The Supreme Court has held that life sentences cannot run consecutively, even where a convict is sentenced to life imprisonment for more than one offence in a single trial.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on October 27, 2026 held that life sentences cannot run consecutively, setting aside the direction of a Thane trial court, confirmed by the Bombay High Court, that two life terms awarded to a man for murder and for rape should be served one after the other, and ordering that the two sentences be superimposed over each other instead [Raju Shantaram Koli v. State of Maharashtra].
A Bench of Justice K V Viswanathan and Justice Arun Palli partly allowed Criminal Appeal No. 5073 of 2026, arising out of Diary No. 49371 of 2026. Advocate M Y Deshmukh appeared for the appellant and Advocate Bharat Bagla appeared for the State of Maharashtra. The Court left the conviction itself untouched and did not reopen the guilt of the appellant.
How the case reached the Supreme Court
The appellant was arrested on April 30, 2010 on the allegation that he had raped and murdered a 12-year-old child on April 29, 2010. The child’s identity is not disclosed. By a judgment of September 27, 2013 in Sessions Case No. 282 of 2010, the Additional Sessions Judge, Thane convicted him under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs 5,000. He was also convicted under Section 376 read with Section 342 of the IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs 5,000 on both counts. The trial court directed that the sentences run consecutively and not concurrently.
The Bombay High Court confirmed the conviction and the sentences, including the consecutive running, in Criminal Appeal No. 975 of 2014 on June 10, 2016, noting that it would not interfere with that direction. The appellant later filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 842 of 2024 seeking a direction that the life terms run concurrently. A Division Bench disposed of it on January 13, 2025, holding that a writ court cannot review an earlier judgment of a coordinate Bench. He then approached the Supreme Court, which condoned the delay on account of the fact that he has been in jail throughout.
The settled position
The only question before the Bench was whether the trial court and the High Court were justified in imposing consecutive life sentences in a single trial for offences under Section 302 and Section 376 read with Section 342 of the IPC. Justice Viswanathan, who wrote the judgment, went straight to the Constitution Bench ruling in Muthuramalingam and Others v. State, (2016) 8 SCC 313, which had examined the same issue and held that imprisonment for life means imprisonment for the remainder of the convict’s natural life, unless it is commuted or remitted by the competent authority.
The judgment reproduces the passage from Muthuramalingam on why a second life term cannot follow the first:
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 Constitution Bench had read Section 31(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to permit consecutive running of sentences only where they do not include imprisonment for life. It had also held that more than one life sentence awarded to a prisoner would be superimposed over each other, so that remission or commutation granted in one does not automatically extend to the other.
What the Court held
Applying that ruling, the Bench stated the position in these words:
life sentences awarded for multiple offences in a single Trial, cannot be directed to run consecutively. However, such sentences would be super imposed over each other so that any remission or commutation granted by the competent authority qua one, does not ipso facto result in remission of sentence awarded to the prisoner for the other.
The Court set aside the High Court’s order to the extent it upheld the life sentence under Section 302 and the life sentence under Section 376 read with Section 342 running consecutively. It also set aside the trial court’s direction that the substantive sentences run consecutively, one after the other and not concurrently. The rest of the operative order of the trial court, as affirmed by the High Court, was maintained, including the fines and the default sentences, and the set-off under Section 428 of the Code for the period of detention since April 30, 2010.
The directions
The Bench directed, in accordance with Muthuramalingam, that the life sentence under Section 302 and the life sentence under Section 376 read with Section 342 shall be superimposed over each other, so that any remission or commutation granted by the competent authority for one does not ipso facto result in remission of the sentence for the other. The connected Criminal Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8535 of 2025, which challenged the High Court’s writ order, was disposed of as infructuous, and the Court did not decide whether a writ court could have passed such an order.
Why the judgment matters
The ruling is a reminder that trial courts and High Courts cannot direct life sentences to run back to back, however grave the offences, and that the correct course is superimposition. A convict given life terms for several offences does not serve a longer life term; what changes is that remission granted for one offence does not automatically wipe out the life term for the other.
For prisoners who were sentenced to consecutive life terms before this clarification, the judgment also shows that the question can still be raised in an appeal against the High Court’s confirmation, even years after the conviction became final at the trial and appellate stages.
Case Title: Raju Shantaram Koli v. State of Maharashtra [Criminal Appeal No. 5073 of 2026, arising out of Diary No. 49371 of 2026; with Criminal Appeal No. 5072 of 2026 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 8535 of 2025]
Bench: Justice K V Viswanathan and Justice Arun Palli, Supreme Court of India
Date of Judgment: October 27, 2026
Appearances: Advocate M Y Deshmukh for the appellant; Advocate Bharat Bagla for the State of Maharashtra.
CHILDLINE 1098 is the national helpline for children in need of care and protection.