Supreme Court Scraps Consecutive Life Terms: Can a Convict Serve Life Twice?
The Supreme Court on October 27, 2026 set aside the direction that two life sentences awarded to Raju Shantaram Koli for the rape and murder of a 12-year-old victim must run one after the other, holding that imprisonment for life means imprisonment for the remainder of the convict's life and therefore cannot be made consecutive to another life sentence. A Bench of Justice K. V. Viswanathan and Justice Arun Palli applied the Constitution Bench ruling in Muthuramalingam and Others v. State Represented by Inspector of Police, (2016) 8 SCC 313, and directed that the two life sentences be superimposed over each other, so that any remission or commutation of one does not automatically end the other. The convictions and both life sentences remain. Only the direction to run them back to back is gone.
The question in the title has a short answer: no. But the ruling carries a catch that matters to every convict, and every lawyer, dealing with more than one life sentence, and it is explained below.
Case at a Glance
Case: Raju Shantaram Koli v. The State of Maharashtra (Criminal Appeal No. 5072 of 2026, arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8535 of 2025, heard with Criminal Appeal No. 5073 of 2026, arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 20839 of 2026 and Diary No. 49371 of 2026)
Citation: 2026 INSC 1161 (reportable)
Bench: Justice K. V. Viswanathan and Justice Arun Palli; judgment authored by Justice Viswanathan
Decided: October 27, 2026
Challenged: Judgment dated June 10, 2016 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 975/2014, confirming the Trial Court direction in Sessions Case No. 282/2010 (judgment dated September 27, 2013) that the substantive sentences run consecutively; and, in the connected appeal, the Bombay High Court order dated January 13, 2025 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 842/2024
Counsel: Mr. M. Y. Deshmukh for the appellant; Mr. Bharat Bagla for the State of Maharashtra
Outcome: Appeal arising out of Diary No. 49371 of 2026 partly allowed; direction to run life sentences consecutively set aside; life sentences superimposed; appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8535 of 2025 disposed of as infructuous
Background: Two Life Sentences, Served Back to Back
The appellant was arrested on April 30, 2010 on the allegation that on April 29, 2010 he committed rape and murder of a 12-year-old victim. He stood trial in Sessions Case No. 282/2010 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, Maharashtra.
By judgment dated September 27, 2013, the Additional Sessions Judge convicted him under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced him to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 5,000 and, in default, simple imprisonment for five months. He was also convicted under Section 376 read with Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 5,000 and, in default, simple imprisonment for five months, on both counts.
The detail that drove the appeal: the Trial Court directed that the substantive sentences run consecutively, one after the other, and not concurrently. On June 10, 2016, the Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 975/2014 confirmed the conviction and sentence, expressly noticing the consecutive direction and saying it would not interfere with it.
Two Routes to the Supreme Court
The appellant first filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 842/2024 before the Bombay High Court, asking that his life sentences be directed to run concurrently. By order dated January 13, 2025, a Division Bench disposed of the petition, holding that a writ court cannot review the June 10, 2016 judgment of a coordinate Bench, and left it open to him to challenge the sentence before the appropriate court. That order led to Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8535 of 2025.
He then separately challenged the 2016 High Court judgment on the limited issue of consecutive sentences. Considering the nature of the matter and the fact that the appellant had been in jail throughout, the Supreme Court condoned the delay and granted leave.
The Question Before the Court
The Court framed the issue as whether the Trial Court and the High Court were justified in imposing consecutive life sentences in a single trial for offences under Section 302 and Section 376 read with Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code. Since the second special leave petition had been admitted and was being decided, the Court did not need to decide whether a writ court could have ordered concurrent sentences.
What the Supreme Court Held: Nobody Serves Life Twice
The Constitution Bench Answer in Muthuramalingam
Justice Viswanathan noted that the issue, whether consecutive life sentences can be awarded to a convict found guilty of a series of offences in a single trial, had already been settled by a Constitution Bench in Muthuramalingam. The Court reproduced the key passages, including this line on why such a direction cannot stand:
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.
Why Life Means the Remainder of Life
The Constitution Bench reasoned that imprisonment for life is a sentence for the remainder of the life of the offender, unless the remaining sentence is commuted or remitted by the competent authority. Section 31 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be read consistently with that tenet, so that consecutive running of sentences is permitted only where the sentences are not life sentences. The Constitution Bench also pointed to Section 427(2) of the Code, which recognises the same anomaly for life sentences awarded for distinct offences separately tried.
