The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that multiple sentences of imprisonment for life awarded in a single trial cannot be directed to run consecutively, holding that such sentences must be superimposed over each other so that remission or commutation granted for one does not automatically extend to the other. The Court set aside the consecutive life sentences imposed on the appellant for offences under Sections 302 and 376 read with 342 of the Indian Penal Code, modifying the operative order to reflect superposition while preserving the convictions and fines.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Raju Shantaram Koli, was convicted and sentenced to two consecutive terms of life imprisonment for the rape and murder of a 12-year-old victim. The central dispute before the Supreme Court was whether the Trial Court and the High Court were justified in directing the two life sentences to run consecutively in a single trial, or whether the law required them to run concurrently by superposition.
Key Facts
- On 29.04.2010, the appellant allegedly committed rape and murder of a 12-year-old victim
- On 30.04.2010, the appellant was arrested and taken into custody
- The appellant stood trial in Sessions Case No. 282/2010 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, Maharashtra
- By judgment dated 27.09.2013, the Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant:
- Under Section 302 IPC: Imprisonment for life, fine of Rs. 5,000 (default: 5 months simple imprisonment)
- Under Section 376 read with Section 342 IPC: Imprisonment for life, fine of Rs. 5,000 (default: 5 months simple imprisonment) on both counts
- The substantive sentences were directed to run consecutively, one after the other
- The appellant filed Criminal Appeal No. 975/2014 before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay
- By judgment dated 10.06.2016, the High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence, including the direction for consecutive sentences, expressly declining to interfere
Procedural History
- 30.04.2010: Appellant arrested and taken into custody
- 27.09.2013: Trial Court judgment in Sessions Trial No. 282/2010 convicting and sentencing appellant to consecutive life terms
- 10.06.2016: High Court judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 975/2014 confirming conviction and consecutive sentences
- 13.01.2025: High Court Division Bench judgment in Criminal Writ Petition No. 842/2024 dismissing writ petition seeking concurrent sentences, holding writ court cannot review coordinate Bench judgment
- 2025: Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8535 of 2025 filed challenging writ petition dismissal
- 2026: Criminal Appeal from Diary No. 49371 of 2026 filed challenging consecutive sentences directly
- 27.10.2026: Supreme Court judgment delivered
The Parties' Positions
For the Appellant: Mr. M.Y. Deshmukh argued that consecutive life sentences in a single trial are impermissible under the Constitution Bench ruling in Muthuramalingam v. State, which holds that life sentences must be superimposed as humans have only one life to live.
For the Respondent: Mr. Bharat Bagla defended the consecutive sentences, contending that the Trial Court and High Court correctly exercised sentencing discretion for distinct offences of murder and rape.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought setting aside of the direction for consecutive life sentences, substitution with superimposed life sentences, and appropriate set-off under Section 428 CrPC for the period of detention undergone since 30.04.2010.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the Trial Court and the High Court were justified in imposing consecutive life sentences in a single trial for offences under Section 302 and Section 376 read with 342 of the IPC, or whether the law requires such sentences to be superimposed over each other.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
Counsel relied on the Constitution Bench decision in Muthuramalingam v. State Represented by Inspector of Police (2016) 8 SCC 313, which authoritatively held that imprisonment for life implies imprisonment till the end of the normal life of the convict. Since humans have only one life, directing a prisoner to undergo life imprisonment twice over consecutively is anomalous and irrational. Section 31(1) CrPC must be interpreted consistently with this basic tenet, permitting consecutive sentences only where they do not include life sentences. The appellant further submitted that the High Court's writ petition dismissal on jurisdictional grounds did not foreclose the challenge to consecutive sentences in the direct appeal.
For the Respondent
The State contended that the Trial Court and High Court had properly exercised their sentencing discretion under Section 31 CrPC for distinct and separate offences. It argued that each offence - murder and rape - warranted independent punishment, and consecutive sentences were a legitimate expression of the gravity of the crimes. The State further submitted that the writ petition was correctly dismissed as a writ court cannot sit in appeal over a coordinate Bench's judgment.
The Court's Analysis
The Court, per Justice K.V. Viswanathan, framed the issue squarely: whether consecutive life sentences can be awarded to a convict found guilty of a series of offences tried in a single trial. The Court noted that this question was authoritatively answered by a Constitution Bench in Muthuramalingam (supra).
"The legal position is, thus, fairly well settled that imprisonment for life is a sentence for the remainder of the life of the offender unless of course the remaining sentence is commuted or remitted by the competent authority. That being so, the provisions of Section 31 under Cr.P.C. must be so interpreted as to be consistent with the basic tenet that a life sentence requires the prisoner to spend the rest of his life in prison. Any direction that requires the offender to undergo imprisonment for life twice over would be anomalous and irrational for it will disregard the fact that humans like all other living beings have but one life to live."
