation initially registered an FIR and after conclusion of investigation, they charged sheeted the first accused numbers one to five for the following offenses. Section 143 IPC is for being members of an unlawful assembly. Then section 147 IPC for committing writing. Then section 148 for committing writing armed with deadly weapons. Then section 326 for voluntarily causing grievous earth with dangerous weapons. Mainly on Johnson, his friend of Rajesh. Then section 302 for committing the murder of Rajesh. And lastly section 149 IPC for committing all the above offenses. Then section 302 for committing the murder of Rajesh. And lastly section 149 IPC for committing all the above offenses as members of an unlawful assembly. The session judge who tried accused numbers one to five for the aforesaid offenses convicted them of all those offenses. Each of the accused was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment and fine as follows. For the conviction under section 143 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for three months and fine. For the conviction under section 147 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine. For the conviction under section 148 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine. for the conviction under section 326 IPC rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and fine for this conviction under section 302 that is murder rigorous imprisonment for life that is life imprisonment plus fine. Then for the conviction under section 149 IPC rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and fine. Now one important aspect to be noted is judgment is silent as to whether the sentences of imprisonment should be suffered concurrently or consecutively judgment does not say. Now let us discuss a few questions only four questions. First question is what is the meaning of concurrent sentence and a consecutive sentence. Now concurrent sentence mean that the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the accused for more than one offense or to run concurrently that is simultaneously. There will be there will be convictions for more than one offense and there will be separate sentence for each of those offenses. Then the court will say the judges the the sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently mean simultaneously he need suffer all those sentences together they will run concurrently. Then consecutive sentence mean the sentence of imprisonment for fixed term awarded to the accused for more than one offense and they will have to be suffered consecutively. That is one after the other there is no concurrent undergoing there is no concurrent suffering of the sentence one after the other. In other words the sentence of imprisonment for fixed term imposed for one offense will commence only after the expiration of the sentence of imprisonment fixed for for the another offense. You undergo the imprisonment fixed for one of them after the expiration of that sentence they will come to the next sentence for the next offense will start. So after you on the accused undergo first sentence for one of them after his after undergoing that sentence the next sentence will start. So it is like a chain cumulative consecutive sentence that is why consecutive sentence is also called cumulative sentence. Now the rule under section 31 1 CRPC is that unless the court directs that the sentences of the imprisonment shall run concurrently that is simultaneously they shall always be consecutive. In other words if the judgment is silent regarding the mode of undergoing the sentence of imprisonment it shall always be consecutive to be undergone one after the other. This is the rule under 31 what? Now we pass on to another question in the present case which I have already read out to you. Was the sentence of imprisonment awarded to A1 to A5 consecutive or concurrent or neither of them? Was it consecutive or concurrent or neither of them? Because the court the judgment is silent as to whether the mode by which the sentence is to be undergone. The judgment does not say whether it is concurrent or consecutive. Now I have already answered that question. If the judgment is because unless the court says that the sentence of imprisonment shall be suffered concurrently it is consecutive. If the judgment is silent also then also it is consecutive. If the judge wants the sentences to run concurrently it has to be expressly stated so in the judgment. Third question, if the sentence of imprisonment awarded in this case is to be treated as consecutive what is the order in which each sentence is to be undergone by the accused? Now I have already told you the conviction is for 143, 147, 148 sections 326, 302 and 149. Now separate sentences have been imposed also. Which sentence should start first? Judgment is silent. This was not indicated in the judgment. The last portion of section 31-1 CRPC I have already read out to you. I will again read it for you. Such punishment when consisting of imprisonment to commence the one after the expiration of the other in such order as the court may direct. So the court has to direct the order in which each sentence is to be undergone, is to be suffered. That is missing in the judgment. Very often judges even I have been guilty of that in very many cases. I have never indicated the order in which this consecutive sentence should start. That is a requirement in section 31-1. This was not brought to my notice and I was also ignorant till the one judgment of Shibu versus state of Kerala. Then only I noticed the importance of those words in section 31-1. So every court imposing sentence of imprisonment making them consecutive should give a direction in the judgment itself regarding the order in which each sentence has to commence after the expiration of the other. In fact, this was highlighted by me in paragraph 18 capital A of Shibu versus state of Kerala. 