What Multiple Life Sentences Can and Cannot Do
The Constitution Bench did not bar multiple life sentences. It held that they can be awarded for multiple murders or other offences punishable with imprisonment for life, but they cannot be directed to run consecutively:
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.
Superimposition, Not Succession
Instead of running one after the other, the life sentences are superimposed over each other. The consequence, as the Court restated it, is that any remission or commutation granted by the competent authority in respect of one life sentence does not ipso facto result in remission of the sentence awarded for the other. The Constitution Bench had stressed that awarding multiple life sentences that are superimposed is entirely different from directing them to run consecutively.
What the Court Directed in This Case
The Court partly allowed the appeal and set aside the direction, confirmed by the High Court, that the sentences "shall run consecutively, one after other, and not concurrently". It held that the life sentence under Section 302 and the life sentence under Section 376 read with Section 342 shall be superimposed over each other. The rest of the operative order in paragraph 86 of the Trial Court judgment, as affirmed by the High Court, was maintained, including the fines, the default sentences and the set off under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the period of detention since April 30, 2010. The connected appeal against the writ order was disposed of as infructuous.
What Changes for the Convict and What Does Not
What changes: The direction that the two life sentences run one after the other no longer exists. They now run together, superimposed over each other.
What does not change: The convictions under Sections 302, 376 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code, both life sentences, the fines and the default sentences all stand.
The catch: Because the sentences are superimposed and not merged, remission or commutation of one life sentence does not by itself operate as remission of the other.
What was left undecided: Whether a writ court can direct concurrent running of sentences was not decided, as the first appeal became infructuous.
What It Means Going Forward
Trial courts convicting an accused of several offences in a single trial can award more than one life sentence, but cannot direct that they run consecutively.
A consecutive direction covering life sentences remains open to challenge even years later. Here it survived a 2016 High Court appeal and a 2025 writ petition before the Supreme Court corrected it in a special leave petition, with the delay condoned because the appellant had been in jail throughout.
Defence lawyers and prosecutors should read sentencing orders closely for any direction on how multiple sentences run, and should ask for superimposition language where life terms are involved.
Sentencing, appeals and special leave petitions are everyday work in criminal practice. To learn how criminal matters are drafted and argued in court, explore ILW's Certificate Course in Criminal Law Drafting and Litigation.
Get judgment updates like this on WhatsApp: Join the Into Legal World WhatsApp Channel
Frequently Asked Questions
Q1. Can a person be made to serve two life sentences one after the other in India? No. The Constitution Bench in Muthuramalingam, (2016) 8 SCC 313, held that multiple life sentences can be awarded but cannot be directed to run consecutively, because imprisonment for life is a sentence for the remainder of the convict's life unless commuted or remitted.
Q2. What did the Supreme Court decide in Raju Shantaram Koli v. State of Maharashtra? On October 27, 2026, Justice K. V. Viswanathan and Justice Arun Palli partly allowed the appeal and set aside the direction that the life sentences under Section 302 and Section 376 read with Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code run consecutively. The sentences were ordered to be superimposed over each other.
Q3. Does this judgment free the convict or reduce his sentence? No. The convictions and both life sentences stand. Only the direction to run them one after the other was removed. The appellant has been in jail since April 30, 2010.
Q4. What does superimposition of life sentences mean? It means the life sentences run over each other instead of one after the other, so that remission or commutation granted by the competent authority for one does not automatically result in remission of the other.
Q5. Why did the Court not decide whether a writ court can order concurrent sentences? The appellant also challenged the High Court judgment by a separate special leave petition, which was admitted and decided on merits. The appeal against the writ order was therefore disposed of as infructuous.
Keywords: Supreme Court consecutive life sentences, Raju Shantaram Koli v. State of Maharashtra, 2026 INSC 1161, Muthuramalingam consecutive life sentences, can life sentences run consecutively, superimposed life sentences remission, Section 31 CrPC life imprisonment, Section 302 and Section 376 IPC life sentence, Justice K. V. Viswanathan judgment, Supreme Court sentencing judgment 2026
Case Title: Raju Shantaram Koli v. The State of Maharashtra
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 5072 of 2026 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8535 of 2025) with Criminal Appeal No. 5073 of 2026 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 20839 of 2026, Diary No. 49371 of 2026)
Citation: 2026 INSC 1161
Court: Supreme Court of India, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction
Bench: Justice K. V. Viswanathan and Justice Arun Palli
Read the judgment: Download the Supreme Court judgment (PDF)
Comments