In Brief
The appellant was convicted of robbery (Sections 392, 394 IPC) in multiple cases and sentenced to consecutive terms of imprisonment. He challenged the High Court's refusal to allow sentences to run concurrently. The Supreme Court held that while sentences ordinarily run consecutively under Section 427 Crl.P.C., courts have discretion to order concurrent sentences in compelling circumstances. Considering the appellant's poor family background, his mother's serious illness, reformation potential, and total sentence burden, the Court exercised discretion to make sentences concurrent, remitted the fines due to poverty, and ordered his immediate release."
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.