Featured image for Supreme Court Judgment dated 31-01-2020 in case of petitioner name Vicky @ Vikas vs State (Government of NCT of De
| |

Concurrent Sentencing in Multiple Criminal Cases: Vicky @ Vikas vs. State (NCT of Delhi)

The case of Vicky @ Vikas vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) revolves around the question of whether multiple sentences imposed in different criminal cases should run concurrently or consecutively. The Supreme Court had to determine if the appellant, convicted in multiple cases of robbery and assault, deserved concurrent sentencing based on his background and circumstances.

Background of the Case

The appellant, Vicky @ Vikas, was convicted in multiple criminal cases. On April 28, 2011, at around 10:25 PM, the appellant, along with a co-accused, Yamin @ Sohail, committed a robbery against Israr, inflicting injuries with a knife and taking away Rs. 2700/- and a mobile phone. An FIR (No. 67/2011) was registered against him.

During the trial, he was convicted under Sections 392 and 394 IPC (robbery and voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery). The trial court sentenced him to seven years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. Additionally, this sentence was ordered to run consecutively to his earlier conviction in FIR No. 64/2011, where he was sentenced under Sections 392, 397, and 411 IPC.

In an appeal before the Delhi High Court, the appellant sought that his sentences in both cases run concurrently. However, the High Court dismissed his plea, citing his criminal background.

Legal Issues and Proceedings

The key legal issues before the Supreme Court were:

  • Whether the appellant’s multiple sentences should run concurrently.
  • Whether his criminal background justified consecutive sentencing.
  • Whether his family and social circumstances warranted leniency.

Arguments of the Appellant (Vicky @ Vikas)

The appellant made the following key arguments:

  • He had already undergone 10 years of imprisonment in another case (FIR No. 64/2011).
  • He came from a poor background, and his family depended on him.
  • His mother was suffering from cancer, and his father was unable to support the family.
  • He had shown positive behavioral changes in prison and had potential for rehabilitation.

Arguments of the Respondent (State of NCT of Delhi)

The prosecution countered with the following arguments:

  • The appellant was a habitual offender with at least 16 prior criminal cases against him.
  • His crimes involved violent robberies and multiple victims.
  • Consecutive sentences were necessary to ensure deterrence and justice for the victims.
  • Given his extensive criminal record, allowing concurrent sentences would send the wrong message.

Key Observations of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court analyzed the case based on the following considerations:

  • The legal principle under Section 427 of the CrPC regarding concurrent vs. consecutive sentences.
  • Whether the appellant’s background justified leniency.
  • Whether allowing concurrent sentences would undermine justice.

After reviewing the case, the Court made the following findings:

  • The appellant had already served 10 years in one case.
  • His family’s financial condition was dire, and his mother was suffering from cancer.
  • The Probation Officer’s report suggested that he had shown willingness to reform.
  • Given these circumstances, his sentences should run concurrently.

Verbatim Court Findings

The Supreme Court, while modifying the sentence, stated:

“Considering the illness of the appellant’s mother, his family background, and his positive efforts towards reformation, this Court deems it fit to exercise discretion in directing that his sentences shall run concurrently.”

Additionally, the Court observed:

“This order is passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, and it should not be treated as a precedent in other cases.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appellant and modified the sentence:

  • His sentences in FIR No. 64/2011, FIR No. 67/2011, and FIR No. 263/2009 would run concurrently.
  • The fine of Rs. 10,000/- in FIR No. 67/2011 and FIR No. 263/2009 was set aside.
  • Since he had already served 10 years in FIR No. 64/2011, he was ordered to be released immediately.

Final Verdict: Appeal allowed, sentences made concurrent, appellant released.


Petitioner Name: Vicky @ Vikas.
Respondent Name: State (Government of NCT of Delhi).
Judgment By: Justice R. Banumathi, Justice A.S. Bopanna.
Place Of Incident: Delhi.
Judgment Date: 31-01-2020.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Vicky @ Vikas vs State (Government of Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 31-01-2020.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Custodial Deaths and Police Misconduct
See all petitions in Criminal Conspiracy
See all petitions in Judgment by R. Banumathi
See all petitions in Judgment by A. S. Bopanna
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments January 2020
See all petitions in 2020 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category

Similar Posts