SC to Examine Whether Life Sentences for Two Murders Can Run Consecutively
- ByAdmin --
- 13 Jun 2025 --
- 0 Comments
The Supreme Court of India has agreed to hear a significant appeal challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s order that imposed two life sentences for the murder of a man and his minor daughter, requiring them to run consecutively. The High Court’s judgment aims to prevent the convict from seeking remission after completing the minimum period typically associated with a single life term.
Background of the Case
- The accused was convicted of murdering an adult and his minor daughter.
- The High Court sentenced him to two separate life terms, directing that one be served only after the other.
- This ruling ensures the convict must complete at least 28 years (two periods of 14 years each) before eligibility for remission.
- The convict appealed, arguing that multiple life sentences should run concurrently, not consecutively.
Legal Question Before the Supreme Court
The key issue before the Supreme Court is whether multiple life sentences can be made to run one after the other, given that a life sentence is, by law, imprisonment for the person's natural life. The Court’s determination could have major implications for sentencing norms in India.
Constitutional Bench Precedents
A 2016 Constitution Bench led by then CJI T. S. Thakur addressed the issue specifically:
- Held: Life terms, even if awarded in respect of separate offenses, cannot be made to run consecutively, as it would defy the concept of life imprisonment being for one's natural lifespan.
- Instead, such sentences are to be superimposed, meaning served concurrently but structured to ensure that remission or commutation in one does not automatically reduce another.
- Notably, courts can impose fixed-term sentences (e.g., 10 years) to be served consecutively with life imprisonment, as governed by Section 31 CrPC—though consecutive life terms are impermissible.
Legal Provisions at Play
Here's a summary of the relevant statutory framework:
Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Section 302: Punishment for murder – imprisonment for life, or the death penalty.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
- Section 31(1): Courts can order that sentences for multiple offenses run consecutively or concurrently. However, a proviso clarifies life sentences cannot run consecutively.
- Section 433A: Prisoners are generally eligible for remission after serving 14 years of life imprisonment, subject to rules and regulations.
Constitutional Principles
- Article 14: Guarantees equality before the law; sentencing must be just and not arbitrary.
- Article 21: Protects the individual’s right to personal liberty and due process, which includes proportionate sentencing.
Arguments for Concurrent Sentencing
- A life sentence extends until death; consequentially, running two life terms back-to-back is legally nonsensical.
- The 2016 Constitution Bench made it clear that the remission system must not reduce the effective impact of multiple life sentences, which is better addressed via superimposition.
- Concurrent life terms, carefully structured, respect both legal logic and the goals of punishment.
Arguments for Consecutive Sentences
- Consecutive life terms, if permitted, would address the gravity of multiple murders, especially when victims vary in age or relationship to the accused.
- Supporters may argue that the legislature intended for courts to have full discretion under Section 31 CrPC to order consecutive imprisonment, regardless of type.
Implications of the Supreme Court’s Decision
- Sentencing dignity: Clarification could ensure consistency in how multiple murders are punished.
- Remission policy: The Court may outline how remission or commutation should be structured for multiple life sentences.
- Judicial guidance: Lower courts will receive clear directions on whether to structure life sentences consecutively or superimpose them, especially in cases involving multiple homicides.
What Happens Next
- The Supreme Court has admitted the appeal for final hearing.
- Once heard, the Court will likely re-examine the 2016 ruling and determine whether exceptions are permissible.
- Its decision will establish a binding precedent for all courts on sentencing regard multiple life imprisonment terms.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s agreement to hear this appeal highlights its commitment to resolving a vital sentencing dilemma: can someone serve two life sentences one after the other? Should life terms simply overlap? Its judgment is expected to provide lasting clarity for the criminal justice system, ensuring punishment is both legally sound and procedurally fair.
RELATED Blog
0 comments