Table of Contents

The following landmark judgments explain the powers of criminal courts (Section 21-29 BNSS) in relation to sentencing, concurrent and consecutive sentences, jurisdiction of courts, appointment of judges, and the principles governing punishment under criminal law. These cases lay down important guidelines on how courts should exercise their judicial discretion while imposing sentences and conducting trials.

1. Gagan Kumar v. State of Punjab (2019) 5 SCC 154)

Held: Supreme Court held that it is a mandatory legal requirement to specify whether sentences awarded to an accused convicted for two or more offences, would run concurrently or consecutively.

2. Gokaraju v. Rangaraju (AIR 1981 SC 1473)

Held: It was held that Judgments pronounced by Sessions Judge cannot be challenged on the ground that his appointment was subsequently held to be invalid.

3. Kaushik Chatterjee v. State of Haryana (2020) 10 SCC 92)

Held: It was held that In case of trial of offences under special law, the offences shall be tried by the court specifically mentioned in the special law. If the special law is silent about the court by which it can be tried, then such an offence may be tried either by the High Court or by any other court by which such offence is shown in the First Schedule of Cr.P.C. (now BNSS) to be triable.

4. Malket Singh Gill v. State of Chhattisgarh (2022) 5 SCC 204)

Held: Supreme Court held that the Trial Court as well as Appellate Court has full discretion to order the sentences to run concurrently in case of conviction for two or more offences in consonance with the provisions of Section 31 of Cr.P.C. (now Section 25 of BNSS).

5. Premnath v. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1967 SC 1599)

Held: It was held that A civil judge cannot be invested with the powers of Additional Sessions Judge unless he is appointed as Additional Sessions Judge under Section 9 of the Code (now Section 8 of BNSS).

6. Ramaswarya Chakravarti v. State of M.P. (AIR 1976 SC 392)

Held: It was held that When determining whether a sentence is adequate, courts typically consider several factors, including the nature of the offence, the circumstances of its commission, the offender's age and character, the harm caused to individuals or society, the impact of the punishment on the offender, and the potential for their correction and rehabilitation, among other relevant aspects.

7. Sharad Hiru Kolambe v. State of Maharashtra (2018) 15 SCC 718)

Held: It was held that Default sentence must be in excess of or in addition to the substantive sentence. Concurrent running of default sentence inter se or with substantive sentence is not permissible.

8. State of Karnataka v. Raju (2007) 10 SCC 543)

Held: It was held that The sentencing system should be designed to either correct or deter, depending on the facts of the case. The sentencing process should be strict when necessary and lenient when warranted. Factors such as the nature of the crime, planning and execution, motive, conduct of the accused, and weapons used must be considered.

9. State of U.P. v. Kishan (2005) 10 SCC 420)

Held: It was held that The primary goal should be to safeguard society and deter criminals from violating the law by enforcing suitable punishments. Courts are expected to implement the sentencing system in a manner that aligns with society's conscience, ensuring that penalties are appropriately strict when necessary. Sentencing without taking into account its impact on social order may, in many instances, prove to be ineffective.