Supreme Court of India· 18 August 2026

Can a sentence of life imprisonment be directed to run consecutively, either with another sentence of life imprisonment or with a fixed-term sentence?

GOPI @ SAHAYA PURUNA v. THE STATE, REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

2026 INSC 880
Coram: Vijay Bishnoi; Manoj Misra

🔖 Save this judgment 🔔 Follow Indian Penal Code, 1860 📬 Get today's judgments

View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.

Answer

No. A sentence of life imprisonment cannot be directed to run consecutively, either with another life sentence or with a fixed-term sentence, because imprisonment for life implies imprisonment till the end of the normal life of the convict — there is no question of a convict first undergoing a life sentence and thereafter undergoing fixed-term sentences, and any such direction would be unworkable.

Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 386, Section 397, Section 401, Section 31 — Indian Penal Code, 1860 — enhancement of sentence — suo moto revisional jurisdiction — consecutive sentences — enhancement of sentence — no appeal for enhancement — impermissible — Held: In the absence of an appeal for enhancement preferred by the State, the victim or the complainant, an appellate or revisional court cannot enhance a convict's sentence so as to leave the convict worse off than before filing the appeal; the High Court's exercise of suo moto revisional jurisdiction to enhance the Appellant's sentence, absent any such appeal, was impermissible. (¶17–19) right of appeal — constitutional right — accused not to be left worse off — Held further: The right to prefer an appeal is not only a statutory right but also a constitutional right in the case of an accused, who cannot be left worse off for having exercised it. (¶17) life imprisonment — consecutive sentences barred — Section 31, CrPC — Held further: A sentence of life imprisonment cannot be directed to run consecutively, either with another life sentence or with a fixed-term sentence, since imprisonment for life implies imprisonment for the entire span of the convict's normal life; where multiple sentences are awarded including one of life imprisonment, all must run concurrently. (¶20–22) sentence modified — appeals disposed of — Held further: The enhancement of sentence was set aside and the direction for consecutive running of sentences was modified to direct concurrent running; the appeals were disposed of in these terms. (¶19, ¶22–24)

In the Court's own words

Paragraph 20Now, we shall examine the propriety of the direction for the sentences to run consecutively, as directed by the Trial Court and later affirmed by the High Court. In this regard, we find it apposite to refer to the decision of the Constitutional Bench of this Court in Muthuramalingam (supra), wherein this Court examined at length, the question as to whether sentences of imprisonment, especially a sentence of life imprisonment, can be directed to run consecutively. While referring to Section 31(1) of CrPC, the Court observed:

Paragraph 21It is thus clear that the law on this point is settled. The proposition that flows directly from this Court’s interpretation of Section 31 of CrPC is that a sentence of life imprisonment cannot be directed to run consecutively, either with another life sentence or with a fixed-term sentence. In the Appellant’s case, the Trial Court awarded the sentence of life imprisonment under five counts. One under Section 449 of IPC, thrice under Section 302 of IPC for the murder of Dr. A. Malik Mohammed, his wife Katheeja Bibi and Gnanaprakasam and lastly under Section 364 of IPC. He was also awarded a fixed-term sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years 14 under Section 201 of IPC. Both the Trial Court and the High Court directed the sentences to run consecutively. This goes against the settled position of law that 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.

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code, 1860Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of GOPI @ SAHAYA PURUNA v. THE STATE, REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment

Can a High Court, exercising suo moto revisional jurisdiction, enhance a convict’s sentence in the absence of any appeal for enhancement preferred by the State, the victim, or the complainant?Is the right of an accused to prefer an appeal against conviction and sentence merely a statutory right, and can exercising it be allowed to leave the accused worse off than if he had not appealed at all?Where a convict is sentenced on multiple counts, including at least one sentence of life imprisonment together with fixed-term sentences for other offences, must all of those sentences run concurrently?

Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections