Case at a Glance
A man convicted in 2013 by a Thane Sessions Court of the rape and murder of a 12-year-old child was given two life sentences, which the trial court directed to run consecutively; the Bombay High Court confirmed this in 2016. The Supreme Court, applying the Constitution Bench ruling in Muthuramalingam v. State, held that life sentences awarded for multiple offences in a single trial cannot be directed to run consecutively. It set aside only the consecutive-sentence direction and ordered that the two life sentences be superimposed on each other, so that remission or commutation of one does not automatically remit the other. The conviction and the rest of the sentence were left untouched.
The appellant was arrested on 30 April 2010 for the rape and murder of a 12-year-old child on 29 April 2010. In Sessions Case No. 282 of 2010, the Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, by judgment dated 27 September 2013, convicted him under Section 302 IPC (life imprisonment and a fine of Rs 5,000) and under Section 376 read with Section 342 IPC (life imprisonment and the same fine). The trial court directed that the substantive sentences would run consecutively. The Bombay High Court, in Criminal Appeal No. 975 of 2014 decided on 10 June 2016, confirmed the conviction and the sentence, including the consecutive direction.
Years later the appellant filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 842 of 2024 asking that the sentences be made concurrent. On 13 January 2025 a Division Bench held that a writ court cannot review the 2016 appellate judgment, leaving him free to challenge the sentence in an appropriate court. He then approached the Supreme Court both against the writ order and, after condonation of delay, against the 2016 High Court judgment itself.
The Key Question Before the Court
When a court awards life imprisonment for two offences in a single trial, can it direct that the second life sentence will begin only after the first one ends?
Why Consecutive Life Sentences Do Not Work
The Court treated the Constitution Bench decision in Muthuramalingam and Others v. State Represented by Inspector of Police, (2016) 07 SC CK 0052, (2016) 8 SCC 313, as controlling. That decision, quoted at length, explains that imprisonment for life is a sentence for the remainder of the life of the offender unless the appropriate authority commutes or remits it. Because a life sentence already runs to the end of natural life, the Court held that “life sentences awarded for multiple offences in a single Trial, cannot be directed to run consecutively.”
Since the appeal against the 2016 judgment had been admitted, the Court found it unnecessary to decide whether a writ court could have ordered concurrent sentences, and disposed of that appeal as infructuous. On the main appeal, it did not disturb the conviction, the fines, or the set-off under Section 428 CrPC. It only replaced the consecutive direction with the Muthuramalingam formula: the two life sentences are superimposed on each other, so that any remission or commutation granted for one sentence will not automatically benefit the other.
What the Court Actually Held
- Following Muthuramalingam v. State, life sentences for multiple offences tried in one trial cannot be ordered to run consecutively.
- The direction of the Thane Sessions Court, confirmed by the Bombay High Court, that the life sentences under Section 302 and Section 376 read with Section 342 IPC run consecutively was set aside.
- The two life sentences will be superimposed on each other; remission or commutation of one will not automatically remit the other.
- The conviction, fines and the rest of the trial court’s operative order were maintained; the appeal against the writ-court order was disposed of as infructuous.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It reaffirms a binding Constitution Bench rule that trial courts still sometimes overlook when awarding multiple life terms.
- It shows that a sentencing error can be corrected even years later in an appeal admitted after condonation of delay, without reopening the conviction.
- Superimposition protects both sides: the convict is not made to serve an impossible ‘second life’, and remission of one sentence does not wipe out the other.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Convicts and Families
- If two life sentences were ordered to run one after the other in a single trial, the direction can be challenged under Muthuramalingam.
- Correction of the sentencing direction does not mean release; each life sentence still runs and remission must be granted for both.
For Counsel
- Check sentencing directions in old life-term cases for consecutive orders inconsistent with Muthuramalingam.
- A writ petition is not the route to revisit an appellate sentence; file an appeal with a delay-condonation application.
- Seek the specific ‘superimposed’ formulation in the operative order.
Key Takeaways
- Life sentences for several offences in one trial cannot run consecutively.
- They are superimposed; remission or commutation of one does not automatically remit the other.
- Only the consecutive direction was set aside; the conviction and fines stand.
- A writ court could not review the 2016 appellate judgment; the proper remedy was an appeal.
Frequently Asked Questions
Did the Supreme Court reduce the convict’s punishment?
No. The conviction and both life sentences remain. The Court only set aside the direction that the second life sentence would start after the first, and directed that they be superimposed.
What does ‘superimposed’ mean here?
Both life sentences run together, but a remission or commutation granted for one sentence does not automatically apply to the other.
Which precedent did the Court follow?
The Constitution Bench decision in Muthuramalingam and Others v. State Represented by Inspector of Police, (2016) 8 SCC 313.
Conclusion
Raju Shantaram Koli, (2026) 10 SC CK 3500 is a short but instructive reminder that a life sentence already lasts for the rest of the convict’s life, so ordering a second one to start afterwards is legally meaningless. The Court corrected the form of the sentence without diluting its substance.
Practical takeaway: In a single trial, multiple life sentences must be framed as superimposed, not consecutive; trial courts should use the Muthuramalingam formulation in their operative orders.
Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com