9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 1652X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ian 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 sentences having failed, the Appellants have filed the present appeals to assail the judgments and orders passed by the courts below. 4. When the appeals came up for hearing before a three-Judge Bench of this Court, learned Counsel for the Appellant appears to have confined his challenge to the validity of the direction issued by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court that the sentences of imprisonment for life awarded to each one of the Appellants for several murders allegedly committed by them would run consecutively and not concurrently. It was ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 above would show that the provision is attracted only in cases where two essentials are satisfied viz. (1) a person is convicted at one trial and (2) the trial is for two or more offences. It is only when both these conditions are satisfied that the Court can sentence the offender to several punishments prescribed for the offences committed by him provided the Court is otherwise competent to impose such punishments. What is significant is that such punishments as the Court may decide to award for several offences committed by the convict when comprising imprisonment shall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 decisions of this Court in O.M. Cherian and Duryodhan Rout cases (supra) would also be equally sound. What then needs to be examined is whether imprisonment for life does indeed imply imprisonment till the end of the normal life of the convict as observed in O.M. Cherian and Duryodhan Rout's cases (supra). That question, in our considered opinion, is no longer res integra, the same having been examined and answered in the affirmative by a long line of decisions handed down by this Court. We may gainfully refer to some of those decisions at this stage. 10. In Gopal Vinayak Go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ess 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 remissions earned. 16. Reference may also be made to the decisions of this Court in Subash Chander v. Krishan Lal (2001) 4 SCC 458, Shri Bhagwan v. State of Rajasthan (2001) 6 SCC 296 and Swamy Shraddananda v. State of Karnataka (2008) 13 SCC 767 which too reiterate the legal position settled by the earlier mentioned decisions of this Court. A recent Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Union of India v. Sriharan 2015 (13) SCALE 165 also had another occasion to review the case law on the subject. Relying upon the decisions of this Court in Sambhaji Krishna, Ratan Singh, Maru Ram and Ranjit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner 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. There was, therefore, no question of a subsequent sentence of imprisonment for life running consecutively as per the general Rule contained in Sub-section (1) of Section 427. This Court observed: 8. xxxxxxxxx As rightly contended by Shri Garg, and not disputed by Shri Lalit, the earlier sentence of imprisonment for life being understood to mean as a sentence to serve the remainder of life in prison unless commuted or remitted by the appropriate authority and a person having only one life span, the sentence on a subsequent conviction of imprisonment for a term or imprisonment for life can only be s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 which deals with conviction of several offences at one trial. Section 31(1) deals with and empowers the Court to award, subject to the provisions of Section 71 of the Indian Penal Code, several punishments prescribed for such offences and mandates that such punishments when consisting of imprisonment shall commence one after the expiration of the other in such order as the Court may direct unless the Court directs such punishments shall run concurrently. The power to award suitable sentences for several offences committed by the offenders is not and cannot be disputed. The order in which such sentences shall ru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. Cherian's case (supra) the prisoner was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for offences punishable Under Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The Courts below had in that case awarded to the convicts imprisonment for two years Under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and seven years Under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code and directed the same to run consecutively. Aggrieved by the said direction, the prisoners appealed to this Court to contend that the sentences awarded to them ought to run concurrently and not consecutively. The appeal was referred to a larger bench of Three Judges of this C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ely. 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 Section 31 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would not permit consecutive running of life sentence and the term sentence since the aggregate punishment of the Petitioner would go beyond the outer limit of 14 years stipulated in the proviso to Section 31(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court observed: Section 31 of Code of Criminal Procedure relates to sentence in cases of conviction of several offences at one trial. Proviso to Sub-section (2) to Section 31 lays down the embargo whether the aggregate punishment of prisoner is for a period of longer than 14 years. In view of the fact that life imprisonment means i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 not defined under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 31 of the Code falls under Chapter III of the Code which deals with power of courts. Section 28 of the Code empowers the High Court to pass any sentence authorised by law. Similarly, the Sessions Judge and Additional Sessions Judge may pass any sentence authorised by law, except the sentence of death which shall be subject to confirmation by the High Court. In our opinion the term "imprisonment" would include the sentence of imprisonment for life. 28. The above view runs contrary to the ratio of this Court's decision in Cherian's case (supra) and Duryodhan Rout& ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rect 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 the other. 32. We may, while parting, deal with yet another dimension of this case argued before us namely whether the Court can direct life sentence and term sentences to run consecutively. That aspect was argued keeping in view the fact that the Appellants have been sentenced to imprisonment for different terms apart from being awarded imprisonment for life. The Trial Court's direction affirmed by the High Court is that the said term sentences shall run consecutively. It was contended on behalf of the Appellants that even this part of the direction is not legally sound, for once the prisoner is sentenced to undergo imprisonment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
