Multiple Life Sentences in Same Trial Cannot Run Consecutively, Must Be Superimposed: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that life sentences awarded for multiple offences in a single trial cannot be directed to run consecutively, but would be superimposed over each other.

This means that a remission or commutation granted for one life sentence will not automatically extend to the other sentence.

A Bench of Justices K V Vishwanathan and Arun Palli made the observation while partly allowing an appeal filed by Raju Shantaram Koli against a Bombay High Court judgment that had upheld the trial court's direction requiring him to serve two life sentences consecutively for rape and murder.

Koli was arrested on April 30, 2010, after he was accused of raping and murdering a 12-year-old girl on April 29, 2010.

The trial court, in its September 27, 2013 judgment, convicted Koli and directed him to undergo life imprisonment for the offences under Sections 302 [Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS)] and 376 read with 342 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Sections 64 and 127 of the BNS) consecutively. The Bombay High Court affirmed the order on June 10, 2016.

The Supreme Court noted that the substantive sentences were directed to run consecutively, "one after other, and not concurrently".

The Bench said the issue had already been settled by the Constitution Bench in Muthuramalingam v. State (2016), which considered whether multiple life sentences could be directed to run consecutively when the offences were tried in a single trial.

The Constitution Bench had held that while courts can award multiple life sentences for multiple offences punishable with life imprisonment, such sentences cannot be directed to run consecutively. It held that Section 31(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 25 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) permits consecutive sentences only where the sentences do not include life imprisonment.

The reason, the Constitution Bench had explained, was that requiring a person to undergo imprisonment for life twice over would be anomalous because a person has only one life to live.

At the same time, the Constitution Bench clarified that multiple life sentences awarded for different offences would be superimposed over each other. Therefore, if the competent authority grants remission or commutation in respect of one life sentence, that benefit would not automatically extend to the other.

Applying this legal position, the Bench in the present case held that the life sentence imposed on Koli for murder and the life sentence imposed for rape and wrongful confinement could not be directed to run consecutively.

The Supreme Court accordingly set aside the Bombay High Court judgment to the extent that it upheld the consecutive running of the two life sentences.

It directed that the life sentence for murder and the life sentence for rape and wrongful confinement would instead be superimposed over each other, while clarifying that any remission or commutation granted in respect of one sentence would not ipso facto result in remission of the other.

Court upheld the remaining part of the judgment.

Case Title: Raju Shantaram Koli Vs The State of Maharashtra

Bench: Justices K V Vishwanathan and Arun Palli 

Date of Judgment: October 27, 2026