TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 1652X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding makes it unnecessary for the Court to send the offender for trial before a higher Court only because the aggregate punishment for several offences happens to be in excess of the punishment which such Court is competent to award provided always that in no case can the person so sentenced be imprisoned for a period longer than 14 years and the aggregate punishment does not exceed twice the punishment which the court is competent to inflict for a single offence. In State of Punjab v. Joginder Singh [ 1962 (11) TMI 59 - SUPREME COURT ], this Court held that if the sentence is 'imprisonment for life' the convict has to pass the remainder of his life under imprisonment unless of course he is granted remission by a competent authority in exercise of the powers vested in it Under Sections 432 and 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The legal position is, thus, fairly well settled that imprisonment for life is a sentence for the remainder of the life of the offender unless of course the remaining sentence is commuted or remitted by the competent authority. That being so, the provisions of Section 31 under Code of Criminal Procedure must be so interpreted as to be consi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Singh and M. Yogesh Kanna, Advs. JUDGMENT T.S. Thakur, C.J.I. 1. A Bench comprising three-Judges of this Court has referred to us the following short but interesting question: Whether consecutive life sentences can be awarded to a convict on being found guilty of a series of murders for which he has been tried in a single trial? 2. The question arises in the following circumstances: 3. The Appellants were tried for several offences including an offence punishable Under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, the Indian Penal Code ) for several murders allegedly committed by them in a single incident. They were found guilty and sentenced to suffer varying sentences, including a sentence of imprisonment for life for each one of the murders committed by them. What is important is that the sentence of imprisonment for life for each one of the murders was directed to run consecutively. The result was that the Appellants were to undergo consecutive life sentences ranging between two to eight such sentences depending upon the number of murders committed by them. Criminal appeals preferred against the conviction and the award of consecutive life s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt may, subject to the provisions of Section 71 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), sentence him for such offences, to the several punishments prescribed therefor which such Court is competent to inflict; such punishments when consisting of imprisonment to commence the one after the expiration of the other in such order as the Court may direct, unless the Court directs that such punishments shall run concurrently. (2) In the case of consecutive sentences, it shall not be necessary for the Court by reason only of the aggregate punishment for the several offences being in excess of the punishment which it is competent to inflict on conviction of a single offence, to send the offender for trial before a higher Court: Provided that- (a) in no case shall such person be sentenced to imprisonment for longer period than fourteen years; (b) the aggregate punishment shall not exceed twice the amount of punishment which the Court is competent to inflict for a single offence. (3) For the purpose of appeal by a convicted person, the aggregate of the consecutive sentences passed against him under this Section shall be deemed to be a single sentence. 7. A careful reading of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tly with life imprisonment. In such case, it will be in order if the Sessions Judges exercise their discretion in issuing direction for concurrent running of sentences. Likewise if two life sentences are imposed on the convict, necessarily, the court has to direct those sentences to run concurrently. 8. To the same effect is the decision of a two-Judge Bench of this Court in Duryodhan Rout's case (supra) in which this Court took the view that since life imprisonment means imprisonment of full span of life there was no question of awarding consecutive sentences in case of conviction for several offences at one trial. Relying upon the proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 31, this Court held that where a person is convicted for several offences including one for which life sentences can be awarded the proviso to Section 31(2) shall forbid running of such sentences consecutively. 9. It would appear from the above two pronouncements that the logic behind life sentences not running consecutively lies in the fact that imprisonment for life implies imprisonment till the end of the normal life of the convict. If that proposition is sound, the logic underlying the ratio of the dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent. 14. In Ashok Kumar @ Golu v. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 498, this Court had yet another occasion to examine the true meaning and purport of expression imprisonment for life and declared that when read in the light of Section 45 of the Indian Penal Code the said expression would ordinarily mean the full and complete span of life. The following passage in this regard is apposite: 12. xxx The expression 'imprisonment for life' must be read in the context of Section 45, Indian Penal Code. Under that provision the word 'life' denotes the life of a human being unless the contrary appears from the context. We have seen that the punishments are set out in Section 53, imprisonment for life being one of them. Read in the light of Section 45 it would ordinarily mean imprisonment for the full or complete span of life.... 15. To the same effect is the decision of this Court in the case of Laxman Naskar v. Union of India, (2000) 2 SCC 595 where this Court held that life sentence is nothing less than lifelong imprisonment although by earning remission, the life convict could pray for pre-mature release before completing 20 years of imprisonment including remiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. In an appeal filed against the second conviction and sentence, this Court by an order dated 30th September, 1983 directed that the imprisonment for life awarded to him should not run concurrently with his earlier sentence of life imprisonment. The Court directed that in the event of remission or commutation of the earlier sentence awarded to the prisoner, the second imprisonment for life awarded for the second murder committed by him shall commence. Aggrieved by the said direction which made the second life sentence awarded to him consecutive, the prisoner filed a writ petition Under Article 32 of the Constitution primarily on the ground that this Court's order dated 30th September, 1983 was contrary to Section 427(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, according to which any person already undergoing sentence of imprisonment for life if sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, the subsequent sentence so awarded to him shall run concurrently with such previous sentence. Relying upon Godse's and Maru Ram's cases (supra), this Court held that imprisonment for life is a sentence for remainder of the life of the offender. