S.K. Kulshrestha, J.
1. The above appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 5-12-96 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sohagpur, in S.T. No. 35/95, by which appellant Mota @ Nandkishore and Chhinga @ Jhalkan have been convicted under Section 302 of the IPC for committing murder of Mohan and sentenced to imprisonment for life and appellant Tulsiram and Chhinga have been convicted under Section 302 for committing murder of Chhidami. Appellant Mota @ Nandkishore has also been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC of the murder of Chhidami. The sentences awarded to accused Mota @ Nandkishore and Chhinga @ Jhalkan have been directed to run consecutively.
2. The case relates to the murder of Mohan and Chhidami. According to the prosecution, on 22-7-94 at about 7.30 p.m. in Village Murgidhana, accused Mota @ Nandkishore had gone to the house of deceased Mohan to recover the amount for taking his goats for grazing. Mohan asked for some time to pay the same but accused Mota insisted on immediate payment and there ensued a quarrel between the two. Brothers of accused Mota namely Chhinga @ Jhalkan, Kanhaiya and Hiralal joined Mota @ Nandkishore and started belabouring Mohan. When Mohan's wife Saroj called for help, his brother Chhidami rushed to the place but at that time brother of Mohan namely Babulal also arrived. When Chhidami asked the reason for assaulting his brother, Mota @ Nandkishore assaulted him with Gandasi (sharp weapon), Chhinga assaulted with Farsi (an axe) and Kanhaiya and Hiralal with lathi. At this juncture Tulsiram arrived with an axe and rushed to assault Chhidami. Mota @ Nandkishore and Chhinga @ Jhalkan also started assaulting Chhidami. Tulsiram then delivered a blow of axe on the head of Chhidami with the result he fell down. Babulal rushed to his house and brought a lathi and the accused ran away. Babulal informed Mohan Kotwar about the incident. While the injured were being taken in a bullock-cart to P.S. Bankhedi, they died. Babulal lodged the report at the police station. Police prepared spot map, took samples of the blood stained and control earth, prepared inquest report and sent the bodies for post-mortem. The accused were arrested and weapons were seized from them. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed and the accused were prosecuted.
3. Accused were charged for offence punishable under Section 302 for causing death of Mohan and Chhidami; as also under Section 302 read with Section 34 for having caused the death in furtherance of the common intention. They pleaded that they had not committed any offence. However, on trial, the learned Judge while acquitting co-accused Kanhaiya and Hiralal, found the present appellants guilty and convicted and sentenced them as stated herein-above.
4. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that there was no intention to cause the death of Mohan or Chhidami and in the course of legitimate demand for the money due the incident suddenly developed. Therefore, it is not a case which would fall in the category of an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. Learned Dy. Advocate General, per contra, has submitted that the accused persons had dealt repeated blows and caused several injuries which signify their intention and therefore the conviction and the sentence awarded to them do not call for any interference.
5. In respect of the injuries inflicted on Mohan, the prosecution has examined eye-witnesses P.W. 3 Sarojbai and P.W. 8 Manohar. P.W. 3 Sarojbai has deposed that on that evening she was serving meals to her husband Mohan and her children when Mota came to the house and demanded money for grazing their goats. Her husband offered him to take wheat instead but he insisted on payment in cash. He then started abusing her husband and caused injuries on his chest by means of Gandasi. Accused Chhinga also joined him and assaulted her husband with a Farsa. She, therefore, called the elder brother of Mohan. Upon Chhidami's arrival accused Tulsiram assaulted him on the head and on his leg. Then her brother-in-law came with a lathi. Seeing him, these persons ran away. P.W. 8 Manohar was returning from his shop when he saw that Mohan was having discussion with accused Mota. Besides Mota, Chhinga, Hiralal and Kanhaiya were also present. Chhinga was armed with a Farsi, Mota with a Gandasi, Hiralal and Kanhaiya, each with lathi. They started assaulting Mohan with the result Mohan fell down on the ground. Chhinga assaulted Mohan with Farsi on his chest and on his wrist.
6. P.W. 4 Dr. Anand Atulkar performed the autopsy on the body of Mohanlal and gave report Ex. P-4. He found the following ante-mortem injuries on the body :-
(1) Incised wound 11 x 21/2' from right side 2-3 intercostal space to deltoid muscle of left shoulder in front of chest, bone deep, blood clot present, wedge shape margin sharp sternum cut.
(2) Incised wound 8 x 1 1/2' in front of chest, 4' below the injury No. 1, wound extend right border of sternum to left sided ribs 4th and 5th injury bone deep.
(3) Incised wound 3 x 11/2' right forearm, lower l/3rd of forearm. Radial bone cut, right hand is hanging with arm with flap of muscle.
(4) Incised wound 4 x 2 1/2' over back of the left arm, lower l/3rd of left arm muscle deep wedge shaped, vertically present, margin sharp clotted blood present.
In the opinion of the doctor, death occurred due to shock and heamorrh-age as a result of multiple injuries.
7. From the narration of the incident by the eye witnesses P.W. 3 Saroj and P.W. 8 Manohar and corroboration of their testimony by P.W. 4 Dr. Anand Atulkar and his report Ex. P-4, there is no room for the contention that prosecution has not been able to prove that the death of Mohan was caused by appellant Mota and Chhinga in the manner stated by the prosecution.
