The Supreme Court has held that life sentences imposed for different offences in a single trial cannot be directed to run one after the other. A Bench of Justice K. V. Viswanathan and Justice Arun Palli set aside such a direction in the case of Raju Shantaram Koli versus State of Maharashtra on 27 October 2026.
Background
Koli was arrested on 30 April 2010 on the allegation that he committed rape and murder of a 12-year-old on 29 April 2010. On 27 September 2013, the Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, convicted him under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced him to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs 5,000. He was also convicted under Section 376 read with Section 342 of the IPC and given life imprisonment with the same fine.
The trial court directed that these sentences run consecutively, meaning one would begin only after the other ended. The Bombay High Court upheld the conviction and sentence on 10 June 2016. Later, Koli’s writ petition seeking concurrent sentences was disposed of on 13 January 2025, with the High Court holding that a writ court cannot review a coordinate Bench’s judgment.
Two appeals reached the Supreme Court. One challenged the writ order, while the other, against the 2016 judgment, raised a single question: whether two life sentences can be made to run consecutively. After hearing Mr. M.Y. Deshmukh for the appellant and Mr. Bharat Bagla for the State, the Bench said it did not need to decide whether a writ court could pass such an order, since the second appeal was being decided on merits.
The Bench relied on the Constitution Bench ruling in Muthuramalingam and Others vs. State Represented by Inspector of Police, (2016) 8 SCC 313. It reproduced this passage from that judgment:
“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. So understood Section 31 (1) would permit consecutive running of sentences only if such sentences do not happen to be life sentences.”
Summing up the law, the Bench observed:
“The correct legal position, as set out by this Court in Muthuramalingam (supra) is, 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 partly allowed the appeal arising out of Diary No. 49371 of 2026 and set aside the direction that the sentences run consecutively. The rest of the trial court’s operative order, as affirmed by the High Court, was maintained. The Bench directed that the two life sentences shall be superimposed over each other.
The appeal against the writ order was disposed of as infructuous.