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... life imprisonment any remission or commutation has been granted by the appropriate authority. The consequence is that the Petitioner would not get any practical benefit of any remission or commutation in respect of his earlier sentence because of the superimposed subsequent life sentence unless the same corresponding benefit in respect of the subsequent sentence is also granted to the Petitioner. It is in this manner that the direction is given for the two sentences of life imprisonment not to run concurrently. 20. Ranjit Singh's case (supra) was no doubt dealing with a fact situation different from the one with which we are dealing in the present case, inasmuch as Ranjit Singh's case (supra) was covered by Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as the prisoner in that case was already undergoing a sentence of life imprisonment when he committed a second offence of murder that led to his conviction and award of a second sentence of life imprisonment. In the cases at hand, the Appellants were not convicts undergoing life sentence at the time of commission of multiple murders by them. Their cases, therefore, fall more appropriately Under Section 31 of the Code whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be awarded as humans have only one life. That logic, in our view, must extend to Section 31 of the Code of Criminal Procedure also no matter Section 31 does not in terms make a provision analogous to Section 427(2) of the Code. The provision must, in our opinion, be so interpreted as to prevent any anomaly or irrationality. So interpreted Section 31(1) must mean that sentences awarded by the Court for several offences committed by the prisoner shall run consecutively (unless the Court directs otherwise) except where such sentences include imprisonment for life which can and must run concurrently. We are also inclined to hold that if more than one life sentences are awarded to the prisoner, the same would get super imposed over each other. This will imply that in case the prisoner is granted the benefit of any remission or commutation qua one such sentence, the benefit of such remission would not ipso facto extend to the other. 21. We may now turn to the conflict noticed in the reference order between the decisions of this Court in Cherian and Duryodhan's cases (supra) on the one hand and Kamalanatha and Sanaullah Khan's cases (supra) on the other. 22. In O.M. C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ures that the remainder of the life of the prisoner is spent by him in jail. Such being the case, the question of a second such sentence being undergone consecutively did not arise. 24. In Duryodhan Rout's case (supra) the prisoner was convicted for offences punishable Under Sections 302, 376(2)(f) and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to death for the offence of murder and rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable Under Section 376(2)(f). Imprisonment for a period of one year was additionally awarded Under Section 201 of Indian Penal Code with a direction that the sentences would run consecutively. In appeal, the High Court altered the sentence of death to imprisonment for life while leaving the remaining sentences untouched. The Petitioner then approached this Court to argue that the sentences ought to run concurrently and not consecutively as directed by the Courts below. Relying upon the decision of this Court in Gopal Vinayak's case (supra) and several other subsequent decisions on the subject this Court held that the sentence of imprisonment for life means imprisonment for the remainder of the life of the prisoner. The Court further held that Sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uryodhan Rout case (supra) relies upon proviso to Sub-section (2) to support the conclusion that a direction for consecutive running of sentences is impermissible, it does not state the law correctly, even when the conclusion that life imprisonment means for the full span of one's life and consecutive life sentences cannot be awarded is otherwise sound and acceptable. 27. In Kamalanantha v. State of Tamil Nadu (2005) 5 SCC 194, the prisoners were convicted amongst others for offences Under Sections 376, 302, 354 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to under rigorous imprisonment for life for offences Under Sections 376 and 302 and various terms of imprisonment for other offences with the direction that the sentences awarded shall run consecutively. One of the issues that was raised in support of the appeal was that the Courts below were not justified in awarding consecutive life sentences. That contention was rejected by a two-Judge Bench of this Court in the following words: The contention of Mr. Jethmalani that the term imprisonment enjoined in Section 31 Code of Criminal Procedure does not include imprisonment for life is unacceptable. The term imprisonment is no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isonment for life directed that the sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment Under Section 207 Indian Penal Code shall start running after life imprisonment has run its due course. So also in Ronny v. State of Maharashtra (1998) 3 SCC 625 this Court has while altering the death sentence to that of imprisonment for life directed that while the sentence for all other offences shall run concurrently, the sentence Under Section 376(2)(g) shall run consecutively after running of sentences for other offences. To the extent these decisions may be understood to hold that life sentence can also run consecutively do not lay down the correct law and shall stand overruled. 31. In conclusion our answer to the question is in the negative. We hold that while multiple sentences for imprisonment for life can be awarded for multiple murders or other offences punishable with imprisonment for life, the life sentences so awarded cannot be directed to run consecutively. Such sentences would, however, be super imposed over each other so that any remission or commutation granted by the competent authority in one does not ipso facto result in remission of the sentence awarded to the prisoner for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