The Court extracted the ratio decidendi of Muthuramalingam: while multiple life sentences can be awarded for multiple murders or other offences punishable with life imprisonment, such sentences cannot be directed to run consecutively. Instead, they must be superimposed over each other. This superposition ensures that any remission or commutation granted by the competent authority in respect of one sentence does not ipso facto result in remission of the sentence awarded for the other offence.
The Court distinguished the present case from Kamalanantha (which had permitted consecutive life sentences) on the ground that Kamalanantha did not address the fundamental premise that a life sentence once awarded implies the prisoner shall spend the remainder of his life in prison. Once that premise is accepted, there is no question of undergoing another life sentence consecutively.
The Court further noted that Section 427(2) CrPC expressly carves out an exception for life sentences in separately tried cases, recognising the anomaly of consecutive life imprisonment. The same logic must extend to Section 31 CrPC even though it lacks an analogous express provision. The provision must be interpreted to prevent anomaly and irrationality.
Applying Muthuramalingam to the facts, the Court held that the Trial Court and High Court erred in directing the two life sentences to run consecutively. The correct legal position required superposition. The Court also observed that since the direct appeal (Diary No. 49371 of 2026) was admitted and the special leave petition condoned, the writ petition challenge (SLP (Crl.) No. 8535 of 2025) became infructuous.
The Verdict
The Supreme Court partly allowed Criminal Appeal arising out of Diary No. 49371 of 2026. It set aside the direction in the Trial Court judgment dated 27.09.2013 (as confirmed by the High Court on 10.06.2016) that the substantive sentences "shall run consecutively, one after other, and not concurrently." The Court modified the operative order to provide that:
- The appellant stands convicted under Section 302 IPC: imprisonment for life, fine Rs. 5,000 (default: 5 months simple imprisonment)
- The appellant stands convicted under Sections 376 and 342 IPC: imprisonment for life, fine Rs. 5,000 (default: 5 months simple imprisonment) on both counts
- The two life sentences shall be superimposed over each other so that any remission or commutation granted for one does not automatically extend to the other
- Set-off under Section 428 CrPC granted for the period of detention undergone since 30.04.2010 against the substantive sentence
- Muddemal property to be destroyed after appeal period
- Copy of judgment to be given to accused free of cost
The Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 8535 of 2025 was disposed of as infructuous.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Life Sentences Must Be Superimposed, Not Consecutive
The Constitution Bench ruling in Muthuramalingam is now settled law: multiple life sentences awarded in a single trial cannot run consecutively. Practitioners must ensure that sentencing orders in cases involving multiple offences punishable with life imprisonment explicitly direct superposition. Any order for consecutive life sentences is per se illegal and liable to be set aside on appeal or revision.
- Drafting tip: When seeking modification of sentence, cite Muthuramalingam paragraphs 18, 23, and 34 for the proposition that Section 31(1) CrPC must be read down to exclude consecutive life sentences
- Appellate strategy: Challenge consecutive life sentences even if conviction appeal fails; sentencing error is independently reviewable
Remission Protection Through Superposition
The superposition doctrine serves a critical protective function: it prevents a single remission order from wiping out all life sentences. This is particularly significant in states with liberal remission policies.
- Practical effect: If the competent authority grants remission for the Section 302 offence, the Section 376 life sentence remains intact, and vice versa
- Advocacy point: In remission applications, specify which offence the application relates to; do not assume blanket coverage
Section 428 CrPC Set-Off Applies to Superimposed Sentences
The Court's direction for set-off under Section 428 CrPC from the date of arrest (30.04.2010) against the "substantive sentence imposed" confirms that the period of pre-conviction detention is credited against the superimposed life sentence. This is a quantifiable benefit: the appellant has already undergone over 16 years of actual custody.
- Calculate precisely: Ensure set-off applications reference the exact date of arrest and the modified operative order
- Monitor compliance: Jail authorities must recalculate the sentence commencement date in light of the superposition order
Writ Jurisdiction Not a Substitute for Appeal
The Court's disposal of the writ petition appeal as infructuous underscores that a writ court cannot review a coordinate Bench's judgment on merits. The proper remedy against consecutive life sentences is a direct appeal or revision, not a writ petition under Article 226.
- Forum selection: File criminal appeal under Section 374 CrPC or special leave petition under Article 136, not writ petition, to challenge sentencing errors
- Delay condonation: The Court condoned delay in the SLP given the appellant's continuous incarceration - a relevant precedent for similarly situated convicts
