2016 (7) TMI 1652 - SC - Indian Laws

Award of sentences - series of murders - single trial - 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? - HELD THAT - A reading of Section 31 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 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 commence one after the expiration of the other in such order as the Court may direct unless the Court in its discretion orders that such punishment shall run concurrently. Sub-section (2) of Section 31 on a plain reading 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 consistent with the basic tenet that a life sentence requires the prisoner to spend the rest of his life in prison. 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. That is the only way one can avoid an obvious impossibility of a prisoner serving two consecutive life sentences. 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. The power of the Court to direct the order in which sentences will run is unquestionable in view of the language employed in Section 31 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court can therefore legitimately direct that the prisoner shall first undergo the term sentence before the commencement of his life sentence. Such a direction shall be perfectly legitimate and in tune with Section 31. The converse however may not be true for if the Court directs the life sentence to start first it would necessarily imply that the term sentence would run concurrently. That is because once the prisoner spends his life in jail there is no question of his undergoing any further sentence. Whether or not the direction of the Court below calls for any modification or alteration is a matter with which we are not concerned. The reference is accordingly answered.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether consecutive life sentences can be awarded to a convict found guilty of multiple murders tried in a single trial.
2. Interpretation of Section 31 of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding consecutive and concurrent sentences.
3. Legal implications of life imprisonment and the possibility of multiple life sentences.
4. Analysis of conflicting judgments on the issue of consecutive life sentences.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether consecutive life sentences can be awarded to a convict found guilty of multiple murders tried in a single trial:
The Supreme Court was tasked with determining if consecutive life sentences could be awarded for multiple murders tried in a single trial. The appellants were convicted of multiple murders and sentenced to life imprisonment for each murder, with the sentences ordered to run consecutively. This raised the question of whether such a direction was legally permissible.

2. Interpretation of Section 31 of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding consecutive and concurrent sentences:
Section 31 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) deals with sentences in cases of conviction for multiple offenses at one trial. It allows the court to direct that sentences run consecutively unless it orders them to run concurrently. However, the provision must be interpreted in light of the principle that life imprisonment means imprisonment for the remainder of the convict's life. The court noted that directing consecutive life sentences would be irrational, as it disregards the fact that a human has only one life to live. Therefore, Section 31(1) should be interpreted to mean that life sentences must run concurrently, even if multiple life sentences are awarded.

3. Legal implications of life imprisonment and the possibility of multiple life sentences:
The court reaffirmed that life imprisonment means imprisonment for the remainder of the convict's life unless commuted or remitted by the appropriate authority. This principle has been consistently upheld in various judgments, including Gopal Vinayak Godse v. State of Maharashtra, Dalabir Singh v. State of Punjab, and Maru Ram v. Union of India. Consequently, awarding consecutive life sentences would be anomalous and irrational, as it would imply that the convict must serve more than one life sentence, which is impossible.

4. Analysis of conflicting judgments on the issue of consecutive life sentences:
The court addressed the conflicting judgments regarding consecutive life sentences. In O.M. Cherian v. State of Kerala and Duryodhan Rout v. State of Orissa, the court held that life sentences must run concurrently, as life imprisonment means imprisonment for the remainder of the convict's life. Conversely, in Kamalanantha v. State of Tamil Nadu and Sanaullah Khan v. State of Bihar, the court upheld the direction for consecutive life sentences. The court clarified that the logic behind Section 427(2) of the CrPC, which mandates concurrent sentences for multiple life sentences, should extend to Section 31 as well. Thus, the court concluded that multiple life sentences must run concurrently, and any remission or commutation granted for one life sentence would not automatically apply to the other.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court held that while multiple life sentences can be awarded for multiple murders or other offenses, they cannot be directed to run consecutively. Instead, such sentences would be superimposed over each other, ensuring that any remission or commutation granted for one life sentence does not automatically apply to the other. The court also affirmed that term sentences can be directed to run consecutively with life sentences, but once the life sentence begins, any remaining term sentences would run concurrently. The reference was answered accordingly, resolving the conflict in the interpretation of the law.