On 27 September 2013 an Additional Sessions Judge in Thane convicted Raju Shantaram Koli of the rape and murder of a 12-year-old girl in April 2010. He imposed a life sentence for each offence and added a direction that the two would run "consecutively, one after other". The Bombay High Court confirmed everything in 2016. On 27 October 2026 the Supreme Court kept both convictions and both life terms. It deleted only the word that made one life follow the other.
The ruling is short, and the bench says it is applying settled law: the Constitution Bench decision in Muthuramalingam v. State, (2016) 8 SCC 313. It is still worth an aspirant's time. The trial court's error is the one a candidate makes when answering from an older commentary, and the BNSS has since rewritten the section the whole debate rests on.
What changed for the prisoner, and what did not
It is easy to read the headline as relief for the convict. It is not much relief. The operative order now reads as two life sentences, each with a fine of ₹5,000, with set-off under Section 428 CrPC for the time he has been in custody since 30 April 2010. The Court then added the second half of the Muthuramalingam rule. The two life terms are superimposed on each other, so any remission or commutation the State grants on one "does not ipso facto" carry over to the other.
In practice the State must clear both sentences before he can walk out. Murder is punishable with death, so the floor in Section 433A CrPC also applies: a life convict for an offence carrying death cannot be released before 14 years of actual imprisonment. That provision is now Section 475 BNSS, unchanged. What the prisoner loses is only the theoretical prospect of starting a second life sentence after the first ends, which the Court called an impossibility.
| Mode | What it means | When it applies to life terms |
|---|---|---|
| Consecutive | The second sentence begins when the first ends; the terms add up | Never for two life sentences (Muthuramalingam) |
| Concurrent | The terms run together; the longest sets the period | The default result for multiple life terms |
| Superimposed | The terms run together, but each survives on its own for remission and commutation | Directed for multiple life terms so that remitting one does not free the prisoner from the other |
The superimposition limb answers the State's real worry. If the two life terms simply merged, a remission order on the lighter conviction could arguably open the gate. Superimposition keeps each sentence alive in its own right, so the State's remission decision has to address both.
Section 31 never said "except life". The Constitution Bench read it in
Section 31(1) CrPC lets a court that convicts a person of two or more offences at one trial impose the punishment for each. Sentences of imprisonment then run "the one after the expiration of the other", unless the court orders them to run concurrently. Nothing in the text separates life imprisonment from a fixed term. In Kamalanantha v. State of T.N., AIR 2005 SC 2132, the Supreme Court read "imprisonment" in Section 31 to include life imprisonment, so consecutive life terms looked lawful. Standard CrPC commentaries still print that proposition in their notes on Section 31, which is how a trial court in 2013 came to stack two life terms.
Muthuramalingam corrected that reading in three steps, and the 2026 judgment reproduces the passages:
- Life imprisonment means the rest of the convict's natural life, unless the appropriate government remits or commutes it. The Court treated this as settled by a long line of decisions.
- Parliament had already recognised the problem in Section 427(2). When a person serving a life sentence is sentenced to life again at a later, separate trial, the second sentence runs concurrently. Section 31 has no matching clause, but the Bench held the same logic must govern a single trial, because a direction to serve life "twice over" would be anomalous and irrational.
- Awarding multiple life sentences is different from directing them to run consecutively. The first is lawful and often proper. Kamalanantha survives to that extent. The second is not.
The Court can impose as many life sentences as the offences deserve. It cannot order a human being to serve them one after another.
The point that remains open is the mixed case: a life sentence plus fixed terms in the same trial. Muthuramalingam itself allowed a court to direct that fixed terms be served first, with the life sentence to follow. A mains answer should state that limb as well, because examiners often test the fixed-term-plus-life combination, not two life terms.
