New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to examine whether consecutive life sentences can be handed out to a person convicted twice for the offence of murder.
The issue cropped up when the bench was hearing a plea arising out of a 2015 verdict of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in a 2010 double murder case.
A bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Manmohan learnt that a five-judge Constitution bench of the Apex court in July 2016 held that while multiple sentences for imprisonment for life can be awarded for multiple murders or other offences punishable with life term, they cannot be directed to run consecutively.
“Issue notice limited to the question of ascertaining as to whether the imposition of consecutive life sentence for being convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 (twice) is lawful in view of the observations made in ... (constitution bench verdict), returnable in eight weeks,” the bench said.
The high court, while upholding the conviction of a man in the case, had turned down the reference for confirmation of the death sentence awarded to him by a trial court.
The high court awarded life imprisonment to the convict twice for the offence of murder under Section 302 of the erstwhile IPC.
Life term, it said, was a sentence for imprisonment till the last breath of a person’s natural life and as such, imposition of “two life sentences is otherwise superfluous”.
“...however, since by executive action, in the form of remissions and pardons, such life imprisonment is often reduced to imprisonment for a lessor period, therefore, in such a situation, sentence of a second life imprisonment can be directed to run from the date when a person completes one sentence of such imprisonment, if remissions are granted to him,” the high court added.
It directed that if any remission was granted to the convict in any one of his life sentences, the life term imposed upon him for the other offence of murder would start running from the date the first period of imprisonment was completed.
During the hearing in the Apex Court on Thursday, the counsel for the petitioner referred to the July 2016 verdict of the Constitution bench.