Point of Law : 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. Such sentences would, however, be superimposed over each other so that any remission or commutation granted by the competent authority in one does not ipso facto result in remission of the sentence awarded to the prisoner for the other

ORDER :

I.A. No. 1/2020

1. In the present appeal disposed off on 8th May, 2018, the present application - I.A. No. 1/2020 accompanied by the memorandum of facts is filed under the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the learned Counsel for the appellants-accused seeking to alter the sentence dated 7.7.2012 imposed in S.C. No. 40/2008 by the learned District and Sessions Judge at Kodagu, Madikeri to run concurrently instead of consecutively in the interest of justice.

2. In the application, it is submitted that the trial Court convicted the appellants-accused and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs. 3,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC with default clauses. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the accused-appellants preferred this criminal appeal which was dismissed on 8.5.2018 as being devoid of merits.

3. It is further contended in the application, that the appellants-accused are in prison since 2007 and they are in custody for more than 12 years. They are now listed for release on their good conduct and hence, the jail authorities have sought for clarification from the District Court as to how the sentence part is to be considered for which the Principal District and Sessions Court by its orders dated 13.11.2020 and 15.6.2020 has given a clarification stating that the sentences have to be treated as consecutively instead of concurrently.

4. It is further contended that in view of the provisions of Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.) when a person is already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for life, the subsequent sentence shall have to run concurrently. It is further contended that the clarification/order passed by the trial Court is perverse and requires interference by this Court as there was no order in the operative portion whether the sentences imposed on the appellants-accused have to be run concurrently or consecutively. Therefore, the appellants-accused were under the impression that the sentences will have to run concurrently. However, by the later order/clarification, it was made clear that the sentences shall have to run consecutively which is against the law. Therefore, the present application is filed by the accused-appellants.

5. The respondent-State has filed objections contending that the present application filed by the appellants-accused seeking modification of the judgment passed by this Court to the extent of running the sentences concurrently is not maintainable either in law or on facts in view of the provisions of Section 362 of the Cr.P.C. that when the judgment or final order is signed disposing of a case, no Court shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error.

6. Further the State has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Atul Shukla vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another, (2019) 17 SCC 299 wherein it is held that once the matter is disposed off, the subsequent application for modification or review of its earlier order having regard to specific bar contained in Section 362 of the Cr.P.C. is impermissible. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the application.

7. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants-accused and the learned High Court Government Pleader on the application.

8. Sri. K.C. Pratheep, learned Counsel for the appellants-accused reiterating the grounds urged in the application contended that the trial Court convicted the accused and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence punishable under the Section 302 of IPC and rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC w