Gopakumar v. State of Kerala

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. Somarajan
Judgment Date: 2021-03-03
Court Decision / Holding: The Criminal Revision Petitions are dismissed; the sentences in the six connected cases shall run consecutively under Section 427 Cr.P.C.; no direction exists to run concurrently, and set-off or cross-case credit is not permitted except in overlapping circumstances.
Final Disposition: Criminal Revision Petitions dismissed; sentences to run consecutively.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Gopakumar, s/o Narayana Panicker

Respondents

State of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. V.A. Satheesh
• Sri. V.T. Madhavanunni

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor Ramesh Chand
• Sri. E.C. Bineesh

Case Synopsis & Summary

This High Court of Kerala heard six connected criminal revision petitions filed by Gopakumar challenging his convictions in separate cases arising from crimes registered at Peringome Police Station, Kannur. The petitions question whether sentences awarded across these distinct trials should run concurrently or consecutively, a matter that affects the total punishment. The petitioner relies on Benson v. State of Kerala (2007(3) KHC 882) to argue for concurrent execution, urging that a uniform approach to sentencing should apply given concurrent convictions and the overall balance of justice. The court begins by confirming that there is no reason to disturb the concurrent findings of conviction by the trial court and the first appellate court, and notes that the sentences confirmed on appeal reflect a proper balance between aggravating and mitigating factors. The pivotal issue then becomes the lawfulness of running sentences from different trials concurrently. Citing Section 427 Cr.P.C., the court explains that ordinarily, different sentences in separate trials shall run consecutively unless there is an explicit direction to run concurrently. No such direction was issued in these six petitions, and cross-case set-off or credit is not permitted except in overlapping circumstances. Accordingly, the court dismisses the revision petitions and holds that the six sentences must run consecutively.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 427 Cr.P.C.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Balance between aggravating and mitigating circumstances
Consecutive vs concurrent sentences; Section 427 Cr.P.C. prescribes consecutive sentences unless directed to run concurrently

