Supreme Court: Consecutive life sentences set aside, made concurrent
The Supreme Court held that life sentences for distinct offences tried together cannot be ordered to run consecutively and directed them to run concurrently.
The Supreme Court, by a two‑judge bench comprising Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice Arun Palli, delivered its judgment on 27 October 2026 in Raju Shantaram Koli v. State of Maharashtra. The Court set aside the trial and appellate courts’ direction that the appellant’s two life sentences should run consecutively and ordered that the sentences be super‑imposed, i.e., run concurrently, while leaving the convictions and monetary penalties untouched.
The appellant had been convicted of murder under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and of rape‑murder under section 376 read with section 342 IPC. The Trial Court imposed two separate life imprisonments, directing that the second term commence only after the first term was completed. The High Court affirmed this direction, holding that the distinct offences warranted separate life terms to be served one after the other.
The principal issue before the Supreme Court was whether distinct offences tried together could attract life sentences that run consecutively. Relying on the precedent set in Muthuramalingam v. State and the interpretation of Section 31 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Section 427(2), the Court observed that a life sentence denotes incarceration for the remainder of the convict’s natural life, making a consecutive imposition irrational. Consequently, the Court ordered the sentences to be super‑imposed, thereby ensuring they run concurrently, and affirmed the convictions and fines.
Read the judgment and its head note on DLJ: Raju Shantaram Koli vs The State Of Maharashtra (2026 INSC 1161).