The Supreme Court has reiterated that multiple sentences of life imprisonment imposed for different offences in a single trial cannot be directed to run consecutively. Such sentences must be superimposed over each other, with remission or commutation granted in respect of one sentence not automatically extending to the other.
A Bench of Justice K. V. Viswanathan and Justice Arun Palli delivered the ruling while partly allowing an appeal challenging consecutive life sentences imposed on a man convicted of the rape and murder of a 12-year-old child.
Buy Now: 90+ Supreme Court Judgments – September 2026
The Court set aside the direction requiring the life sentences to be served one after another, while maintaining the remaining operative directions of the trial court as affirmed by the Bombay High Court. The judgment, authored by Justice Viswanathan, was delivered on October 27, 2026.
The prosecution case concerned the rape and murder of a 12-year-old child on April 29, 2010. The accused was arrested on April 30, 2010, and faced trial before the Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, Maharashtra, in Sessions Case No. 282 of 2010.
By a judgment dated September 27, 2013, the trial court convicted him of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and imposed life imprisonment, along with a fine of ₹5,000 and five months’ simple imprisonment in default of payment.
The trial court also convicted him under Sections 376 and 342 of the IPC, concerning rape and wrongful confinement, and imposed life imprisonment with fine and default-imprisonment directions.
Crucially, the trial court directed that the substantive sentences would run consecutively—one after another.
The Bombay High Court upheld the conviction and sentence on June 10, 2016, in Criminal Appeal No. 975 of 2014. It expressly declined to interfere with the direction of imposing consecutive sentences.
The convict subsequently filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 842 of 2024 before the Bombay High Court, seeking a direction that the life sentences run concurrently.
On January 13, 2025, the High Court disposed of the petition, holding that a writ court could not review a judgment delivered by a coordinate Bench. It left the convict free to challenge the sentence before the appropriate court through a legally maintainable proceeding.
The Supreme Court was approached both against this order and, separately, against the original appellate judgment, limited to the legality of consecutive life sentences.
Considering the nature of the matter and the fact that the appellant had remained in jail throughout, the Supreme Court condoned the delay and examined the sentencing issue.
Can Two Life Sentences Be Served One After Another?
The central question was whether the trial court and the High Court were justified in directing consecutive life sentences for offences under Section 302 and Section 376 read with Section 342 of the IPC in a single trial.
The Bench relied on the Constitution Bench judgment in Muthuramalingam and Others v. State Represented by Inspector of Police, (2016) 8 SCC 313.
That decision establishes that life imprisonment ordinarily extends to the remainder of the convict’s natural life, unless the competent authority grants remission or commutation. Consequently, directing a prisoner to undergo another life sentence after completing the first creates an impossibility.
The Court explained that the law permits multiple life sentences for multiple offences. However, the award of separate life sentences is distinct from a direction that those sentences must be served consecutively.
Life Sentences Must Be Superimposed
Applying the Constitution Bench ruling, the Supreme Court held that life sentences awarded for multiple offences in a single trial cannot run consecutively.
Instead, the sentences must be superimposed over each other. This preserves the separate legal effect of each sentence even though they operate over the same period.
The distinction matters when remission or commutation is considered. Relief granted in respect of one life sentence does not, by itself, extinguish or reduce the other life sentence.
Accordingly, the Court directed that the life sentence for murder and the life sentence for the offences under Section 376 read with Section 342 be superimposed. Any remission or commutation granted by the competent authority in one would not automatically result in remission of the other.
Consecutive-Sentence Direction Set Aside; Convictions Maintained
The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal against the Bombay High Court’s 2016 judgment.
It set aside that judgment to the extent it upheld consecutive life sentences. The corresponding direction in the trial court’s September 27, 2013 judgment also stood set aside.
The remaining operative order was maintained, including the convictions, life imprisonment, fine and default-imprisonment directions, and the benefit of set-off under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for detention undergone during investigation, inquiry and trial.
The ruling therefore corrects the manner in which the life sentences operate. It does not overturn the convictions or order the convict’s release.
Writ Court’s Power Left Undecided
The Supreme Court did not decide whether the Bombay High Court, exercising writ jurisdiction, could have directed concurrent sentences.
Once the separate challenge to the original appellate judgment was admitted and the sentencing issue decided, that question no longer required determination. The appeal against the High Court’s January 2025 writ order was consequently disposed of as infructuous.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
Read More: CBIC Promotes 3 IRS Officers To Principal Chief Commissioner/Principal Director General Grade
