Direction for 10-year sentence under gang rape provision to run consecutively after life imprisonment overruled by Constitution Bench; life sentences superimposed, not consecutive, preventing additional term post remission.

JUDGMENT :

MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.

1. Heard Mr. Jaiswal, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Shrikant Yadav, learned APP for the respondents-State.

2. By the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the legality and validity of the order dated 19th September 2025 passed by the Under Secretary, Home Department, State of Maharashtra in exercise of powers under Section 433A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “CrPC”). By the said order, it has been directed that the petitioner be released after completion of 14 years of actual imprisonment and 30 years of imprisonment with remission and the petitioner was directed to further undergo imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-, in default to undergo imprisonment for one month, for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”).

3. It is the submission of Mr. Jaiswal, the learned Advocate for the petitioner, that the Supreme Court imposed punishment of life imprisonment upon the petitioner and further directed that the sentences for the offences for which the petitioner was convicted, except under Section 376(2)(g) of the IPC, shall run concurrently and the sentence under Section 376(2)(g) of the IPC shall run consecutively, after serving the sentences for the other ofences. It is submitted that the Supreme Court directed that after completion of the life imprisonment, the petitioner shall undergo the sentence of 10 years’ of imprisonment imposed under Section 376(2)(g) of the IPC.

4. Mr. Jaiswal, learned Advocate for the petitioner, relied upon the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Muthuramalingam & Ors. v. State Represented by Inspector of Police, (2016) 8 SCC 313. He invited attention to paragraphs 30 and 31 of the said decision and submitted that the view that life sentences can run consecutively does not lay down the correct law and the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of the Petitioner stands overruled to that extent.

5. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned order dated 19th September 2025 passed by the State Government directing the release of the petitioner after completion of 30 years of imprisonment with remission by exercising powers under Section 433A of the CrPC is erroneous. According to him, the petitioner cannot be directed to undergo an additional sentence of 10 years under Section 376(2)(g) of the IPC after completion of life imprisonment.

6. He further submitted that the petitioner has already undergone actual imprisonment of 30 years, 6 months and 20 days and with remission he has completed 36 years, 5 months and 27 days of imprisonment. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside and the petitioner be directed to be released forthwith.

7. On the other hand, Mr. Yadav, learned APP, submitted that the Government Resolution dated 10th January 2006 deals with convicts who have attained the age of 65 years and are treated as senior citizens. He submitted that in terms of the said Government Resolution dated 10th January 2006, the State Government is required to constitute a Committee and take a fresh decision in the matter. He further submitted that the State Government has already passed an order under Section 433A of the CrPC, directing that the petit