IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.231-233 OF 2009

MUTHURAMALINGAM & ORS. Appellant(s)

VERSUS

STATE REP. BY INSP. OF POLICE Respondent(s)

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.225 OF 2009

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.226-227 OF 2009

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.895 OF 2009

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO._______ OF 2015

(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.5351 OF 2014)

O R D E R

Leave granted in SLP (Crl.) No.5351 of 2014.

These appeals arise out of a common judgment and order

passed by the High Court of Madras, whereby criminal appeals

filed by the appellants against their conviction and sentence of

life imprisonment awarded to each one of them have been

dismissed.

1

Digitally signed by

Vishal Anand

Date: 2015.02.27

16:48:58 IST

Reason:

Signature Not Verified

When the appeals came up for hearing before us, Mr. K.K.

Mani, learned counsel for the appellants, confined his

submissions to the validity of the direction issued by the trial

Court and affirmed by the High Court that the sentence of

imprisonment for life awarded to each one of the appellants for

the several murders allegedly committed by them would run

consecutively and not concurrently. It was contended by Mr. Mani

that in terms of Section 31 of the Cr.P.C., the sentence of life

imprisonment awarded to the appellants even for different

murders they were alleged to have committed could run but

concurrently and not consecutively as has been ordered by the

trial Court and the High Court. In support of his submission Mr.

Mani placed heavy reliance upon the decision of a three-Judge

Bench of this Court in O.M. Cherian @ Thankachan vs. State

of Kerala & Ors. [2014 (12) Scale 636], in para 13 whereof,

this Court has observed:

“13. Section 31(1) Cr.P.C. enjoins a further

direction by the court to specify the order in which

one particular sentence shall commence after the

expiration of the other. Difficulties arise when the

Courts impose sentence of imprisonment for life and

also sentences of imprisonment for fixed term. In

such cases, if the Court does not direct that the

sentences shall run concurrently, then the

sentences will run consecutively by operation of

Section 31 (1) Cr.P.C. There is no question of the

2

convict first undergoing the sentence of

imprisonment for life and thereafter undergoing the

rest of the sentences of imprisonment for fixed term

and any such direction would be unworkable. Since

sentence of imprisonment for life means jail till the

end of normal life of the convict, the sentence of

imprisonment of fixed term has to necessarily run

concurrently with life imprisonment. In such case,

it will be in order if the Sessions Judges exercise

their discretion in issuing direction for concurrent

running of sentences. Likewise if two life sentences

are imposed on the convict, necessarily, Court has

to direct those sentences to run concurrently.’

Reliance was also placed upon the decision of another

two-Judge Bench of this Court in Duryodhan Rout vs. State of

Orissa [2014 (8) Scale 96], in which this Court, in para 27,

has observed:

“Section 31 of Cr.P.C. relates to sentence in cases

of conviction of several offences at one trial.

Proviso to Sub-Section (2) to Section 31 lays down

the embargo whether the aggregate punishment of

prisoner is for a period of longer than 14 years. In

view of the fact that life imprisonment means

imprisonment for full and complete span of life, the

question of consecutive sentences in case of

conviction for several offences at one trial does not

arise. Therefore, in case a person is sentenced of

conviction of several offences, including one that of

life imprisonment, the proviso to Section 31(2) shall

come into play and no consecutive sentence can be

imposed.”

Mr. Subramonium Prasad, learned counsel for the

respondents, on the other hand, argued that the qu