w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



A. Pushpaganthi v/s The State rep by its the Home Secretary (Prison), Secretariat, Chennai & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- AT HOME INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17211DL2001PTC112255

Company & Directors' Information:- V HOME PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL2001PTC109331

Company & Directors' Information:- G. P. HOME PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U70102MH2011PTC213056

    H.C.P. No. 1325 of 2020

    Decided On, 13 August 2020

    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. KIRUBAKARAN & THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE V.M. VELUMANI

    For the Petitioner: M. Mohamed Saifullah, Advocate. For the Respondents: M. Prabhavathi, Additional Public Prosecutor.



Judgment Text

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the respondents to sentences awarded Life Imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 IPC and Seven Years Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence under Section 380 IPC in Judgment dated 25.01.2011 in S.C.No.384 of 2010 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (4th Fast Track Court) Chennai "to run concurrently" instead of consecutively to the Detenu namely Anandan @ Ananda Venugopal S/o. Shanmugam aged about 43 years detained in Central Prison, Puzhal-I.)N. Kirubakaran, J.1. The matter is heard through "Video Conferencing".2. The petitioner's husband has been convicted in S.C.No.384 of 2010 by judgment dated 25.01.2011 by the trial Court and the same was confirmed in Crl.A.No.153 of 2011 by order dated 27.03.2012. The convict has been in jail for more than 9 years without any bad antecedent. While convicting the petitioner's husband, the trial Court held that the petitioner's husband was convicted once for life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 IPC and again for seven years imprisonment for the offence under Section 380 IPC, which would be undergone by the convict in consecutive terms. Aggrieved by that only, now the present petition has been filed to treat or modify the judgment as the consecutive life sentences directed by the Trial Court should be run as concurrently.3. Mr.M.Mohamed Saifullah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would argue relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Duryodhan Rout vs. State of Orissa reported in 2014 AIR SC 3345 and also the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Annathurai vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in CDJ 2018 MHC 4806 and another Division Bench judgment passed in H.C.P.No.229 of 2019 dated 26.08.2019. In the said judgments, it has been held that the judgment in which the consecutive term of sentences have been awarded by the Court, should be read as concurrently. Therefore, he seeks to allow this HCP.4. Mrs.M.Prabhavathi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents would oppose the petition.5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.6. A perusal of the records would show that the petitioner's husband was convicted in S.C.No.384 of 2010 by virtue of the judgment dated 25.01.2011. Para-51 of the said judgment reads as follows:“TAMIL”From the above, it is clear that the petitioner's husband was convicted for life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and seven years imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 380 IPC and the trial Court directed him to undergo the imprisonment consecutively. The aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the Division Bench of this Court would make it very clear that the consecutive sentences should be treated as concurrent one and the two convictions has to run concurrently and therefore, there is no necessity for undergoing consecutive sentences imposed by the trial Court. Para-11 of the judgment passed in H.C.P.No.229 of 2019 dated 26.08.2019 is extracted hereunder:“11. In the result, this Habeaus Corpus Petition is allowed and the consecutive life sentences directed by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, by judgment dated 25.11.2005 rendered in S.C.No.232 of 1996 will have to be run concurrently.”7. In view of the above said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as w

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ell as the Division Bench judgment of this Court, this Court has got no hesitation to allow this H.C.P. The consecutive sentences, i.e., life sentence and the subsequent sentence imposed by the trial Court namely, Additional District and Sessions Court (4th Fast Track Court), Chennai, in S.C.No.384 of 2010 dated 25.01.2011 will have to be run concurrently. Accordingly, this H.C.P. is ordered.
O R