SUNIL KUMAR @ SUDHIR KUMAR & Anr. v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

1.2 For what has been provided in Section 31(1) CrPC read with the expositions of this Court, it follows that the Court of first instance is under legal obligation while awarding multiple sentences to specify in clear terms as to whether they would run concurrently or consecutively. [Para 11][639-D-E] Nagaraja Rao v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2015) 4 SCC 302 : [2015] 12 SCR 424 – relied on.

1.3 If the Court of first instance does not specify the concurrent running of sentences, the inference, primarily, is that the Court intended such sentences to run consecutively, though, as aforesaid, the Court of first instance ought not to leave this matter for deduction at the later stage. Moreover, if the Court of first instance is intending consecutive running of sentences, there is yet another obligation on it to state the order (i.e., the sequence) in which they are to be executed. The disturbing part of the matter herein is that not only the Trial Court omitted to state the requisite specifications, even the High Court missed out such flaws in the order of the Trial Court. [Para 12][639-H; 640-A-B] A B C D E F G H 632 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 6 S.C.R.

#2. The ‘single transaction’ principle is essentially referable to Section 220 CrPC, which provides that if more offences than one are committed in one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction, then the accused may be charged with and tried at one trial for every such offence. In a given case, after such trial for multiple offences, if the accused is convicted and awarded different punishments, concurrent running thereof may be provided depending on the facts and the relevant surrounding factors. The principle related with ‘single transaction’ cannot be imported for dealing with the question at hand. [Para 14][640-E-F]