Page 1

NON - REPORTABLE  

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA   CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2063 of 2013 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 7707 OF 2013)

Manoj @ Panu       ... Appellant

               vs.

State of Haryana    ... Respondent

J U D G M E N T

V. Gopala Gowda, J.

Leave  granted.  The  application  for  bail  is  

rejected.  

2. This appeal is filed by the appellant 邦 anoj  

against  the  final  judgment  and  order  dated  

13.05.2013 passed by the High Court of Punjab &

Page 2

Crl. A.@ SLP(Crl.)No. 7707 of 2013

Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 1357-

SB of 2007 whereby the High Court has confirmed the  

conviction  and  sentence  passed  by  the  learned  

Additional  Sessions  Judge  (Fast  Track  Court),  

Bhiwani in Sessions Case No. 21-RBT of 2006  dated  

23.04.2007  for  the  offences  punishable  under  

Section 307 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (I.P.C. in  

short) and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and  

sentenced the appellant-Manoj as under:-

Under Section 307, IPC Rigorous  imprisonment  for  a period of ten years and  to pay fine of Rs.5000/-.  In  default  of  payment  of  fine  to  further  undergo  rigorous  imprisonment  for  a period of six months.

Under Section 25 of Arms  Act

Rigorous  imprisonment  for  a  period  of  three  years  and  to  pay  fine  of  Rs.2000/-.  In  default  of  payment of fine to further  undergo  rigorous  imprisonment for a period  of two months.

Under Section 27 of Arms  Act

Rigorous  imprisonment  for  a  period  of  three  years  and  to  pay  fine  of  Rs.2000/-.  In  default  of  payment of fine to further  undergo  rigorous  imprisonment for a period  

- 2 -

Page 3

Crl. A.@ SLP(Crl.)No. 7707 of 2013

of two months.

The sentences were ordered to run consecutively in  

terms of Section 31 of Cr.P.C.  

3. The  case  of  the  prosecution  is  that  on  

10.08.2005,  when  Satender  (PW-7),  with  other  

accused persons in some other case, was being taken  

to  judicial  lock-up  by  the  complainant-Head  

Constable Ram Kishan (PW-11) after producing him in  

the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, a  

voice was heard saying 溺 anoj, Anil is going, shoot  

him Thereafter, a boy shot Satender from the back  

side and the shot hit Satender on his right thigh.  

The assailants were chased and the person who had  

fired  the  shot  was  allegedly  apprehended  at  the  

spot  with  a  pistol.  On  inquiry,  his  name  was  

disclosed as Manoj @ Panu. On the basis of the  

statement of Head Constable Ram Kishan the PW-11,  

FIR No. 136 of 2005 for offences under Section 307  

IPC and under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act  

was registered. During investigation, it was found  

- 3 -

Page 4

Crl. A.@ SLP(Crl.)No. 7707 of 2013

that it was a case of mistaken identity as Satender  

(PW-7) was shot in place of one Anil. The injured  

Satender  was  sent  for  treatment  at  Government  

Hospital, Bhiwani. After preliminary treatment, he  

was referred to PGIMS, Rohtak.  

4. On  23.08.2005  the  injured  Satender  gave  his  

statement (Exh. DA) stating that on 10.08.2005 he  

was brought to the District Court, Bhiwani as under  

trial in the murder case of one Ramesh Masta. After  

his attendance in the court he was heading towards  

judicial lock-up with PW-11. On reaching the gate  

of the court PW-11 saw Pawan Masta alias Munna S/o  

Ramesh Masta and Rohtash Sharma (father-in-law of  

Ramesh Masta) and a boy who was standing in front  

of  them.   All  the  above  three  pointed  towards  

Satender saying he is the same boy. On this, the  

fourth boy present with them fired three shots at  

Satender (PW-7). Thereafter, all the three raised  

fingers and asked if result is seen,  鄭 njam dekh  

lia?”

- 4 -

Page 5

Crl. A.@ SLP(Crl.)No. 7707 of 2013

5. The  co-accused  Sudhir  was  arrested  by  the  

police on 31.8.2005. On 30.10.2005 the charge-sheet  

under  Section  173  Cr.P.C.  was  prepared  and  

submitted in the court of Illaqa Magistrate. The  

District Magistrate, Bhiwani issued sanction order  

on  31.10.2005  under  Section  39  of  the  Arms  Act  

pertaining to a pistol of .315 bore. It was also  

noted in the sanction order that the said pistol  

was recovered from the appellant. On 14.12.2005,  

the matter was committed for trial to the court of  

the  Sessions  Judge.  The  prosecution  listed  28  

witnesses  to  be  examined  against  the  appellant.  

