Criminal Misc. No. M-27707 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Criminal Misc. No. M-27707 of 2009 Date of Decision:04.11.2009 Rajesh .....Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana and another .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- Mr. H.P.S. Aulakh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Kaushik, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. **** HARBANS LAL, J. This petition has been moved by Rajesh under Section 427(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking his pre-mature release by making the sentence of seven years under Section 376 of IPC and sentence of three years under Section 306 of IPC run concurrently. The brief facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner was arrested in case FIR No.85 dated 15.4.1995, Police Station Rohtak under Sections 376 and 306 of IPC. He was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Section 376 of IPC and three years under Section 306 of IPC by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, who did not record whether these sentences shall run concurrently or consecutively. In their written statement, the respondents No.1 and 2 have averred that the petitioner was convicted and sentenced under two different Criminal Misc. No. M-27707 of 2009 -2- sections and the trial Court has not directed both the sentences to run concurrently. That being so, this petition may be dismissed. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. The brief facts are that on 15.4.1995, the deceased Sheela had gone towards the village pond to respond the call of nature. She came back late from the pond and told that Rajesh (referring to the petitioner) had forcibly taken her to “Ghair” and raped her and she committed suicide by hanging from a rope. A careful delving into the judgment Annexure P.1 would reveal that both the offences in fact form a part of the same transaction. Section 71 of IPC reads as under:- “71. Limit of punishment of offence made up of several offences. -- Where anything which is an offence is made up of parts, any of which parts is itself an offence, the offender shall not be punished with the punishment of more than one of such his offences, unless it be so expressly provided. [Where anything is an offence falling within two or more separate definitions of any law in force for the time being by which offences are defined or punished, or where several acts, of which one or more than one would by itself or themselves constitute an offence, constitute, when combined, a different offence, the offender shall not be punished with a more severe punishment than the Court which tries him could award for any Criminal Misc. No. M-27707 of 2009 -3- one of such offences.] In Mohd. Akhtar Hussain alias Ibrahim Ahmed Bhatti Vs. Assistant Collector of Customs (Prevention), Ahmedabad and another, 1988(4) Supreme Court Cases 183, the Court upheld a contention that if a given transaction constitutes two offences under the enactments, generally it would be wrong to impose consecutive sentences. It is proper and legitimate to have concurrent sentences. The basic rule of thumb over the years has been the so-called single transaction rule for concurrent sentences. In view of the afore-quoted law, both the sentences inflicted upon the petitioner vide Annexure P1 shall run concurrently. Disposed of accordingly. November 04, 2009 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE