Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
T.S. THAKUR, CJI., FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, A.K. SIKRI, S.A. BOBDE, R. BANUMATHI, JJ.
MUTHURAMALINGAM & ORS. – APPELLANTS
VERSUS
STATE REP. BY INSP. OF POLICE – RESPONDENTS
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.231-233 OF 2009 WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.225 OF 2009 CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.226-227 OF 2009 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.895 OF 2009 AND CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.429 OF 2015
Decided On : 19-07-2016
(2005) 5 SCC 194; (2013) 3 SCC 52; (1988) 4 SCC 183; (2014) 2 SCC 153 – Referred
(2015) 2 SCC 501; (2015) 2 SCC 783 – Distinguished
(b) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 31 – Life imprisonment – Remainder of life – Cannot be equated with a fixed term – In practice amounts to incarceration for a period between 10 and 14 years – Open to Court to specify, in exceptional circumstances, the incarceration to last as long as life lasts – Section 45, IPC – Imprisonment for life is a sentence for remainder of the life of the offender unless the remaining sentence is commuted or remitted by the competent authority – A life sentence requires the prisoner to spend the rest of his life in prison – Any direction requiring the offender to undergo imprisonment for life twice over – Would be anomalous and irrational because humans like all other living beings have but one life to live. (Para 10, 11, 17)
(1961) 3 SCR 440; (1979) 3 SCC 745; (1992) 2 SCC 661; (1981) 1 SCC 107; (1991) 3 SCC 498; (2000) 2 SCC 595; (2001) 4 SCC 458; (2001) 6 SCC 296; (2008) 13 SCC 767; 2015 (13) SCALE 165 – Relied upon
(c) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 31 and 427 – Life imprisonment – Sentences awarded by the Court for several offences committed by the prisoner shall run consecutively (unless the Court directs otherwise) – Sentence of imprisonment for life, however, can and must run concurrently – If more than one life sentences are awarded to the prisoner, the same would get super imposed over each other – Therefore 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. (Para 20)
(1991) 4 SCC 304 – Relied upon
(d) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 31(2), Proviso – Not applicable to a case tried by the Sessions Court – Provision does not forbid a direction for consecutive running of sentences awardable by the Court of Session. (Para 26)
(e) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 31(2), Proviso – Award of multiple sentences of imprisonment for life superimposing over one another – Entirely different from directing such sentence to run consecutively. (Para 28)
(2005) 5 SCC 194; (2013) 3 SCC 52; (1996) 4 SCC 148; (1998) 3 SCC 625 – Distinguished
(f) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 31 – Term sentence and life imprisonment – May be ordered to run consecutively if term sentence has to start first – Converse will not hold – If life sentence starts first, the term sentence shall run concurrently. (Para 32)
Facts of the case:
The appellants were tried for several offences including an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 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. What is important is that the sentence of imprisonment for life for each one of the murders was directed to run consecutively. As a result the appellants were to undergo consecutive life sentences ranging between two to eight such sentences depending upon the number of murders committed by them.
Criminal appeals preferred against the conviction and the award of consecutive life sentences have failed.
In view of conflicting views expressed by different three Judge Benches in O.M. Cherian @ Thankachan v. State of Kerala, (2015) 2 SCC 501 and Duryodhan Rout v. State of Orissa, (2015) 2 SCC 783 on the one hand; and Kamalanantha v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2005) 5 SCC 194 and
Sanaullah Khan v. State of Bihar, (2013) 3 SCC 52 on the other, the three Judge Bench hearing the appeal has referred the following interesting question to this Constitution Bench:
“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?”
Finding of the Court:
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.
Result: Referred question answered in the negative.
Multiple sentences of imprisonment for life may be awarded for multiple murders or other offences punishable with life imprisonment, but such life sentences cannot be directed to run consecutively. (!) (!) (!) (!)
Life imprisonment means imprisonment for the remainder of the convict's life, unless commuted or remitted by competent authority; directing a convict to undergo life imprisonment twice over is anomalous and irrational, as humans have only one life. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Under Section 31(1) CrPC, for convictions of several offences at one trial, sentences comprising imprisonment generally run consecutively unless the court directs otherwise; however, life sentences must run concurrently (or be superimposed over each other). (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
If multiple life sentences are awarded, they superimpose on each other; remission or commutation granted for one does not automatically extend to others. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Term sentences (fixed-term imprisonment) and life imprisonment may run consecutively if the term sentence is ordered to commence first; conversely, if life sentence starts first, the term sentence runs concurrently. (!) (!)
Section 31(2) CrPC and its proviso apply to cases where aggregate consecutive sentences exceed the court's competence for a single offence (limiting to 14 years max, not exceeding twice single-offence punishment); it does not apply to Sessions Courts (which have full sentencing power) or prohibit consecutive life sentences. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Court's discretion under Section 31 CrPC to direct concurrent or consecutive sentences must align with the principle that life imprisonment consumes the remainder of life. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
JUDGMENT :
T.S. THAKUR, CJI.
1. A Bench comprising three-Judges of this Court has referred to us the following short but interesting question:
“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?.”
2. The question arises in the following circumstances:
3. The appellants were tried for several offences including an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “the IPC”) 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. What is important is that the sentence of imprisonment for life for each one of the murders was directed to run consecutively. The result was that the appellants were to undergo consecutive life sentences ranging between two to eight such sentences depending upon the number of murders committed by them. Criminal appeals preferred against the conviction and the award of consecutive life sentences having failed, the appellants have filed the present appeals to assail the judgments and orders passed by the courts below.
4. When the appeals came up for hearing before a three-Judge Bench of this Court, learned counsel for the appellant appears to have confined his challenge to the validity of the direction issued by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court that the sentences of imprisonment for life awarded to each one of the appellants for several murders allegedly committed by them would run consecutively and not concurrently. It was argued that in terms of Section 31 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, “the Cr.P.C.”) the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to the appellants for different murders alleged to have been committed by them could run concurrently and not consecutively as ordered by the Trial Court and the High Court. Reliance in support of that submission was placed upon a decision of a three-Judge Bench of this Court in O.M. Cherian @ Thankachan vs. State of Kerala & Ors., (2015) 2 SCC 501 and a three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Duryodhan Rout vs. State of Orissa (2015) 2 SCC 783.
5. On behalf of the respondent – State of Tamil Nadu, reliance appears to have been placed upon two other decisions of this Court in Kamalanantha and Ors. vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2005) 5 SCC 194 and Sanaullah Khan vs. State of Bihar, (2013) 3 SCC 52 to argue that it was legally permissible to award more than one life sentence to a convict for different murders committed by him with a direction that the sentences so awarded shall run consecutively. The Bench hearing the appeal noticing a conflict in the views taken by this Court on the question whether consecutive life sentences were legally permissible, directed the matter to be placed before a larger bench comprising Five Judges to resolve the conflict by an authoritative pronouncement. That is precisely how these appeals have been placed before us for an authoritative pronouncement.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. Section 31 of the Cr.P.C. which deals with sentences in cases of conviction of several offences at one trial runs as under :
“31. Sentences in cases of conviction of several offences at one trial.
(1) When a person is convicted at one trial of two or more offences, the Court may, subject to the provisions of section 71 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), sentence him for such offences, to the several punishments prescribed therefor which such Court is competent to inflict; such punishments when consisting of imprisonment to commence the one after the expiration of the other in such order as the Court may direct, unless the Court directs that such punishments shall run concurrently.
(2) In the case of consecutive sentences, it shall not be necessary for the Court by reason only of the aggreg
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
