The Supreme Court on Tuesday (August 18) reiterated that in cases where the convict was sentenced to life imprisonment in a murder case along with other sentences for committing multiple offences, the sentence would not run consecutively, but concurrently.

“…in cases where the convict is awarded multiple sentences for multiple offences and one of the sentences awarded is life imprisonment, the sentences must only run concurrently and not consecutively.”, observed a bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Vijay Bishnoi, while modifying the Madras High Court's Madurai Bench order which had upheld the awarding of life sentence and fixed-term sentences to an accused to run consecutively.

“The Trial Court and the High Court awarded the Appellant a sentence of life imprisonment under Sections 449, 302, 364 of IPC and fixed-term sentences under Sections 392 and 201 of IPC which were directed to run consecutively. In light of the discussion above, we deem it appropriate to modify the direction affirmed by the High Court and hold that the sentences of the Appellant shall run concurrently.”, the Court observed, referring to the constitutional bench dictum of Muthuramalingam and Ors. vs. State (2016).

Also, the Court faulted the High Court's order for suo motu enhancing the Appellant's sentence from a life sentence to a life sentence till the remainder of a natural life.

The Judgment authored by Justice Bishnoi, relying upon Nagarajan vs. State of Tamil Nadu 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 672, noted that the High Court cannot suo motu exercise its revisional powers to enhance the sentence while considering an appeal filed by a convict/accused against conviction.

In Nagarajan (supra), the Court stated that the High Court cannot invoke its revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) when the party who could have filed the revision petition, such as the State or the complainant, has chosen not to do so.

“…the High Court wrongly exercised its suo moto revisional jurisdiction in enhancing the Appellant's sentence when there was no Appeal preferred either by the State authorities or the victim or the Complainant for enhancement of Appellant's sentence. Further, the High Court erred in directing sentences to run consecutively. We, therefore, direct that the sentences would run concurrently.”, the Court held.

Cause Title: GOPI @ SAHAYA PURUNA VERSUS THE STATE

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 820

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) :Ms. Payoshi Roy, Adv. Mr. S. Prabu Ramasubramanian, Adv. Ms. V. Swetha, Adv. Mr. P Ashok, Adv. Mr. Chandra Kiran K, Adv. Mr. Vairawan A.S, AOR

For Respondent(s) :Ms. Vrinda Bhandari, AOR Ms. Vanshita Gupta, Adv.