In Brief
Gagan Kumar was convicted by the Magistrate under Sections 279 and 304-A of the IPC and sentenced to six months and two years rigorous imprisonment respectively, with fines. The order did not specify whether the sentences would run concurrently or consecutively. The trial court, Additional Sessions Judge, and High Court all upheld the conviction. In the Supreme Court, the appellant successfully challenged only the procedural deficiency: the Magistrate's failure to comply with Section 31 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which mandates explicit specification of concurrent or consecutive sentences. The Court modified the order, directing the sentences to run concurrently, and upheld the conviction.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.