E-Paper
Multiple life terms cannot run one after another: SC
The Supreme Court on Tuesday held that courts cannot direct multiple life terms for different offences in a single trial to run consecutively, ruling that the sentences must instead be superimposed over each other to ensure that remission or commutation granted in one does not automatically extend to the other.
Prefer HTon Google
The Supreme Court on Tuesday held that courts cannot direct multiple life terms for different offences in a single trial to run consecutively, ruling that the sentences must instead be superimposed over each other to ensure that remission or commutation granted in one does not automatically extend to the other.
A bench of justices KV Viswanathan and Arun Palli set aside a direction requiring a man convicted of rape and murder of a 12-year-old girl to serve two life sentences consecutively, noting that such a direction was contrary to the settled legal position laid down by a Constitution bench in 2016.
“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,” said the court, reiterating the principle laid down in Muthuramalingam Vs State (2016).
The bench clarified that the sentences must be superimposed over each other, meaning that any remission or commutation granted by the competent authority in respect of one sentence would not automatically result in remission of the sentence imposed for the other offence.
The ruling came in the appeal filed by Raju Shantaram Koli, who was convicted in 2013 by a Thane sessions court for the 2010 rape and murder of a 12-year-old girl. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and another life term for rape under Section 376, with the trial court directing the sentences to run consecutively rather than concurrently. The Bombay high court upheld the direction in 2016.
In a judgment authored by Justice Viswanathan, the Supreme Court held that the legal position on consecutive life sentences had already been settled by the Constitution bench in Muthuramalingam, which had explained that life imprisonment ordinarily extends to the remainder of the convict’s natural life unless the sentence is commuted or remitted by the competent authority.
The Constitution bench had reasoned that requiring a person to undergo two consecutive life sentences would be anomalous because a person has only one life to live. It had also clarified that awarding multiple life sentences for separate offences is legally permissible, but directing them to run consecutively is not.
“The award of multiple sentences of imprisonment for life so that such sentences are superimposed over one another is entirely different from directing such sentence to run consecutively,” the earlier judgment had held.
Applying that principle, the bench partly allowed Koli’s appeal and set aside the direction that the two life sentences should run one after the other. It maintained the remaining parts of the trial court’s conviction and sentencing order, including the fines imposed for the offences.
The court specifically directed that the life sentence for murder and the life sentence for rape and wrongful confinement be superimposed over each other, so that remission or commutation of one would not automatically reduce the other.
