Life Sentences Awarded For Multiple Offences In Single Trial Can’t Be Directed To Run Consecutively; Remission In One Won’t Result in Remission In Other: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court was considering a criminal appeal challenging the correctness of the judgment of the Bombay High Court in a Criminal Writ Petition.
The Supreme Court has held that the life sentences awarded for multiple offences in a single Trial, cannot be directed to run consecutively, but such sentences would be superimposed over each other so that any remission or commutation granted by the competent authority qua one does not result in remission of the sentence awarded for the other.
The Apex Court was considering a criminal appeal challenging the correctness of the judgment passed by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in a Criminal Writ Petition.
The Division Bench of Justice Arun Palli and Justice K. V. Viswanathan referred to the judgment in Muthuramalingam and Others vs. State Represented by Inspector of Police (2016), and explained. “The correct legal position, as set out by this Court in Muthuramalingam (supra) is, 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.”
AOR M. Y. Deshmukh represented the appellant while Advocate Bharat Bagla represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
In the year 2010, the appellant was arrested and taken into custody on the allegation that he committed rape and murder of a 12-year-old victim. The appellant stood trial in a Sessions Case. The Additional Sessions Judge, convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs 5,000. Further, the Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant for offences punishable under Section 376 read with Section 342 of the IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs 5,000. The substantive sentences awarded to the appellant-accused were directed to run consecutively, one after the other, and not concurrently.
The appellant challenged the aforesaid judgment of the Trial Court by filing a Criminal Appeal before the Bombay High Court. The High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant, including the direction to serve the consecutive sentences for the said offences. The High Court also noticed that the Trial Court had imposed consecutive sentences on the appellant and that the High Court would not like to interfere with the same. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant approached the Apex Court.
Reasoning
The Bench referred to the judgment in Muthuramalingam and Others vs. State Represented by Inspector of Police (2016) where it was held that while multiple sentences for imprisonment for life can be awarded for multiple murders or other offences punishable with imprisonment for life, the life sentences so awarded 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 by the competent authority qua one does not ipso facto result in remission of sentence awarded to the prisoner for the other
Thus, the Bench partly allowed the Criminal Appeal and ordered, “The net result is, the direction in the Trial Court judgment in Sessions Trial No. 282/2010 dated 27.09.2013, as confirmed by the High Court, to the effect that substantive sentences awarded to the accused “shall run consecutively, one after other, and not concurrently” shall also stand set aside.
The Bench also directed that the life sentence imposed for the offence punishable under Section 302 and the life sentence imposed for the offences punishable under Section 376 read with 342 should be superimposed over each other so that any remission or commutation granted by the competent authority qua one does not ipso facto result in the remission of the sentence awarded to the prisoner for the other.
Cause Title: Raju Shantaram Koli v. The State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1161)
Appearance
Appellant: AOR M. Y. Deshmukh, Advocates Manjeet Kirpal, Sanyukta Suryawanshi Adkar, D. Aswathaman, Atharva D. Kale
Respondent: Advocates Bharat Bagla, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, AOR Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Advocate Shrirang B. Varma