However, the prosecution examined only 13 witnesses  

dropping 15 witnesses.

6. The learned Sessions Judge vide his judgment  

and order dated 23.04.2007 convicted the appellant  

under Section 307 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the  

Arms  Act  and  acquitted  all  the  other  accused  

persons. The Sessions Judge held that from every  

angle, the prosecution has successfully proved the  

guilt of the accused for the offence under Section  

- 5 -

Page 6

Crl. A.@ SLP(Crl.)No. 7707 of 2013

307 of the IPC, and that he has fired two shots at  

Satender with the intent of committing murder and  

as for offences under Sections 25 and 27 of the  

Arms  Act,  it  was  observed  that  it  has  been  

sufficiently  proved  on  record  that  the  accused  

Manoj was apprehended on the spot with a pistol  

along with 4 live cartridges.  The learned Sessions  

Judge vide order dated 23.4.2007 passed the order  

of  sentence  and  the  appellant  was  ordered  to  

undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years under  

Section 307, IPC and to pay  a fine of Rs.5000/-  

and  in  default  of  payment  of  fine,  to  undergo  

further rigorous imprisonment for six months, and 3  

years rigorous imprisonment each under Sections 25  

and  27  of  the  Arms  Act  and  to  pay  a  fine  of  

Rs.2000/- each and in default of payment of fine to  

undergo  further  rigorous  imprisonment  for  two  

months each. The sentences imposed were ordered to  

run consecutively on the ground that the accused  

Manoj  was  a  previous  convict  for  committing  an  

identical offence and in the present case, he has  

committed a very heinous crime of shooting in the  

- 6 -

Page 7

Crl. A.@ SLP(Crl.)No. 7707 of 2013

court premises and thus, it was ordered that the  

sentences imposed on him shall not run concurrently  

and the substantive sentences imposed on him shall  

run consecutively.   

7. Being  aggrieved  by  the  same,  the  appellant  

filed Criminal Appeal No. 1357-SB of 2007 before  

the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh.  

8. The High Court vide judgment and order dated  

13.5.2013 dismissed his appeal and confirmed the  

conviction and sentence passed by the trial court  

observing that the facts and circumstances of the  

case do not persuade the court to show any mercy in  

the matter of sentence on the accused as he has a  

tendency  of  repeating  commission  of  similar  

offences  in  the  court  premises.  It  was  further  

stated that the accused cannot be permitted to use  

the  court  premises  as  a  battle  ground,  and  the  

trial  court  having  given  cogent  reasons  for  the  

sentences to run consecutively in terms of Section  

31  of  the  CrPC,  the  High  Court  was  totally  

disinclined to reduce the sentence or to lift the  

- 7 -

Page 8

Crl. A.@ SLP(Crl.)No. 7707 of 2013

consecutive sentences passed by the trial court.  

Hence, the accused filed this appeal urging various  

grounds in support of the questions of law raised  

by him.

9. The grounds urged by the learned senior counsel  

for  the  appellant  Mr.  U.U.  Lalit  are  stated  

hereunder :-

It was submitted that the courts below have  

committed a grave error of law by convicting the  

appellant despite the prosecution having failed to  

prove the case against the appellant and having not  

considered  the  tender  age  of  18  years  of  the  

appellant as also that the appellant has already  

undergone almost six years of imprisonment. He also  

contended that as per the law laid down by this  

Court  the  punishment  and  sentence  for  offences  

under  a  single  transaction  should  have  run  

concurrently  and  that  in  the  present  case,  the  

firing incident pertains to a single FIR, and that  

the  courts  below  failed  to  understand  that  the  

- 8 -

Page 9

Crl. A.@ SLP(Crl.)No. 7707 of 2013

consecutive sentences awarded in the present case  

are disproportionate to the facts.  

The learned senior counsel for the appellant  

further contended that the courts below failed to  

consider the settled legal position and also the  

provisions  of  Section  31  of  Cr.P.C.  and  the  

decision in Chatar Singh v. State of M.P.1 wherein  it was observed that in a sentence for conviction  

for several offences, accused cannot be sentenced  

to imprisonment for a period longer than 14 years.  