8. In respect of the death of Chhidami, the prosecution has examined eye witnesses P.W. 1 Babulal, P.W. 2 Parawatibai and P.W. 3 Saroj. P.W. 1 Babulal has deposed that accused Mota had been assigned the task of taking the goats of Mohan for grazing. He had, therefore, come to Mohan to demand the amount. Mohan offered him wheat but he insisted on cash payment. When the money was not paid, accused Mota started quarreling with Mohan and abusing him. The brothers of accused Mota namely Chhinga, Kanhaiya and Hiralal also arrived and therefore Saroj called for help and Chhidami rushed to the place. His brother Mohan was assaulted by Mota with Gandasi, Chhinga assaulted with a Farsi, Hiralal and Kanhaiya, each with lathi and Tulsiram assaulted Chhindamilal with axe, with the result Chhidami fell down. He is corroborated by P.W. 2 Parwatibai, who has stated that when she came out she saw Tulsiram dealing a blow with axe over the head of Chhidami. P.W. 3 Saroj also corroborated the other witnesses and states that when she raised an alarm her brother-in-law arrived but accused Tulsiram assaulted him with an axe over his head and on his thigh. The body of Chhidami was forwarded for post-mortem examination. It was examined by P.W. 4 Dr. Anand Atulkar, who in his report Ex. P-5 recorded the following ante-mortcm injuries on the body :-
(1) Incised wound 1 x 2' over parietal region, 5' above the right upper car lobe, muscle deep, wedge shaped margin sharp.
(2) Incised wound 5 x 1' on mid of scalp over parietal region 1/2' medially from injury No. 1, mid of skull under line parietal bone fractured, vertically present.
(3) Abrasion 3 x 1' in front of chest left side of chest 3' above the left nipple; subcutaneous tissue exposed.
(4) Lacerated wound 1 1/2 x 1' over right forearm, posterior laterally present 1' below right elbow.
In his opinion, death was on account of heamorrhage as a result of multiple injuries.
9. We have described the injuries to point out that ocular testimony finds corroboration from the injuries on the body of the two deceased and in view of the account of the incident rendered, it is clear that death of Mohan was caused by appellant Nos. 1 and 2 Mota @ Nandkishore and Chhinga @ Jhalkan while Chhidami was murdered by appellant Nos. 2 and 3 Chhinga @ Jhalkan and Tulsiram for which appellant No. 1 Mota @ Nandkishore was constructively liable. We, therefore, do not find any flaw in the impugned judgment calling for interference in the conviction of the appellants.
10. Learned Counsel for the appellants has, however, pointed out that the sentences of imprisonment for life awarded to the appellants have been made consecutive while the concept of imprisonment for life is the remainder of the natural life of the offender sentenced. Learned Counsel, therefore, submits that alongwith life imprisonment the other sentence should have been made concurrent.
11. In G. V. Godse v. State of Maharashtra : 1961CriLJ736a , the question arose as to what is the connotation of the sentence for life imprisonment. It was observed that:-
'If so, the next question is whether there is any provision of law where under a sentence for life imprisonment, without any formal remission by appropriate Government, can be automatically treated as one for a definite period. No such provision is found in the Indian Penal Code, Code of Criminal Procedure or the Prisons Act. Though the Government of India stated before the Judicial Committee in the case cited supra that, having regard to Section 57 of the IPC, 20 years' imprisonment was equivalent to a sentence of transportation for life, the Judicial Committee did not express its final opinion on that question. The Judicial Committee observed in that case thus at P. 10 :-
'Assuming that the sentence is to be regarded as one of twenty years, and subject to remission for good conduct, he had not earned remission sufficient to entitle him to discharge at the time of his application, and it was therefore rightly dismissed, but in saying this, Their Lordships are not to be taken as meaning that a life sentence must in all cases be treated as one of not more than twenty years, or that the convict is necessarily entitled to remission.' Section 57 of the IPC has no real bearing on the question raised before us. For calculating fractions of terms of punishment the section provides that transportation for life shall be regarded as equivalent to imprisonment for twenty years. It does not say that transportation for life shall be deemed to be transportation for twenty years for all purposes; nor does the amended section which substitutes the words 'imprisonment for life' for 'transpiration for life enable the drawing of any such all- embracing fiction a sentence of transportation for life or imprisonment for life must prima facie be treated as transportation or imprisonment for the whole of the remaining period of the convicted person's natural life'.
In view of the above observation of the Supreme Court, learned Counsel submits that since imprisonment for life is the remaining portion of the natural life of the convict, there can not be any other life sentence to run after the expiration of the first as the expiration of the first would be conterminous with the life of the convict. In this behalf, a reference has also been made to Section 31 of the Cr.PC which in proviso (a) restricts the consecutive sentence to a period of 14 years. Learned Counsel submits that under Section 433A of the Cr.PC there is an embargo on release of a life convict before he has served at least 14 years of imprisonment and therefore if the provisions contained in Section 31 Proviso (a) is harmoniously construed the sentence of life imprisonment can not be made consecutive with sentence of another life imprisonment.
12. As pointed out above, since the imprisonment for life awarded to a convict, in law, is incarceration for his remaining life, an imprisonment for life under another count at the same trial should, commence concurrently with the first sentence. This is also reflected by the spirit of the provisions of Section 427 of the Cr.PC, which reads as under :-
'427. Sentence of offender already sentenced for another offence.- (1) 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 :
Provided that where a person who has been sentenced to imprisonment by an order under Section 122 in default of furnishing security is, whilst undergoing such sentence, sentenced to imprisonment for an offence committed prior to the making of such order, the latter sentence shall commence immediately.
(2) When a person already undergoing sentence of imprisonment for life is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment for a term or imprisonment for life, the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence.'
13. In view of the above we are of the opinion that on account of conviction of the appellants on two counts under Sections 302, 302/34 of the IPC though it is permissible to award sentence of imprisonment for life on each count, the sentence awarded by the Trial Court has to be concurrent.
14. Accordingly, this appeal partly succeeds. While the conviction and the sentence awarded to the appellants are maintained, the sentences directed to run one after the other are made concurrent. Accused Tulsiram is on bail. He shall surrender to his bail bonds.