Kakade, J.:
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
2. Heard both sides.
3. Can a person - bestowed with only one life span - be subjected to the sentence of two life imprisonments consecutively under different counts tried in the same case for same incident This is the question raised in this writ petition filed by the petitioner convict who was tried and convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai, in Sessions Case No. 1015 of 1989.
It would be just and proper on our part to refer to the facts involved, briefly, in order to appreciate the issue involved in proper perspective. The petitioner was arrested by the police for offence of murder of his distant relative's wife on 27.6.1989 by throttling her neck violently and robbing of gold ornaments and diamonds totally valued at Rs. 2,62,000/-. He was arrested on 13.7.1989 at Vadodara and since then he is in prison. He was charged with offences punishable under Sections 302, 392 and 394 of I. P. C. The prosecution proved that the accused was responsible for death of Mrs. Sonal Shah and it was homicidal death which occurred on 27.6,1989 and was also held responsible for robbery of diamonds worth Rs. 2,62,000/- and for hurting Mrs. Sonal Shah in the course of the robbery. Needless to mention that all the acts were in the same incident.
4. The learned Sessions Judge, after holding the petitioner guilty, passed following order :-
'The Accused is held guilty, convicted and sentenced under Section 302 I. P. C for life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo R. I. for one year more.
The accused is also held guilty, convicted and sentenced under Section 392 I. P. C. for ten years' R. I. and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo R. I. for one year more.
The accused is also held guilty, convicted and sentenced under Section 394 I. P. C. for life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. for one year more.
The substantive sentences not to run concurrently.'
The petitioner did not file any appeal.
5. Therefore, it is dear that for the same act/incident the petitioner has been convicted under different counts i. e. for three different offences i. e. under Section 302, 392 and 394 of I. P. C. i.e, after murder, robbery and for causing hurt while committing robbery. As noted above, the life imprisonment is awarded under two counts i. e. under Section 302 of I. P. C. as well as under Sec 394 of I. P. C. alongwith conviction and sentence of 10 years for offence under Section 392 of I. P. C. with direction that sentences shall not run concurrently, in other words, those are to run consecutively.
6. On this factual matrix, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that when the petitioner was sentenced for the offence under Section 302 of I. P. C. alongwith offence of robbery under Section 394 of I. P. C., then a separate sentence for imprisonment for life under Section 394 of I. P. C. is not sustainable because the punishment under Section 302 of I. P. C. covers the act of causing injury while committing robbery. It was also urged that sentences passed should run concurrently as they emerge from one and the same offence because a person cannot be imprisoned for life imprisonment twice for the same offence. For this purpose, reliance was put on the provisions of Section 427(2) of Cr. P. C. which stipulates that, when a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment or imprisonment for life, such imprisonment or imprisonment for life shall commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he has been previously sentenced, unless the Court directs that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence. The learned counsel also sought to put reliance on various judgments of the Apex Court as well as the ruling of the Karnataka High Court in the case of State by Piriyapatna Police v. Mota alias Motta s/o Madiah and Anr. 2000 Cr. L. J. 4414 in support of his submissions.
7. The genesis of all that is urged and ruled by the various cases including the Apex Court, has to be taken into account. It must be noted that the Supreme Court has consistently recorded the fact that life imprisonment means that the convict is required to remain in jail for the rest of his life. The Court was conscious of the provisions of Section 433-A of Cr. P. C. and all other provisions in the Jail Manuals, Rules and Regulations and the constitutional provisions whereunder for variety of reasons the period of imprisonment gets considerably reduced. Regarding this fact, the unanimous view emerges to the effect that, when the expression 'life imprisonment' is used, that do signify the convict to require to undergo imprisonment for the rest of his or her life but the law also recognises the fact that this period may be either considerably reduced or pre-maturity terminated for variety of reasons. The point in issue is really as to whether the Court pronouncing the sentence of life imprisonment is entitled to take into account the later consideration and after an indepth consideration of law on different occasions the Supreme Court has in unequivocal terms laid down that the life imprisonment is life imprisonment and nothing less than that Under the circumstances, it must be pointed out that Section 427(2) of Cr. P. C. has consciously made a provision bringing it to the notice of the Court that, if an accused who is undergoing life imprisonment is subsequently awarded a sentence of minor imprisonment, then the sentences will have to be made to run concurrently. Apart from the normal argument that the human being has only one life span and if the remainder of that life span has to be spent in jail, then there can be no question of directing that the remaining life sentences would have to run consecutively because otherwise it would lead to an infructuous situation whereby the remaining sentences cannot be carried out Therefore, it must be held that the operative part of the impugned judgment which prescribed to life imprisonments to run consecutively is required to be modified to the limited extent In that, it will have to be directed that the life imprisonment should run concurrently.
It also cannot be overlooked that the learned Sessions Judge has not recorded any reasons as to why he has taken the view to direct the sentences not to run concurrently, nor the facts involved would warrant any departure from established legal principles.
8. Therefore, in sum and substance, and on the basis of the consistent interpretation by the Supreme Court of the definition of the term 'life imprisonment' as being synonymous with the incarceration for whole of the remainder of convict's life, read with provision of Section 427(2) of Cr. P. C., we accept the position that the correct direction from the Court would be that the sentences awarded in this case are required to run concurrently.
10. Therefore, in view of this legal position, Rule is made absolute. The order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai, stands modified only to the extent that the substantive sentences awarded against the petitioner shall run concurrently. Rest of the order stands good in law.