Two Life Sentences Cannot Run Consecutively: Supreme Court

Life Sentences for Murder and Rape Cannot Run Consecutively, Only Superimposed: Supreme Court Applies Muthuramalingam

Published: 27 October 2026 · NyayVidhan

The Supreme Court held that two life sentences imposed in a single trial for the rape and murder of a 12-year-old, under Section 302 and Section 376 read with Section 342 IPC, cannot be directed to run consecutively. Applying the Constitution Bench ruling in Muthuramalingam, it set aside the Trial Court's consecutive-sentence direction, confirmed by the Bombay High Court, and directed that the two life sentences be superimposed, so that remission or commutation of one does not ipso facto remit the other (paras 15-18).

Key holdings

A court may award a separate life sentence for each offence, but cannot order them to run one after the other (paras 14-15).

Superimposed life sentences mean that remission or commutation of one does not ipso facto extend to the other (paras 15, 18).

The consecutive direction was set aside; the rest of the Trial Court's operative order, including fines and the Section 428 set-off, stands (paras 16-17).

Having decided the appeal against the 2016 judgment, the Court did not decide whether a writ court could order concurrent sentences (para 12).

Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

The appellant was arrested on 30.04.2010 on the allegation that he had raped and murdered a 12-year-old the previous day (para 5). On 27.09.2013 the Additional Sessions Judge convicted him under Section 302 IPC and under Section 376 read with Section 342 IPC, imposed life imprisonment and a fine of Rs 5,000 for each, and directed the substantive sentences to run consecutively (paras 6-7). The Bombay High Court confirmed this on 10.06.2016, declining to interfere with the consecutive sentences (para 8). A later writ petition seeking concurrent sentences was disposed of on 13.01.2025, the High Court holding that a writ court cannot review a coordinate Bench's judgment (para 3). He appealed both decisions (paras 3-4, 9).

Court's Findings

Having admitted the appeal against the High Court's 2016 judgment, the Court did not need to decide whether a writ court could have ordered concurrent sentences (para 12). Whether consecutive life sentences can be imposed for offences tried together had been settled by a Constitution Bench in Muthuramalingam (para 13). Quoting it, the Court noted that imprisonment for life is a sentence for the remainder of the convict's life unless commuted or remitted, so a direction to undergo it twice over would be anomalous and irrational, since a person has but one life to live (para 14). Section 31(1) CrPC therefore permits consecutive sentences only where they are not life sentences; life sentences must run concurrently, as Section 427(2) provides for separately tried offences (para 14). Multiple life sentences may still be awarded for multiple offences, but they are superimposed over each other (para 14). Restating the law, the Court held that life sentences awarded for multiple offences in a single trial cannot be directed to run consecutively, though remission or commutation of one does not ipso facto remit the other (para 15). On that basis the consecutive direction could not stand (para 16).

Legal Principle

Life sentences awarded for multiple offences in a single trial cannot be directed to run consecutively, since a life sentence lasts for the remainder of the convict's life. They are instead superimposed over each other, so that remission or commutation granted for one does not ipso facto result in remission of the other (paras 14-15, 18).

NyayVidhan's view · Practice note

Why It Matters

A sentencing order that ends in two or more life sentences should not direct them to run consecutively, and an old direction of that kind can still be corrected: here the Court condoned the delay in an appeal against a 2016 High Court judgment because the appellant had been in jail throughout, and set the direction aside (paras 1, 16). The gain for the convict is limited, though. The life sentences are superimposed, so remission or commutation of one does not by itself remit the other, and a remission application should address each sentence (paras 15, 18). Compare Hem Raj on concurrent sentences and B v. Union of India on remission of sentence.

Editorial comment by the NyayVidhan Editorial Desk. It is not part of the Court's judgment and is not legal advice.

Precedents Relied Upon

Muthuramalingam and Others v. State Represented by Inspector of Police (2016) 8 SCC 313
Applied Discussed at ¶ 13, 14, 15, 18
Constitution Bench ruling that life sentences awarded for multiple offences in a single trial cannot be directed to run consecutively but are superimposed over each other, so that remission or commutation of one does not ipso facto remit the other; applied to set aside the consecutive direction for the Section 302 and Section 376 read with 342 IPC life sentences and to direct that they be superimposed.