2010, 4KHC, Kerala High Court cases, page 62. In fact, there is a tuition bench of the Kerala High Court holding that my view was not correct. But fortunately for me, a constitutional bench of the Supreme Court in Muturama Lingam versus state represented by Inspector of Police. AIR 2016 Supreme Court double 340 corresponding to 2016 volume 8 SCC 313. The FI judges, the author of the judgment is T.S. Thakur, Chief Judge, C.J. I. Then the other judges are F.M. Ibrahim Khalifullah, A.K. Sikri, S.A. Bobde, R. Banu Madhi. The constitution bench unanimously held that there should be a direction regarding the order in which each of the sentences should commence in a case of consecutive sentence. In fact, you may refer to paragraph 35 of Muturama Lingam. Now, we come to the last question. Supposing there was a direction in the judgment that the sentences of the imprisonment awarded to A1 and A5 shall run consecutively. After now, I have told you that there is a requirement that there should be a direction in the judgment as to which sentence should start first. So, supposing the direction in this case is that after each of the accused first undergoing the sentence of life imprisonment, would there be an illegality? Supposing the judgment says the sentences of imprisonment awarded to accused numbers 1 to 5 consecutively shall commence only after the accused first undergoing the imprisonment for life. After the life imprisonment, they shall suffer the other imprisonment for fixed term. Supposing there is such a direction. So, there is a direction now. There is a compliance of section 31-1. Can there be a such a direction is the question? No. There cannot be a direction. That will be illegal because such a direction is impermissible. The reason being a sentence of imprisonment for life means imprisonment for the whole of the remaining period of the natural or biological life of the convict. And not for 14 years or 20 years. There is a misconception that life imprisonment means only 14 years or 20 years. No. Life imprisonment means for the whole of the remainder of the natural life of the convict. He has to undergo that sentence till he dies in prison. Of course, there are the under the prison rules and the section 432 CRPC or 433. There are provisions for premature release etc. Unless the accused is prematurely released, he has to undergo the sentence till his death. That is life imprisonment. So, if the court were to direct that, the sentence of life imprisonment will have to be undergone first. And these sentences for fixed term will have to be undergone thereafter. Then the sentences for fixed term will have to be undergone by him after his death. Is it possible? He will have to undergo the sentences for fixed term in the nether world. This is also, in fact, for the legal position that imprisonment for life means entire imprisonment for the rest of the biological or natural life of the convict. These are the decisions. First was Kishori Lal vs. King Emperor, A.R. 1945, Previ Council, 64 by Lord Goddard. This was followed by the first constitution-benja decision of the Supreme Court in Gopal Vinayak Gotse vs. state of Maharashtra. A.R. 1961, Supreme Court, Page 600. A.R. 1961, Supreme Court, Page 600. Five judges, V.B. Gajendra Ghatkar, A.K. Sarkar, K. Subarao, his author, K.N. Vanchu and J.R. Mudolkar. Kishori Lal vs. King Emperor in 1945, Previ Council, Page 64 was followed by the constitution-benja. It was held that imprisonment for life means imprisonment for the entire biological remainder, life of the convict. If the court were to direct that sentence of imprisonment for fixed term shall be undergone by the convict. Only after undergoing the life sentence, the convict may have to undergo the sentences of imprisonment for fixed term after his death. There is no, there cannot be such a sentence. This was also highlighted in Shibu vs. state of Kerala 2010, 4 K.H.C. 62 by the Sambal cells. And they are virtually confirmed by the constitution-benjin Muturama Lingam vs. state represented by Inspector Police. A.R. 2016, Supreme Court, 3-3-4-0. Five judges, author of the judgment is Chief Justice D.S. Taku. So these questions will uncover section 31-1. I suppose that you have all understood the scope and the amplitude of section 31-1 here. Thank you, sir. I will just check it out as to whether we have any query. No, because it was so explained in such a good fashion that everybody understood the concepts. Or they have not understood anything. No, once you have explained with the judgments of the constitutional references, etc. So friends, do stay connected with us and those who want to watch the previous webinars of all the sessions which we have done, and especially of Justice Veeram Kumar, they can subscribe to the channel and watch them. And thank you, sir, for sharing our knowledge to the platform. And we would be waiting for the second session on section 31. Thank you, everyone. Have a happy weekend. And tomorrow we will connect with Shankar Muldi's session. Do stay connected with us. Thank you.