Bengaluru: Karnataka High Court has rejected a petition filed by a convict, seeking a direction that the sentences awarded to him run concurrently instead of consecutively under Section 427 of the CrPC.Section 427 of CrPC mandates that when a person already undergoing a sentence is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment or imprisonment for life, such imprisonment for life shall commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he has been already sentenced.Ramesh, a resident of KP Agrahara in Bengaluru, was arrested in 2016 in connection with a murder case. In 2019, whilst on bail, he was booked for threatening the witnesses. He was then convicted and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment in 2022. In the meantime, he was awarded life imprisonment in the murder case on June 1, 2023. On Nov 15, 2023, the sentence awarded in the second case, ie, threatening witnesses, was completed.As he had spent 10 years four months in prison as on June 3, 2026, Manjunath had moved the High Court seeking a declaration that the sentences awarded in both cases should be specified as running concurrently instead of consecutively.According to him, the second case had occurred whilst he was an undertrial prisoner, and both the cases were investigated by KP Agrahara Police Station involving the same accused person and they were tried within five months.On the other hand, opposing the petition, State Public Prosecutor BN Jagadeesha contended that the two offences are distinct.After perusing the materials on record, Justice M Nagaprasanna noted that the second crime the petitioner got involved in was in the year 2019 and the trial got completed fast.He was convicted on Aug 19, 2022. This crime itself was registered three years after the earlier registration of the crime. Five months thereafter, another order of conviction came out where he was awarded imprisonment for life. Without much ado, the interpretation of Section 427 of the CrPC cannot benefit the case of the petitioner, as they have not happened simultaneously. They may be springing out of one solitary case, though not stricto sensu, but the cause of action is entirely different, the judge further added while dismissing the petition.
