Supreme Court: Life Sentences in a Single Trial Cannot Run Consecutively, Only Superimposed
The Supreme Court has held that life sentences awarded for multiple offences in a single trial cannot be directed to run consecutively. Instead, such sentences must be superimposed over each other, so that any remission or commutation granted by the competent authority for one offence does not automatically result in remission of the sentence awarded for the other.
The ruling came in a criminal appeal challenging a Bombay High Court Division Bench judgment in a criminal writ petition. The Bench of Justice Arun Palli and Justice K. V. Viswanathan referred to the 2016 judgment in Muthuramalingam and Others vs. State Represented by Inspector of Police and explained the correct legal position. "Life sentences awarded for multiple offences in a single Trial, cannot be directed to run consecutively. However, such sentences would be super imposed over each other so that any remission or commutation granted by the competent authority qua one, does not ipso facto result in remission of sentence awarded to the prisoner for the other," the Bench said.
The case dates back to 2010, when the appellant was arrested and taken into custody on allegations of rape and murder of a 12-year-old victim. He stood trial in a Sessions Case. The Additional Sessions Judge convicted him under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs 5,000. He was also convicted under Section 376 read with Section 342 of the IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs 5,000. The trial court directed that the substantive sentences run consecutively, one after the other, and not concurrently.
The appellant challenged the trial court judgment before the Bombay High Court. The High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence, including the direction to serve the consecutive sentences. It noted that the trial court had imposed consecutive sentences and said it would not interfere with that. Aggrieved, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court referred to the Muthuramalingam judgment, which held that while multiple life sentences can be awarded for multiple murders or other offences punishable with life imprisonment, they cannot be directed to run consecutively. The Bench held that life sentences awarded for multiple offences in a single trial would be superimposed over each other, so that any remission or commutation granted for one does not automatically result in remission of the sentence for the other.
The Bench partly allowed the criminal appeal. It set aside the direction in the trial court judgment in Sessions Trial No. 282/2010 dated 27.09.2013, as confirmed by the High Court, that the substantive sentences "shall run consecutively, one after other, and not concurrently". The Bench also directed that the life sentence under Section 302 and the life sentence under Section 376 read with 342 should be superimposed over each other, so that any remission or commutation granted for one does not automatically result in remission of the sentence for the other.
The cause title is Raju Shantaram Koli v. The State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1161). AOR M. Y. Deshmukh represented the appellant, while Advocate Bharat Bagla represented the respondent.
Source: Verdictum