The Supreme Court has held that life sentences awarded for multiple offences in a single trial cannot be directed to run consecutively. Such sentences are instead superimposed over each other. Applying this principle, the Court set aside the direction that a man convicted of the rape and murder of a 12-year-old girl serve his two life sentences one after the other.
A Bench of Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice Arun Palli partly allowed the appeal of Raju Shantaram Koli against a 2016 judgment of the Bombay High Court.
Background
The appellant was arrested on 30.04.2010 on the allegation that he had raped and murdered a 12-year-old victim on 29.04.2010. He stood trial in Sessions Case No. 282/2010 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Thane.
On 27.09.2013, the trial court convicted him under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment with a fine of ₹5,000. It also convicted him under Section 376 read with Section 342 IPC and imposed a second life sentence with a fine of ₹5,000. The trial court directed that the substantive sentences would run consecutively, one after the other.
The Bombay High Court, in Criminal Appeal No. 975/2014, confirmed the conviction and the sentences on 10.06.2016, stating that it would not interfere with the direction for consecutive sentences.
The appellant later filed a writ petition seeking a direction that his sentences run concurrently. The High Court disposed of it on 13.01.2025, holding that a writ court cannot review the judgment of a coordinate Bench. He then challenged both the 2025 order and the 2016 judgment before the Supreme Court. Counsel M.Y. Deshmukh appeared for the appellant, and counsel Bharat Bagla appeared for the State of Maharashtra.
Since it condoned the delay and admitted the appeal against the 2016 judgment, the Court said it was not required to decide whether a writ court could have ordered concurrent sentences.
Court’s Findings on Consecutive Life Sentences
The Court relied on the Constitution Bench ruling in Muthuramalingam and Others v. State Represented by Inspector of Police, (2016) 8 SCC 313. In that ruling, quoted in the judgment, the Constitution Bench held that “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.”
Summing up the legal position, the Bench held that “life sentences awarded for multiple offences in a single Trial, cannot be directed to run consecutively.” It added that such sentences would be superimposed over each other, so that any remission or commutation granted by the competent authority in one does not automatically result in remission of the other.
Outcome
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment insofar as it upheld the consecutive running of the two life sentences, and also set aside the trial court’s direction to that effect. The rest of the trial court’s operative order, including the fines, default sentences and set-off under Section 428 CrPC, was maintained.
Following Muthuramalingam, the Court directed that the life sentence under Section 302 IPC and the life sentence under Section 376 read with Section 342 IPC shall be superimposed over each other. The appeal against the 2025 writ order was disposed of as infructuous.
Case Title: Raju Shantaram Koli v. The State of Maharashtra
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 5072 of 2026 with Criminal Appeal No. 5073 of 2026
Bench: Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice Arun Palli
Date: October 27, 2026
