In our previous discussion on multiple life terms cannot run one after another: SC, we explored how the top court ruled against stacking life imprisonments back-to-back. Now, a fresh ruling from the Supreme Court has gone a step further. It has clarified a crucial detail about how prison remission works when an inmate is serving more than one life sentence.
Understanding the New Supreme Court Ruling
As noted in recent reports, the Supreme Court heard a case where an appellant was handed two life sentences for separate offences involving rape and murder. The trial court and the Bombay High Court had originally ordered these sentences to run consecutively—meaning one after the other. The accused challenged this approach before the Supreme Court.
A bench comprising Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice Arun Palli partly allowed the appeal. The bench reiterated a fundamental truth about criminal jurisprudence: a human being only has one life to live. Therefore, directing a person to undergo life imprisonment twice over is physically impossible and legally flawed.
What Happens to Remission? The ‘Superimposition’ Rule
While the court struck down the consecutive nature of the sentences, it addressed a complex legal puzzle. If multiple life sentences cannot run one after the other, how should the prison system handle them? The court relied on the landmark Constitution Bench judgment in Muthuramalingam and Others vs. State (2016).
The bench directed that the life sentences for different crimes—such as murder under Section 302 and other serious offences—must be superimposed over each other. This technical term means the sentences run simultaneously in time, but legally remain distinct. Consequently, if a government authority grants a pardon, remission, or commutation for one offence, it does not automatically wipe out or reduce the life term for the other offence.
What The Law Says
Under Indian criminal law, courts have the power to award sentences for multiple crimes. However, Section 331 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to the old Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) deals with sentences on an offender already sentenced for another offence. While fixed-term imprisonments can sometimes be ordered to run consecutively, legal precedent firmly establishes that a sentence of imprisonment for life cannot be stacked end-to-end because life is singular.
Why This Matters For You
For law students and everyday citizens, this ruling brings immense clarity to sentencing logic. It ensures that criminal sentencing remains grounded in rational logic while preventing loopholes. Under the superimposition method, a prisoner cannot use a remission granted for one specific crime to completely walk free if they are validly serving a separate life term for another heinous act.
The Supreme Court continues to refine how criminal penalties are executed, balancing constitutional fairness with public safety.
Story reported by Supreme Court – High Court – Legal Breaking News | Live Law India. This article is BareLaw’s independent explanation and analysis.
📲 Get every BareLaw story on Telegram — simple legal news, 5 times a day, free: t.me/barelaw
