Life Sentences For Different Offences Can't Run Consecutively; Remission In One Won't Affect Life Term For Another: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has reiterated that life sentences ordered in more than one offence cannot run consecutively; however, they can be superimposed over each other so that remission in one offence does not by itself commute the operation of the life sentence in another offence.
A bench of Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice Arun Palli, relying upon the Constitution Bench judgment of Muthuramalingam and Others vs. State (2016), observed that:
“We further direct, in accordance with Muthuramalingam (supra), that the life sentence imposed for the offence punishable under Section 302 and the life sentence imposed for the offences punishable under Section 376 read with 342, shall be superimposed over each other so that any remission or commutation granted by the competent authority qua one, does not ipso facto result in the remission of the sentence awarded to the prisoner for the other.”
The appellant-accused was awarded two life sentences in different offences of rape and murder, which were ordered to be operated consecutively, i.e., one after the other.
The Bombay High Court upheld the conviction and sentence, prompting the accused to move the Supreme Court.
Partly allowing the appeal, the judgment authored by Justice Viswanathan observed that the Trial Court and High Court erred in justifying the consecutive life sentences on a single accused, ignoring the fact that the same is impossible, as the man has only one life.
“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.”, the Court said in Muthuramalingam.
As a result, the appeal was partly allowed, wherein, except the remaining portion of the impugned judgment, the portion which justified the consecutive running of life sentences was set aside.
Appearance:
Mr. M.Y. Deshmukh, Adv. for the appellant
Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. for the State.
Related: Sentences Imposed Along Life Imprisonment Must Run Concurrently, Not Consecutively : Supreme Court