The Supreme Court today held that if multiple life sentences are awarded to a convict in the same trial, the same will run concurrently and not consecutively..This decision was rendered by a Constitution bench comprising Chief Justice TS Thakur and FML Kalifulla, AK Sikri, SA Bobde and R Banumathi JJ..The Court also ruled that if a convict is awarded a lesser sentence of imprisonment along with life imprisonment, then the same will run consecutively with the ‘term’ sentence running first, followed by the ‘life’ sentence..The question that arose for determination in the case was the following:. “Whether consecutive life sentences can be awarded to a convict on being found guilty of a series of murders for which he has been tried in a single trial?.”.The appellants in the case were tried for several offences including an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for several murders allegedly committed by them in a single incident. They were found guilty and sentenced to suffer varying sentences, including a sentence of imprisonment for life for each one of the murders committed by them. The sentence of imprisonment for life for each one of the murders was directed to run consecutively as provided under Section 31 of Code of Criminal Procedure..This was challenged by the appellants. Relying on O.M. Cherian @ Thankachan v. State of Kerala & Ors. and Duryodhan Rout v. State of Orissa, the appellants contended that life imprisonment awarded to them for different murders in a single trial should run concurrently and not consecutively..The court first proceeded to dissect the logic upon which the above two decisions were based. .“It would appear from the above two pronouncements that the logic behind life sentences not running consecutively lies in the fact that imprisonment for life implies imprisonment till the end of the normal life of the convict. If that proposition is sound, the logic underlying the ratio of the decisions of this Court in O.M. Cherian and Duryodhan Rout cases (supra) would also be equally sound. What then needs to be examined is whether imprisonment for life does indeed imply imprisonment till the end of the normal life of the convict as observed in O.M. Cherian and Duryodhan Rout’s cases (supra).” .The court relying on a catena of judgments answered this issue in the affirmative before proceeding to decide on the main issue at hand – regarding whether the life sentences should run concurrently or consecutively..It dealt with Section 31 of Code of Criminal Procedure in detail. Section 31 provides that when two sentences are awarded in one trial, they will run consecutively and not concurrently unless the court directs that the sentences run concurrently. The court, however ruled that in case of life imprisonment the same cannot be applicable..“…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. So understood Section 31 (1) would permit consecutive running of sentences only if such sentences do not happen to be life sentences. That is, in our opinion, the only way one can avoid an obvious impossibility of a prisoner serving two consecutive life sentences.”.In arriving at this conclusion, the court also placed reliance on another provision – Section 427(2) of CrPC..“That, in our opinion, happens to be the logic behind Section 427 (2) of the Cr.P.C. mandating that if a prisoner already undergoing life sentence is sentenced to another imprisonment for life for a subsequent offence committed by him, the two sentences so awarded shall run concurrently and not consecutively. Section 427 (2) in that way carves out an exception to the general rule recognised in Section 427 (1) that sentences awarded upon conviction for a subsequent offence shall run consecutively”..The court, thus, ruled that if more than one life sentences are awarded, then the same would get super imposed over each other..“We are also inclined to hold that if more than one life sentences are awarded to the prisoner, the same would get super imposed over each other. This will imply that in case the prisoner is granted the benefit of any remission or commutation qua one such sentence, the benefit of such remission would not ipso facto extend to the other.”
The Supreme Court today held that if multiple life sentences are awarded to a convict in the same trial, the same will run concurrently and not consecutively..This decision was rendered by a Constitution bench comprising Chief Justice TS Thakur and FML Kalifulla, AK Sikri, SA Bobde and R Banumathi JJ..The Court also ruled that if a convict is awarded a lesser sentence of imprisonment along with life imprisonment, then the same will run consecutively with the ‘term’ sentence running first, followed by the ‘life’ sentence..The question that arose for determination in the case was the following:. “Whether consecutive life sentences can be awarded to a convict on being found guilty of a series of murders for which he has been tried in a single trial?.”.The appellants in the case were tried for several offences including an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for several murders allegedly committed by them in a single incident. They were found guilty and sentenced to suffer varying sentences, including a sentence of imprisonment for life for each one of the murders committed by them. The sentence of imprisonment for life for each one of the murders was directed to run consecutively as provided under Section 31 of Code of Criminal Procedure..This was challenged by the appellants. Relying on O.M. Cherian @ Thankachan v. State of Kerala & Ors. and Duryodhan Rout v. State of Orissa, the appellants contended that life imprisonment awarded to them for different murders in a single trial should run concurrently and not consecutively..The court first proceeded to dissect the logic upon which the above two decisions were based. .“It would appear from the above two pronouncements that the logic behind life sentences not running consecutively lies in the fact that imprisonment for life implies imprisonment till the end of the normal life of the convict. If that proposition is sound, the logic underlying the ratio of the decisions of this Court in O.M. Cherian and Duryodhan Rout cases (supra) would also be equally sound. What then needs to be examined is whether imprisonment for life does indeed imply imprisonment till the end of the normal life of the convict as observed in O.M. Cherian and Duryodhan Rout’s cases (supra).” .The court relying on a catena of judgments answered this issue in the affirmative before proceeding to decide on the main issue at hand – regarding whether the life sentences should run concurrently or consecutively..It dealt with Section 31 of Code of Criminal Procedure in detail. Section 31 provides that when two sentences are awarded in one trial, they will run consecutively and not concurrently unless the court directs that the sentences run concurrently. The court, however ruled that in case of life imprisonment the same cannot be applicable..“…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. So understood Section 31 (1) would permit consecutive running of sentences only if such sentences do not happen to be life sentences. That is, in our opinion, the only way one can avoid an obvious impossibility of a prisoner serving two consecutive life sentences.”.In arriving at this conclusion, the court also placed reliance on another provision – Section 427(2) of CrPC..“That, in our opinion, happens to be the logic behind Section 427 (2) of the Cr.P.C. mandating that if a prisoner already undergoing life sentence is sentenced to another imprisonment for life for a subsequent offence committed by him, the two sentences so awarded shall run concurrently and not consecutively. Section 427 (2) in that way carves out an exception to the general rule recognised in Section 427 (1) that sentences awarded upon conviction for a subsequent offence shall run consecutively”..The court, thus, ruled that if more than one life sentences are awarded, then the same would get super imposed over each other..“We are also inclined to hold that if more than one life sentences are awarded to the prisoner, the same would get super imposed over each other. This will imply that in case the prisoner is granted the benefit of any remission or commutation qua one such sentence, the benefit of such remission would not ipso facto extend to the other.”
