The 20-year sentence handed over to Dera Sacha Sauda chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh in two rape cases is a reflective of an increasing trend in the lower judiciary to order the jail terms to run consecutive rather than concurrent.
The decisions, however, continue to be a matter of debate. Even legal luminaries and experts insist that utter confusion continues to prevail on the interpretation of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973.
A section of lawyers insist that the court cannot grant 20 years of aggregate punishment as Section 31 (2) (a) of CrPC clearly provides that in no case shall a person ordered consecutive imprisonments can be sentenced for a longer period than 14 years. Others disagree.
In Ram Rahim’s case, the issue is expected to be raked up by the defence before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
The Special CBI Judge Jagdeep Singh, on Monday, sentenced self-styled godman 10-year sentence each in two rape cases besides Rs 30 lakh fine, out of Rs 14 each is to be given as compensation to two rape victims.
Ram Rahim’s conviction came after over 15-year-long criminal trial on the charges of rape and criminal intimidation.
Appreciating the CBI Court for “wisely executing” the power conferred upon it under CrPC’s Section 31(1) by awarding consecutive punishment in a single trial, a High Court lawyer Hemant Kumar questioned whether the CBI court can grant 20 years of aggregate punishment to the Dera chief.
“Section 31 (2) (a) of Code of Criminal Procedure clearly provides that in no case shall a person who is sentenced to consecutive imprisonments can be sentenced for a longer period than 14 years,” he said.
Former Judge of Kerala High Court Justice V Ramkumar, in his write-up ‘Mechanics and Philosophy of Section 31 CrPC’, has noted that the 14-year limit applies only to a case of consecutive sentence imposed by the courts of limited sentencing jurisdiction like the Magistrate Courts and Assistant Sessions Court, “but not to the High Court or a Court of Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge which are courts having unlimited sentencing power”.
A High Court lawyer practicing on the criminal side, Tanu Bedi, agrees with Justice Ramkumar’s point of view on the issue. “The bar is for judicial magistrates and chief judicial magistrates and not sessions judge,” he said.
At the same time, Justice Ramkumar pointed that the Supreme Court, at many times, has applied the 14-year limit to the trials held by the Sessions Judges and Additional Sessions Judges, and had directed that the sentences imposed should run concurrently and not consecutively.
Another legal expert, who did not wish to be named, quoted 2007 case — Chatar Singh versus State of MP wherein the apex court set aside the rigorous imprisonment for 20 years in aggregate ruling that proviso appended to said Section 31 clearly mandate that the accused could not have been sentenced to imprisonment for a period longer than 14 years.
The expert pointed that the aggregate of various sentences imposed in one trial is subject to two kinds of maximum limits, that is: it should not exceed 14 years, and secondly, it cannot exceed twice the maximum awardable by the sentencing court for a single offence.
Quoting another case decided on July 1, 2014, Duryodhan Rout versus State of Orissa, the Supreme Court relied upon Chatar Singh versus State of MP and held that Section 31 relates to sentence in cases of conviction of several offences at one trial.
Proviso to sub-Section (2) to Section 31 lays down the embargo whether the aggregate punishment of prisoner is for a period of longer than 14 years, the expert noted.