Ramesh Chilwal @ Bombayya v. State of Uttarakhand

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: P. Sathasivam
Ranjan Gogoi
Judgment Date: 2012-07-20
Court Decision / Holding: Conviction confirmed; all sentences under IPC, the Gangsters Act, and the Arms Act to run concurrently; appeals disposed of; the judgment of the trial court as affirmed by the High Court is modified to reflect concurrent sentencing.
Final Disposition: Appeals disposed of; convictions affirmed; sentences to run concurrently; final order modified accordingly.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Ramesh Chilwal @ Bombayya

Respondents

State of Uttarakhand

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Gaurav Agrawal

Counsels for Respondents

• Abhishek Atrey
• Shivika Jain

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Supreme Court judgment addresses sentences awarded by a trial court in three connected cases: conviction under IPC Section 302 and life imprisonment; conviction under the Gangsters Act (Section 3(1)) with a 10-year term; and conviction under the Arms Act (Section 27) with a 7-year term. The High Court of Uttarakhand affirmed these convictions and sentences. On 9 April 2012, the Court issued notice limited to the question of sentence and whether the sentences should run concurrently. The appellant’s counsel highlighted the trial court’s ordering of multiple punishments and the absence of a consolidated sentencing framework. While the Court indicated it would not disturb the conviction details, it clarified that, in light of Section 31 CrPC, the life sentence for the IPC offense necessitates that the sentences under IPC, the Gangsters Act, and the Arms Act run concurrently. The Court thus modified the trial court’s order to ensure concurrent running of all sentences, affirmed the convictions as confirmed by the High Court, and disposed of the appeals accordingly. This ruling addresses how multiple adverse judgments in relation to a single offender should be harmonized through concurrent sentencing, ensuring that the aggregate punishment reflects a unified term rather than sequentially enforced punishments.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 302 IPCSection 3(1) of the Gangsters ActSection 27 of the Arms ActSection 31 of CrPC, 1973

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Concurrence of sentences under Section 31 CrPC

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant’s counsel submitted the trial court’s sentencing details and contended for the concurrent running of the IPC, Gangsters Act, and Arms Act sentences, emphasizing the need for a unified penal consequence given the life sentence under Section 302 IPC.

Contentions of Respondents

State counsel did not challenge the principle of concurrent sentencing; the Court’s focus was on clarifying that the three sets of sentences should run concurrently, consistent with Section 31 CrPC.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## [2012] 6 S.C.Ft 558 A # RAMESH CHILWAL @ BOMBAYYA _v._ STATE OF UTIARAKHAND (Criminal Appeal Nos.1072-1073 of 2012) B ## JULY 20, 2012 **[P. SATHASIVAM AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.)** > _Sentence/Sentencing: Conviction of accused-appellants under i) s.302 /PC alongwith life imprisonment; ii) s.213 of the_ C _Gangsters Act a/ongwith 10 years rigorous imprisonment and iii) s. 27 of the Arms Act a/ongwith_ 7 _years rigorous_ - _imprisonment Conviction affirmed by both High Court and_ - _Supreme Court Clarification given by Supreme Court as_ - _regards the sentencing part Held: Considering the fact that_ D _the trial court had awarded life sentence for offence u/s.302, /PC; in view of s.31, Cr.P.C., all the sentences imposed under the /PC, Gangsters Act and Arms Act would run concurrently_ - - > _Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s.31._ E CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1072-1073 of 2012. From the Judgment & Order dated 11.11.2011 of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Criminal Appeal Nos. 15 & 16 of 2006. F Gaurav Agrawal for the Appellant. Abhishek Atrey, Shivika Jain for the Respondent. The order of the Court was delivered G ## **ORDER** 1. Leave granted. 558 H # RAMESH CHILWAL @ BOMBAYYA _v._ STATE OF 559 UTTARAKHAND 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as for the respondent-State. A 3. On 9th April, 2012, this Court issued notice confining to the question of sentence only that too for clarifying that all the sentences to run concurrently. B 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has brought to our notice that the trial Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant in the following order: - i) The accused Ramesh Chilwal @ Bambayya is c convicted in Case Crime No.580/2004, Special Session Triable Case No.28/2005 under Section 302 l.P.C. and sentence for the rigorous imprisonment of life and a fine of Rs.1,00,000.00 (Rupees one lakh). In default for the payment of fine, D - he shall also serve a simple imprisonment for a · period of six months. Out of this Rupees One Lac, Rs.50,000.00 (Rupees fifty thousand) is awarded as compensation to the family of the deceased. - ii) The accused Ramesh Chilwal @ Bambayya is convicted in Case Crime No. 580/2004, Special Session Triable Case No.28/2005 under Section 2/ 3 [3(1)) Gangsters Act and sentence for the rigorous imprisonment of 10 (ten) years and a fine of Rs.50,000.00 (Rupees fifty thousand). In default for the payment of fine, he shall also serve a simple imprisonment for a period of four months. Out of this Rs.50,000.00 (Rupees fifty thousand), rupees twenty five thousand is awarded as compensation to the family of the deceased. - E F G - iii) Accused Ram.esh Chilwal @ Bambayya is convicted in Case Crime No. 737/2004, Sessions Triable Case No. 118/2005 under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentence for the rigorous H 560 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 6 S.C.R. A B > imprisonment of 7 (seven) years and a fine of Rs.25,000.00 (Rupees twenty five thousand). In default for the payment of fine, he shall also serve a simple imprisonment for a period of four months. Out of this Rs.25,000.00, half of the amount is awarded as compensation to the family of the deceased." 5. By the impugned order, the said conviction and sentences were confirmed by the High Court. C C 6. Since this Court issued notice only to clarify the sentence awarded by the trial Judge, there is no need to go into all the factual details. We are not inclined to modify the sentence. However, considering the fact that the trial Judge has awarded life sentence for an offence under Section 302, in view of o Section 31 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, we make it clear that all the sentences imposed under the IPC, the Gangsters Act and the Arms Act are to run concurrently. 7. While confirming the conviction, we clarify that all the sentences are to run concurrently. To this extent, the judgment E of the trial Court as affirmed by the High Court is modified. 8. The appeals are disposed of accordingly. B.B.B. Appeals disposed of.