Sentences for several offences -Sec.31 of CrPC

 Sentences for several offences -Sec.31 of CrPC

 

Normally the imprisonment shall commence "one after the expiration of the other". It is known as 'consecutive sentences'.

 

Sec.31(1) CrPC - Court may order all the punishments shall run concurrently (all at the same time).

 

Sec.31(2) - Court may order all the punishments shall run consecutively (one after the other).

But such a total sentence shall not exceed more than 14 years.

But also shall not exceed twice the amount of punishment of single offence.

 

Sec.31(3) - For filing Appeal, all the aggregate of the consecutive sentences, shall be deemed to be a 'single sentence'.

 

SC latest decision

The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has recently held that the cap of 14 years Rule on aggregate punishment under Section 31(2) of Cr.P.C is not applicable to Sessions Court.

 

The Constitution Bench of SC held that 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. (Muthuramalingam Vs State).

 

Muthuramalingam Vs State

The State of Tamil Nadu, placed two decisions of the SC in Kamalanantha and Ors. vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2005) 5 SCC 194 and Sanaullah Khan vs. State of Bihar, (2013) 3 SCC 52 and arguef that it was legally permissible to award more than one life sentence to a convict for different murders committed by him with a direction that the sentences so awarded shall run consecutively.

 

BUT the Appellant/accused argued that in terms of Section 31 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to the appellants for different murders alleged to have been committed by them could run concurrently and not consecutively (as ordered by the Trial Court and the High Court in this case).

 

Referred to Larger Bench

Since there was conflict in the views taken by the SC, on the question 'whether consecutive life sentences were legally permissible', directed the matter to be placed before a larger bench comprising Five Judges to resolve the conflict by an authoritative pronouncement.

 

Larger Bench of 5 Justices: 

CJI T.S. Thakur, Justices Fakkir Mohamed Kalifulla, A.K. Sikri, S.A. Bobde, R. Banumathi.

 

Result:

"We hold that 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. 

 

Such sentences would, however, be superimposed over each other so that any remission or commutation granted by the competent authority in one does not ipso facto result in remission of the sentence awarded to the prisoner for the other."

 

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/194670202/