Sentences for Offences from Same Transaction Should Run Concurrently: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has clarified that when multiple offences arise from a single continuous transaction, the substantive sentences should generally run concurrently, emphasizing that judicial discretion under Section 31 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 must be exercised to prevent aggregate punishments from violating statutory limits.

A division bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja heard cross-appeals: one by the convict challenging his conviction for aggravated sexual assault of a four-year-old, and another by the State seeking enhancement of the ten-year sentence to the maximum possible under law.

While upholding the conviction based on the reliable testimony of the minor victim and corroborative medical evidence, the Court addressed the procedural lapse by the Trial Court in failing to specify whether the sentences for different offences were to run concurrently or consecutively. This omission had effectively resulted in an aggregate fifteen-year term, which the High Court found unsustainable.

Judicial Discretion and Section 31 CrPC

The Court highlighted that the legal obligation rests upon the court of first instance to specify the nature of the sentence. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "It is, therefore, legally obligatory upon the Court of first instance while awarding sentence to specify in clear terms in the order of conviction as to whether sentence awarded to the accused would run ‘concurrently’ or they would run ‘consecutively’. ... The said omission on the part of the learned Trial Court has resulted into the appellant suffering total aggregate imprisonment of 15 years, in case the sentence awarded to the appellant were to run consecutively, which is in violation of Proviso to Section 31 Cr.PC., and therefore, cannot be sustained."

Court Directions

The Court has the following directions:

"Hence, on an overall conspectus of the facts of the case and the settled legal principles and in the interest of justice, we hereby affirm the judgment of conviction and order of sentence of appellant/convict Yogesh Tanwar passed by the learned Trial Court and further direct that the separate sentences awarded under Section 6 read with Section 5/3 of the POCSO Act and Section 10 read with Section 9/7 of the POCSO Act shall run concurrently. The order on sentence dated 29th November, 2019 thus stands modified to the aforesaid extent."

Background:

The case involved the sexual assault of a four-year-old girl by her school cab driver in August 2014. The prosecution relied on the victim's prompt disclosure to her mother and medical findings from AIIMS showing hymen congestion and bruising. The accused was convicted by the Special Court (POCSO) under Section 6 and Section 10 of the Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 376(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

In the appeal, the convict argued that the victim failed to identify him in court and suggested tutoring. However, the High Court noted that identification via video link after a long lapse of time is difficult for a young child and that the driver's identity was established through the vehicle owner and the mother. The Court relied on Nagaraja Rao Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and O.M. Cherian @ Thankachan Versus State of Kerala & Ors. ( "(2015) 2 SCC 501": 2014 CaseBase(SC) 673) to reiterate that concurrent sentences are the norm for single transactions. Consequently, the High Court maintained the ten-year conviction but modified the sentence to run concurrently, dismissing the State's plea for enhancement.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRL.A. 199/2020 & CRL.A. 205/2022
Case Title: Yogesh Tanwar v. State and State of NCT of Delhi v. Yogesh Tanwar
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Shivek Trehan (DHCLSC), Ms. Manika Pandey, Mr. Akash Chandna, Advs.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Aman Usman, APP with Mr. Manvendra Yadav, Adv. for State; Ms. Taruna Ardhendumanli Prasad, Mr. Siddharth Kumar, Ms. Anusha Rathore, Advs. for the victim.

Source: 2026 CaseBase(DEL) 438