'Every Sinner Has A Future': Orissa HC Bars Consecutive Sentences, Grants Probation

Cuttack: The Orissa High Court at Cuttack has held that a court cannot direct sentences for two or more offences to run consecutively where the offences arise out of a single transaction, with Justice V. Narasingh modifying the sentences awarded to a man convicted of house trespass and voluntarily causing hurt and extending him the benefit of probation.

The petitioner, Ramesh Chandra Behera, had approached the High Court under Section 401 of the Cr.P.C., 1973, assailing a judgment of the District and Sessions Judge, Kandhamal, Phulbani, which had partly allowed his appeal against a trial court judgment convicting him under Sections 451 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case was that the petitioner had entered the house of the victim and attempted to commit rape on her, and when her son intervened on hearing her raise an alarm, the petitioner allegedly inflicted injuries on the victim and her son with a crowbar, having earlier threatened to kill the victim. A charge-sheet was filed under Sections 451, 341, 323, 354 and 506 of the IPC, though the trial ultimately resulted in conviction only under Sections 451 and 323.

The trial court, disregarding the petitioner's prayer for release under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, had sentenced him to simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 451 IPC along with a fine, and to simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 323 IPC, directing that the substantive sentences would run consecutively. The Appellate Court, while affirming the conviction, reduced the sentence under Section 451 IPC to six months but maintained the direction that the sentences would run consecutively, and likewise declined to extend the benefit of probation.

Before the High Court, counsel for the petitioner faintly assailed the appreciation of evidence but principally sought release under the Probation of Offenders Act, while the Public Prosecutor, without seriously contesting the point, left the question of probation to be considered on the facts of the case. On the merits, the Court declined to interfere with the conviction, holding that no infirmity had been shown in the appreciation of evidence by the courts below.

Turning to sentencing, the Court found it "indeed baffling" that both the trial court and the Appellate Court had directed the sentences to run consecutively despite the offences having admittedly been committed in the course of the same transaction. Examining Section 31 of the Cr.P.C., which corresponds to Section 25 of the BNSS, the Court noted that while the provision leaves the sentencing court with discretion to order sentences to run concurrently or consecutively, this discretion is structured by the "single transaction rule" recognised by the Supreme Court in O.M. Cherian alias Thankachan v. State of Kerala & Ors., which in turn reiterated the earlier ruling in Mohd. Akhtar Hussain v. Collector of Customs.

The basic rule of thumb over the years has been the so-called single transaction rule for concurrent sentences. If a given transaction constitutes two offences under two enactments generally, it is wrong to have consecutive sentences. It is proper and legitimate to have concurrent sentences. But this rule has no application if the transaction relating to offences is not the same or the facts constituting the two offences are quite different.

The Court also referred to Nagaraja Rao v. CBI on the need to weigh mitigating factors while deciding whether sentences should run concurrently or consecutively, and invoked the reformative ethos of Indian criminal jurisprudence, recalling Oscar Wilde's observation that every saint has a past and every sinner a future. Reproducing with reverence the words of Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer in Mohammad Giasuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh on the therapeutic, rather than retributive, purpose that sentencing ought to serve, the Court quoted the following passage from that judgment.

The infliction of harsh and savage punishment is thus a relic of past and regressive times. The human today views sentencing as a process of reshaping a person who has deteriorated into criminality and the modern community has a primary stake in the rehabilitation of the offender as a means of social defense. We, therefore, consider a therapeutic, rather than an "in terrorem" outlook, should prevail in our Criminal Courts, since brutal incarceration of the person merely produces laceration of his mind. In the words of George Bernard Shaw: "If you are to punish a man retributively, you must injure him. If you are to reform him, you must improve him and, men are not improved by injuries."

Applying these principles, and reading Section 31 of the Cr.P.C. along with Section 235(2) of the Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Sections 25 and 258(2) of the BNSS respectively), the Court held that the courts below, having been oblivious to the salutary principles of sentencing, were not justified in directing the sentences to run consecutively for offences committed in the course of the same transaction. It accordingly modified the sentences to run concurrently, and, in the peculiar facts of the case, set aside the fine of Rs.1,000/- imposed on the petitioner and directed that it be treated as compensation under Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act.

On the question of probation, the Court relied on the Supreme Court's recent guidelines in Chellammal v. State represented by the Inspector of Police, which cast a duty on courts to record reasons for not resorting to the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Holding that the sentence imposed did not suffer from any disqualification under Section 4(1) of the Act, the Court extended the benefit of probation to the petitioner, directing his release on such conditions as may be settled by the trial court, and further directed him to deposit the compensation of Rs.1,000/- within six months, failing which the amount would be recovered as a fine under Sections 386 and 387 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, corresponding to Sections 461 and 462 of the BNSS, 2023.

The Criminal Revision was accordingly disposed of.

Appearances:

For Petitioner: Mr. A.K. Sahoo, Advocate.

For Opposite Party: Mr. C.R. Swain, AGA.

Case Title: Ramesh Chandra Behera vs. State of Orissa, CRLREV No. 305 of 2026