The same answer under the BNSS, in new words
Section 31 CrPC is now Section 25 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Candidates should know two textual changes.
| Point | Section 31 CrPC | Section 25 BNSS |
|---|---|---|
| Default rule | Sentences of imprisonment run consecutively unless the court directs concurrency | No default; the court must order concurrent or consecutive running "considering the gravity of offences" |
| Aggregate cap on consecutive terms (proviso (a) to sub-section (2)) | 14 years | 20 years |
| Twice-the-competence cap | Aggregate cannot exceed twice what the court may award for one offence | Unchanged |
| Reference to substantive law | Subject to Section 71 IPC | Subject to Section 9 BNS |
Removing the default does not reopen Muthuramalingam. If anything it helps. Under the old text, consecutive running was what happened when a judge said nothing, and that silence was how life terms ended up stacked. Under Section 25 the judge must choose and give reasons tied to gravity. The ruling on life terms rests on what a life sentence is, not on how the section was worded, so it carries straight across to the new code.
The other provisions in the chain are renumbered without substantive change, as the BNSS correspondence tables record: Section 427 CrPC becomes Section 467, Section 432 (suspension and remission) becomes Section 473, and Section 433A becomes Section 475. On the substantive side, IPC 302 is now BNS 103, IPC 376 is BNS 64, and wrongful confinement under IPC 342 is BNS 127(2). Had the offence been committed today, rape of a girl under twelve would fall under BNS 65(2), the successor to IPC 376AB inserted in 2018. That provision defines life imprisonment itself as imprisonment for the remainder of natural life and allows the death penalty. A statute that writes "remainder of natural life" into the sentence makes consecutive life terms even harder to defend.
A side lesson: the writ that went nowhere
Koli first went to the High Court in a writ petition asking for the two sentences to be made concurrent. The High Court refused, holding that a writ court cannot review a coordinate bench's appellate judgment, and left him to "the appropriate Court". He then filed a special leave petition against the 2016 appellate judgment, years out of time. The Supreme Court condoned the delay because he had been in jail throughout, decided the sentencing point in that appeal, and disposed of the writ appeal as infructuous. The lesson for drafting: a sentence passed in appeal is corrected by challenging that appellate judgment before the court above it, not by a fresh writ in the same High Court.
Mains outline: "Consecutive and concurrent sentences"
- Text: Section 31 CrPC / Section 25 BNSS (one trial); Section 427 CrPC / Section 467 BNSS (person already serving a sentence). Note the BNSS shift from a consecutive default to a reasoned choice based on gravity.
- Limits: Section 71 IPC / Section 9 BNS on punishing parts of one offence; the aggregate and twice-competence caps; no concurrency for default imprisonment in lieu of fine.
- Life sentences: Muthuramalingam (2016, Constitution Bench). Multiple life terms may be awarded but cannot run consecutively; they are superimposed for remission. Fixed terms may be directed to precede life.
- Application: Raju Shantaram Koli (2026). A consecutive direction set aside; superimposition directed; conviction untouched.
- Release: Section 433A CrPC / Section 475 BNSS, a 14-year minimum where the offence carries death.
MCQs on running sentences
- The second life sentence shall begin on the expiry of the first
- Only one life sentence may be imposed, the other being merged
- Both life sentences shall run concurrently and be superimposed for the purpose of remission
- The court must choose between the two offences for sentencing
Answer
(c). Multiple life sentences may be awarded but cannot run consecutively. They are superimposed so that remission of one does not ipso facto remit the other (Muthuramalingam, 2016; applied in Koli, 2026).
- Must order concurrent or consecutive running considering the gravity of the offences
- Must run all sentences consecutively unless the accused applies otherwise
- Must run all sentences concurrently unless the prosecution shows cause
- Cannot impose separate sentences for each offence
Answer
(a). The BNSS removes the old consecutive default in Section 31 CrPC and requires a choice based on gravity.
- Section 31(1) CrPC
- Section 428 CrPC
- Section 433A CrPC
- Section 427(2) CrPC (now Section 467 BNSS)
Answer
(d). Section 427(2) is the express rule for separate trials. Muthuramalingam extended its logic to Section 31 for a single trial. Section 428 is set-off and Section 433A the 14-year floor on release.
