Sentences of the appellant in different cases shall run concurrently.Provision of S. 497 CrPC expressly enables the Court to direct that.........

Provision of S. 497 CrPC expressly enables the Court to direct that subsequent sentence of the convict would run concurrently with the previous sentence. It has been clarified in section 397 Cr.P.C that the Court while analyzing the facts and circumstances of every case is competent to direct that the sentences of a convict in two different trials would run concurrently. The provisions of section 397 Cr.P.C. confer wide discretion on the Court to extend such benefit to the convict in a case of peculiar nature. In a situation like the present one, the Court of law cannot fold up its hands to deny the benefit of the said beneficial provision to convict because such denial would amount to ruthless treatment to him and would certainly jeopardize his life undergoing such a long imprisonment and benefit conferred upon the petitioner by the Court from death to imprisonment for life certainly evaporates if discretion of directing the sentences to run concurrently is denied to him rather would bring at naught and ultimately the object of the same would squarely be defeated and that too, under the circumstances when the provisions of S.397 Cr.P.C. bestows wide discretion on the Court and unfettered one to extend such benefit to the convict in a case of a peculiar nature like the present one. Thus, construing the beneficial provisions in favour of the convict would clearly meets the ends of justice and interpreting the same to the contrary would certainly defeat the same. The legislation under the provision of section 397 Cr.P.C. is quite compassionate having tender feelings and has empowered the courts to order the subsequent sentence to run concurrently to the previous sentence of a convict. This is the entire discretion and appanage of the Court to exercise its powers moderately and judiciously. When the universal principle of law is to be given effect in case of punishment, it is for the Courts to struggle and favour in order to interpret the law where liberty of convict is to be given preference instead of curtail it without animated reasons and justness.

Once the legislation has conferred the above discretion upon the Court then in hardship cases, Courts are required to take into consideration the same with immense seriousness to the benefit of a convict to minimize and liquidate the hardship treatment.

Extending the benefit of beneficial provision in favour of the petitioner would clearly meet the ends of justice, therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court observes that there is no wrong and harm in treating both the sentences of imprisonment for life of the petitioner to run concurrently.

In cases where sentences of convict in different trial have not been ordered to run concurrently rather trials, appellate and revisional courts are silent on this point, then in appropriate cases inherit jurisdiction of this Court in terms of section 561-A Cr.P.C. read with section 497 Cr.P.C. can be invoked, provided, of course, where the superior Court of Appeal specifically and consciously has not denied the benefit of provisions of section 397 Cr.P.C.

Crl. Misc. 729-M-24
SHER AFZAL VS STATE ETC
Mr. Justice Sadaqat Ali Khan
29-05-2024
2024 LHC 2860