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicants contended that sentences in the six connected cases should run concurrently, invoking Benson v. State of Kerala (2007(3) KHC 882) to support concurrent execution. They argued that concurrent running would reflect mercy in sentencing, prevent undue stacking of punishments across separate trials, and align with prior directions in similar matters. They pressed for set-off or intercase credit where appropriate, particularly where there is overlap or overlapping detention.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argued that Section 427 Cr.P.C. prescribes that different sentences imposed in separate trials ordinarily run consecutively unless the court expressly directs otherwise. No such direction existed in these six petitions. They contended that the legislative framework targets proportional punishment for distinct offences and trials, and cross-case credit is not permitted except in overlapping situations. They emphasized the necessity of balancing aggravating and mitigating factors while upholding the statutory scheme to prevent excessive sentences in multiple proceedings.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Benson v. State of Kerala	2007(3) KHC 882	Mentioned Only	Cited by the petitioner but not adopted by the court as controlling authority; the court relies on Section 427 Cr.P.C. and the balance of aggravating/mitigating factors.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 12TH PHALGUNA, 1942** **Crl.Rev.Pet.No.531 OF 2020** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRL.A 56/2019 OF SESSIONS COURT,THALASSERY** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 830/2018 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PAYYANNUR** **CRIME NO.280/1997 OF PERINGOME POLICE STATION, KANNUR** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED** **GOPAKUMAR, S/O. NARAYANA PANICKER, AGED 48 YEARS, MADIATH VEEDU, THIRUMENI P.O, THIRUMENI AMSOM DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT-670511** **BY ADVS. SRI.V.A.SATHEESH SRI.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI** ## **RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:** **STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM, THROUGH S.H.O PERINGOME POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 511** **PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAMESH CHAND, SRI.E.C.BINEESH** **THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.03.2021, ALONG WITH Crl.Rev.Pet.532/2020, Crl.Rev.Pet.537/2020,Crl.Rev.Pet.540/2020, Crl.Rev.Pet.541/2020, Crl.Rev.Pet.544/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Crl.Rev.Pet.No.531 OF 2020 AND CONNECTED CASES 2** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 12TH PHALGUNA, 1942** **Crl.Rev.Pet.No.532 OF 2020** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRL.A 60/2019 DATED 03-02-2020 OF SESSIONS COURT,THALASSERY** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 832/2018 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,PAYYANNUR** **CRIME NO.195/1997 OF PERINGOME POLICE STATION, KANNUR** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:** **GOPAKUMAR, S/O.NARAYANA PANICKER, AGED 48 YEARS, MADIATH VEEDU, THIRUMENI P.O., THIRUMENI AMSOM DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT-670511.** **BY ADVS. SRI.V.A.SATHEESH SRI.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI** ## **RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT** **STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM, THROUGH S.H.O PERINGOME POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT-670511.** ## **PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAMESH CHAND** **THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.03.2021, ALONG WITH Crl.Rev.Pet.531/2020, Crl.Rev.Pet.537/2020,Crl.Rev.Pet.540/2020, Crl.Rev.Pet.541/2020, Crl.Rev.Pet.544/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Crl.Rev.Pet.No.531 OF 2020 AND CONNECTED CASES 3** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 12TH PHALGUNA, 1942** **Crl.Rev.Pet.No.537 OF 2020** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRL.A 58/2019 DATED 03-02-2020 OF SESSIONS COURT,THALASSERY** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 831/2018 DATED 12-11-2018 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PAYYANNUR** **CRIME NO.211/1997 OF PERINGOME POLICE STATION, KANNUR** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:** **GOPAKUMAR, S/O.NARAYANA PANICKER, AGED 48 YEARS, MADIATH VEEDU, THIRUMENI P.O., THIRUMENI AMSOM DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670511.** **BY ADVS. SRI.V.A.SATHEESH SRI.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI** ## **RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:** **STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM THROUGH S.H.O.PERINGOME POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 511.** **PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.E.C.BINEESH** **THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.03.2021, ALONG WITH Crl.Rev.Pet.531/2020, Crl.Rev.Pet.532/2020,Crl.Rev.Pet.540/2020, Crl.Rev.Pet.541/2020, Crl.Rev.Pet.544/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Crl.Rev.Pet.No.531 OF 2020 AND CONNECTED CASES 4** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 12TH PHALGUNA, 1942** **Crl.Rev.Pet.No.540 OF 2020** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRL.A 59/2019 DATED 03-03-2020 OF SESSIONS COURT,THALASSERY** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 834/2018 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,PAYYANNUR** **CRIME NO.98/1992 OF PERINGOME POLICE STATION, KANNUR** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:** **GOPAKUMAR, S/O NARAYANA PANICKER, AGED 48 YEARS, MADIATH VEEDU, THIRUMENI.P.O, THIRUMENI AMSOM DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT-670511.** **BY ADVS. SRI.V.A.SATHEESH SRI.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI** ## **RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:** **STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM THROUGH S.H.O,PERINGOME POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT-670511.** ## **PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAMESH CHAND** **THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.03.2021, ALONG WITH Crl.Rev.Pet.531/2020, Crl.Rev.Pet.532/2020,Crl.Rev.Pet.537/2020, Crl.Rev.Pet.541/2020, Crl.Rev.Pet.544/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Crl.Rev.Pet.No.531 OF 2020 AND CONNECTED CASES 5** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 12TH PHALGUNA, 1942** **Crl.Rev.Pet.No.541 OF 2020** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRL.A 55/2019 DATED 03-03-2020 OF SESSIONS COURT,THALASSERY** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 833/2018 DATED 13-11-2018 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,PAYYANNUR** **CRIME NO.307/1997 OF PERINGOME POLICE STATION , KANNUR** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:** **GOPAKUMAR, S/O. NARAYANA PANICKER, AGED 48 YEARS, MADIATH VEEDU, THIRUMENI P.O, THIRUMENI AMSOM DEOM, KANNUR DISTRICT 670 511** **BY ADVS. SRI.V.A.SATHEESH SRI.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI** ## **RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:** **STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM 682 031 THROUGH S.H.O PERINGOME POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT 670 511** ## **PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.E.C.BINEESH** **THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.03.2021, ALONG WITH Crl.Rev.Pet.531/2020, Crl.Rev.Pet.532/2020,Crl.Rev.Pet.537/2020, Crl.Rev.Pet.540/2020, Crl.Rev.Pet.544/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Crl.Rev.Pet.No.531 OF 2020 AND CONNECTED CASES 6** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 12TH PHALGUNA, 1942** **Crl.Rev.Pet.No.544 OF 2020** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRL.A 57/2019 DATED 03-03-2020 OF SESSIONS COURT,THALASSERY** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 862/2018 DATED 12-11-2018 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,PAYYANNUR** **CRIME NO.276/1997 OF PAZHAYANGADI POLICE STATION, KANNUR** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:** **GOPAKUMAR, S/O NARAYANA PANICKER, AGED 48 YEARS, MADIATH VEEDU,THIRUMENI.P.O, THIRUMENI AMSOM DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT-670511.** **BY ADVS. SRI.V.A.SATHEESH SRI.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI** ## **RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:** **STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM, THROUGH S.H.O.PERINGOME POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT-670511.** ## **PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAMESH CHAND** **THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.03.2021, ALONG WITH Crl.Rev.Pet.531/2020, Crl.Rev.Pet.532/2020,Crl.Rev.Pet.537/2020, Crl.Rev.Pet.540/2020, Crl.Rev.Pet.541/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Crl.Rev.Pet.No.531 OF 2020 AND CONNECTED CASES 7** ## **ORDER** The accused, who is a convict in six cases came up challenging the conviction and sentence awarded mainly on the reason that the sentence awarded in various cases was not allowed to run concurrently and took reliance from **Benson v.** ## **State of Kerala (2007(3) KHC 882).** 2. There is no reason for interfering with the concurrent finding of conviction by both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. The sentence awarded and confirmed in appeal reflects a proper balance between the aggravating and mitigating circumstances. 3. In all these cases, there is a direction to run the substantive sentence concurrently. Set off was also allowed. Now the issue taken up is whether the sentence awarded under different trial pertaining to different cases should run concurrently or consecutively. It is not **Crl.Rev.Pet.No.531 OF 2020 AND CONNECTED CASES 8** permissible either to grant set off or to credit the period of detention in a particular case to another case except in the case of an overlapping. Section 427 Cr.P.C. makes the legal position clear that the different sentence ordered in different trial shall run consecutively, unless the court directs that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with the previous one. No such direction was issued. As such, the sentence awarded in different cases (altogether six cases) shall run consecutively. The Criminal Revision Petitions are dismissed. ## **Sd/-** **P.SOMARAJAN** **JUDGE** msp