MUTHURAMALINGAM & ORS. versus STATE REP. BY INSP. OF POLICE

Citation: [2016] 5 S.C.R. 30 · Decided: 19-07-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Reference answered

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
[2016] 5 S.C.R. 30 
MUTHURAMALINGAM & ORS. 
v. 
STATE REP. BY INSP. OF POLICE 
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 231-233 of2009) 
B 
JULY 19,2016 
(T.S. THAKUR, CJI, FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM 
KALIFULLA, A.K. SIKRI, S.A. BOBDE AND 
R. BANUMATHI, JJ.) 
C 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
s.31 - Essential ingredients - Discussed. 
s.31 - 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: Sentences awarded by the 
Court for several offences committed by the prisoner shall run 
consecutively (unless the Court directs otherwise) except where such 
sentences include imprisonment for life which can and must run 
concurrently - If more than one life sentences are awarded to the 
prisoner the same would get superimposed over each other - This 
will imply that in case the prisoner is granted the benefit of any 
remission or commutation qua one such sentence, the benefit of 
such remission would not ipso facto extend to the othe1: 
s.31 - Applicability in case of life imprisonment - Held: s.31 
would permit consecutive running of sentences only if such sentences 
do not happen to be life sentences since life sentence is a sentence 
for the remainder of the life of the offendor unless the remaining 
sentence is commuted or remitted by competent authority. 
s.31 (2) - Applicability of- Held: s.31 (2) deals with situations 
where the Court awarding consecutive sentences is not competent 
to award the aggregate of the punishment for the several offences 
for which the prisoner is being sentenced upon conviction - Jn 
cases falling under sub-section (2), the sentence shall in no case 
go beyond 14 years and the aggregate punishment shall not exceed 
twice the amount of punishment which the Court is competent to 
award - Sub-section (2) will, therefore, have no application to a 
case tried by the Sessions Court nor would Sub-section (2) step in 
30 
MUTHURAMALINGAM & ORS. v. STATE REP. BY INSP. OF 
31 
POLICE 
to forbid a direction for consecutive running of sentences awardable 
A 
by tlje Court of Session. 
s.31 - Whether the court can direct life sentence and term 
sentences to run consecutively - Held: The court can direct that the 
prisoner shall first undergo the term sentence before the 
commencement of his life sentence - The converse however would 
B 
not be applicable. 
Answering the reference, the Court 
HELD: 1. Section 31 Cr.P.C. is attracted only in cases where 
two essentials are satisfied viz. (1) a person is convicted at o~e 
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. [Para 7) [37-
H;38-A-D) 
2. 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. 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 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
32 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 5 S.C.R. 
happen to be life sentences. That is the only way one can avoid 
an obvious impossibility of a prisoner serving two consecutive 
life sentences. [Pa

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.