Can life imprisonment run consecutively with other sentences? Supreme Court clarifies

The Supreme Court has reiterated that when a convict is sentenced to life imprisonment for one offence and fixed-term sentences for other offences arising from the same case, the sentences must run concurrently rather than consecutively.

A Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Vijay Bishnoi made the observation on August 18 while modifying an order of the Madras High Court's Madurai Bench. The High Court had upheld life imprisonment along with fixed-term sentences, directing them to run consecutively, reported Live Law.

Life sentence cannot be followed by separate terms

The case involved an accused who had been sentenced to life imprisonment under Sections 449, 302 and 364 of the IPC, along with fixed-term sentences under Sections 392 and 201. The Trial Court had directed all the sentences to run consecutively, a decision later upheld by the High Court.

The Supreme Court, however, relied on the Constitution Bench ruling in Muthuramalingam and Ors. vs State (2016) and held that the sentences should run concurrently.

“…in cases where the convict is awarded multiple sentences for multiple offences and one of the sentences awarded is life imprisonment, the sentences must only run concurrently and not consecutively.”

The Court accordingly modified the direction of the lower courts.

High Court also faulted for enhancing sentence

The Supreme Court also took exception to the High Court enhancing the appellant's punishment on its own. While hearing the convict's appeal, the High Court had altered the life sentence to imprisonment for the remainder of the convict's natural life.

The Bench referred to its 2025 ruling in Nagarajan vs State of Tamil Nadu, which dealt with the limits of a High Court's revisional powers while hearing an appeal filed by a convict.

The Court noted that the High Court cannot suo motu enhance a sentence when neither the State nor the victim or complainant has sought such enhancement.

“…the High Court wrongly exercised its suo moto revisional jurisdiction in enhancing the Appellant's sentence when there was no Appeal preferred either by the State authorities or the victim or the Complainant for enhancement of Appellant's sentence.”

The Supreme Court therefore directed that the sentences in the case would run concurrently and set aside the High Court's directions on consecutive sentences and enhancement.