Life Sentences Cannot Run Consecutively With Each Other Or With Fixed Term Sentences: Supreme Court

The Court further held that an appellate court cannot enhance the sentence of a convict in his own appeal when neither the State, the victim nor the complainant has sought enhancement of sentence.

The Court was hearing criminal appeals challenging the Madras High Court’s judgment in a case concerning convictions under the IPC, where notice had been issued by the Supreme Court limited to the question of sentence.

A Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Vijay Bishnoi observed that “in the absence of an appeal preferred by the State or the victim or the Complainant seeking enhancement of the sentence, the appellate court cannot enhance the sentence of the convict on its own so as to leave the convict in a position worse off than he was prior to filing of the appeal.”

The Bench further observed that “a sentence of life imprisonment cannot be directed to run consecutively, either with another life sentence or with a fixed-term sentence.”

Advocate Payoshi Roy appeared for the appellant; AOR Vrinda Bhandari and AOR S. Gowthaman appeared for the respondent.

Background

The prosecution case arose from an incident in which a doctor, his wife and a watchman were killed. The prosecution alleged that the appellant and the co-accused entered the doctor’s residence, killed the watchman and the doctor, threatened the wife for valuables, abducted her, pledged her jewellery and later burnt her alive.

The Trial Court acquitted the appellant of some charges but convicted him under Sections 120-B, 449, 302, 392, 201 and 364 IPC. It imposed multiple sentences of life imprisonment and fixed-term sentences, directing all sentences to run consecutively.

The appellant challenged the conviction and sentence before the High Court. The proceedings against the co-accused, including the reference for confirmation of the death sentence, were heard with the appellant’s appeal. The High Court set aside the appellant’s conviction under Section 120-B IPC, affirmed his conviction under Sections 449, 302, 392, 201 and 364 IPC, enhanced the sentence to imprisonment for the remainder of natural life, and affirmed the direction that the sentences would run consecutively.

Before the Supreme Court, the appellant contended that the High Court could not enhance his sentence in the absence of an appeal by the State, victim or complainant. He also argued that, under Muthuramalingam v. State (2016), life sentences and fixed-term sentences could not be directed to run consecutively. The respondent argued that the High Court’s decision was in line with settled law and did not warrant interference.

Court’s Observations

The Court referred to Nagarajan v. State of Tamil Nadu (2025), which had followed Sachin v. State of Maharashtra, and reiterated that an accused’s appeal cannot result in the accused being placed in a worse position in the absence of a challenge seeking enhancement.

The Court noted that in an appeal filed by the accused, the accused may challenge both conviction and sentence, or only the sentence. Referring to the earlier ruling, the Court observed: “There is no doubt that the appellate court while maintaining the conviction can reduce the sentence and grant partial relief to an accused but in an appeal filed by the appellant-accused, can the appellate court not only affirm the conviction but go a step further and seek to enhance the sentence than what has been imposed by the Trial Court.”

The Court also relied on the principle that the right of appeal is both statutory and constitutional for an accused in a criminal case. The Court quoted Nagarajan, which held: “In our considered view, the appellate court in an appeal filed by the accused cannot while maintaining the conviction enhance the sentence. While exercising its appellate jurisdiction, the High Court cannot act as a revisional court, particularly, when no appeal or revision has been filed either by the State, victim or complainant for seeking enhancement of sentence against the accused.”

Applying that principle, the Court found that the High Court had exercised suo moto revisional jurisdiction and enhanced the appellant’s sentence even though there was no appeal for enhancement by the State or the complainant. The Court held that this was impermissible and illegal.

The Court then examined whether the Trial Court and High Court were right in directing the sentences to run consecutively. It relied on the Constitution Bench decision in Muthuramalingam v. State (2016), which had considered Section 31 CrPC and the legality of consecutive life sentences.

The Court noted that Muthuramalingam had referred to O.M. Cherian and held that where life imprisonment and fixed-term imprisonment are imposed together, they must run concurrently. The Court quoted the precedent: “There is no question of the convict first undergoing the sentence of imprisonment for life and thereafter undergoing the rest of the sentences of imprisonment for fixed term and any such direction would be unworkable. Since sentence of imprisonment for life means jail till the end of normal life of the convict, the sentence of imprisonment of fixed term has to necessarily run concurrently with life imprisonment.”

The Court further recorded that the appellant had been awarded life imprisonment under five counts and a fixed-term sentence under Section 201 IPC. Both the Trial Court and High Court had directed these sentences to run consecutively, which the Court found to be contrary to the settled position of law.

The Court held that the direction for consecutive running of sentences could not stand. It observed: “The Trial Court and the High Court awarded the Appellant a sentence of life imprisonment under Sections 449, 302, 364 of IPC and fixed-term sentences under Sections 392 and 201 of IPC which were directed to run consecutively. In light of the discussion above, we deem it appropriate to modify the direction affirmed by the High Court and hold that the sentences of the Appellant shall run concurrently.”

The Court also concluded that the High Court had erred both in enhancing the sentence and in affirming consecutive running of sentences.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s enhancement of the appellant’s sentence from life imprisonment to imprisonment for the remainder of natural life. It also modified the sentencing direction affirmed by the High Court and directed that the appellant’s sentences shall run concurrently.

The appeals were disposed of in these terms. Pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.

Cause Title: Gopi @ Sahaya Puruna v. The State, Rep. By The Inspector Of Police (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 880)

Appearances

Appellant: Advocates Payoshi Roy, S. Prabu Ramasubramanian, V. Swetha, P. Ashok and Chandra Kiran K.; AOR Vairawan A.S.

Respondent: AOR Vrinda Bhandari, AOR S. Gowthaman, with Advocates Abhisar Thakral, Akash Verma, Shivpa Taneja, Nilesh Ukey and C. Chinnappa

Click here to read/download Judgment