Consecutive life terms ‘irrational’: SC
20 July 2016 6:09 AM IST
The apex court, however, said that multiple sentences for imprisonment for life can be awarded for multiple murders or other offences punishable with imprisonment for life but such sentences needs to be superimposed over each other so that any remission or commutation granted in one does not ipso facto result in remission of the sentence awarded to the prisoner for the other.
“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,” the five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice T S Thakur said.
It said, “Any direction that requires the offender to undergo imprisonment for life twice over would be anomalous and irrational for it will disregard the fact that humans like all other living beings have but one life to live.”
The verdict came on the appeals filed by Muthuramalingam and others who were tried for several offences, including multiple murders in a single incident and were sentenced for varying sentences, including life sentence for each of the murders which were directed to run consecutively.
The result of sentencing was such that Muthuramalingam and others were to undergo consecutive life sentences ranging between two to eight such sentences depending upon the number of murders committed by them.
The bench also comprising Justices FMI Kalifulla, A K Sikri, S A Bobde and R Banumathi while dealing with the aspect of life sentence and term sentences running consecutively, rejected the contention that if the prisoner is awarded life imprisonment, the term sentence awarded to him must run concurrently. “We do not, however, think so. The power of the court to direct the order in which sentences will run is unquestionable in view of the language employed in Section 31 of the CrPC.
The court can, therefore, legitimately direct that the prisoner shall first undergo the term sentence before the commencement of his life sentence. Such a direction shall be perfectly legitimate and in tune with Section 31 of CrPC,” the apex court said in its verdict.
Cases can be shifted out & into J&K for access to justice: SC
In a path-breaking verdict, the Supreme Court on Tuesday held that it can transfer civil and criminal cases including matrimonial disputes out and into Jammu and Kashmir, where central laws like CPC and CrPC do not apply, to ensure “right of access of justice” to litigants.
A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice TS Thakur rejected the contention of the State that it cannot interfere as neither Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure nor Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which empower this court to direct transfer cases from one state to another, are applicable on it.
The state had further said that local laws like Jammu and Kashmir Code of Civil Procedure and the Jammu and Kashmir Code of Criminal Procedure also do not contain any provision empowering the Supreme Court on the issue.
“At any rate, a prohibition simplicitor is not enough. What is equally important is to see whether there is any fundamental principle of public policy underlying any such prohibition. No such prohibition nor any public policy can be seen in the cases at hand much less a public policy based on any fundamental principle,” the bench also comprising justices FMI Kalifulla, A K Sikri, S A Bobde and R Banumathi said.
“The extraordinary power available to this court under Article 142 of the Constitution can, therefore, be usefully invoked in a situation where the court is satisfied that denial of an order of transfer from or to the court in the State of Jammu and Kashmir will deny the citizen his/her right of access to justice,” the bench said.
Next Story