Therefore, the order passed by the lower courts in  

sentencing the appellant for more than 14 years is  

not only perverse but also illegal and is liable to  

be set aside.

Reliance was also placed upon the judgment in  

Mohd. Akhtar Hussain alias Ibrahim Ahmed Bhatti v.  Asst. Collector of Customs (Prevention), Ahmedabad  & Anr.2 in support of the proposition of law laid  down by this Court on the issue of concurrent or  

1  (2006) 12 SCC 37  2 (1988) 4 SCC 183

- 9 -

Page 10

Crl. A.@ SLP(Crl.)No. 7707 of 2013

consecutive  sentences,  the  relevant  portion  of  

which is extracted hereunder :

“10.  The  basic  rule  of  thumb  over  the  years  has  been  the  so  called  single  transaction  rule  for  concurrent  sentences.  If  a  given  transaction  constitutes  two  offences  under  two  enactments generally, it is wrong to have  consecutive sentences”  

The same position of law was adopted by this Court  

in the case of  State of Punjab  v.  Madan Lal3 by  observing in para 5 that :-  

“5. The majority view in State of Maharashtra v.  Najakat  Alia  Mubarak  Ali4 was  to  the  similar  effect.  It was held in para 17 as follows:  

“17. In the above context, it is apposite  to point out that very often it happens,  when an accused is convicted in one case  under  different  counts  of  offences  and  sentenced  to  different  terms  of  imprisonment under each such count, all  such  sentences  are  directed  to  run  concurrently. The idea behind it is that  the  imprisonment  to  be  suffered  by  him  for one count of offence will, in fact  and in effect be imprisonment for other  counts as well.”

10. On the other hand, Mr. Manjit Singh, Additional  

Advocate General appearing for the respondent-State  3 (2009) 5 SCC 238 4 (2001) 6 SCC 311

- 10 -

Page 11

Crl. A.@ SLP(Crl.)No. 7707 of 2013

has  sought  to  justify  the  impugned  judgment  

contending that the High Court on re-appreciation  

of evidence on record has rightly concurred with  

the findings of fact recorded on the points raised  

and not interfered with the sentence imposed by the  

learned  Sessions  Judge  and,  therefore,  the  same  

does not call for interference by this Court.

11. We have heard the learned counsel for both the  

parties.  The  ground  on  which  the  appellant  was  

awarded the sentence which was to run consecutively  

was  due  to  the  previous  criminal  record  of  the  

appellant for a similar type of offence of shooting  

in the court premises, which charge was proved as  

per Ex. P-1. This is the basis on which the trial  

court considered the extenuating circumstances into  

consideration  to  impose  punishment  for  offences  

committed  by  the  appellant,  sentencing  him  to  

different  periods  for  each  one  of  the  offences  

committed by him. The sentences were ordered to run  

consecutively, and the same was upheld by the High  

Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. In  

- 11 -

Page 12

Crl. A.@ SLP(Crl.)No. 7707 of 2013

view of the aforesaid legal position laid down by  

this  Court  regarding  concurrent  and  consecutive  

sentences, the sentences imposed upon the appellant  

for different offences to run consecutively under  

the IPC and the Arms Act, are erroneous in law, as  

the same are contrary to law laid down by this  

Court as per the cases referred to supra upon which  

reliance  has  been  rightly  placed  by  the  learned  

senior counsel on behalf of the appellant.  

12. Further,  having  regard  to  the  age  of  the  

appellant at the time of committing the offences,  

we feel it would not be just and proper to allow  

the sentences to run consecutively. As the offences  

committed  by  the  appellant  have  been  committed  

under  a  single  transaction,  it  is  well  settled  

position  of  law  that  the  sentences  must  run  

concurrently and not consecutively.   

13. Hence, the appellant is entitled to the relief  

as prayed for in this case and the sentences are  

modified to run concurrently and not consecutively  

and for this reason, we hold that the sentence must  

- 12 -

Page 13

Crl. A.@ SLP(Crl.)No. 7707 of 2013

be reduced to 10 years in total with regard to the  

aforesaid settled position of law, as also keeping  

in view the tender age of the appellant on the date  

of the offence.  

14. The appeal is partly allowed in the above terms  

by modifying the judgment of the High Court, by  

reducing the sentence to 10 years in total, the  

remainder of which he must serve.   

     …………………………………J.

                    [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA]             

…………………………………J.          [V. GOPALA GOWDA]

New Delhi, December 9, 2013  

- 13 -