The Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to examine whether awarding consecutive life sentences to a person convicted twice for murder is permissible under the law, in light of a previous Constitution Bench judgment which had held such practice unlawful.
A bench comprising Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Manmohan issued notice on the limited question of the legality of imposing back-to-back life terms under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, returnable in eight weeks.
The issue arose during the hearing of a special leave petition challenging the 2015 judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in a 2010 double murder case. The High Court had upheld the conviction of the accused and awarded two separate life sentences, one for each murder, to run consecutively. It had also declined to confirm the trial court’s award of the death penalty.
The High Court had reasoned that although life imprisonment means imprisonment till the end of one’s natural life, the executive often grants remissions and pardons, effectively shortening the actual term served. Therefore, it held that directing the second life term to commence after completion of the first was justified to prevent premature release.
“Two life sentences is otherwise superfluous,” the High Court had noted, “however, if remission is granted in one, the other sentence would begin after completion of the first.”
The petitioner’s counsel, during Thursday’s hearing, referred to the July 2016 ruling of a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, which had held:
“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.”
The counsel argued that the High Court’s directive contradicts this binding precedent and has prevented the convict from applying for remission, effectively nullifying any executive clemency available under law.
Taking note of the submission, the bench issued notice confined to examining whether consecutive life terms can be imposed for separate convictions under Section 302, in light of the apex court’s earlier pronouncement.
The matter will now be revisited after eight weeks, with implications for how courts structure sentencing in cases involving multiple life terms, especially where remission and parole rights are concerned.
