Raju Shantaram Koli vs The State Of Maharashtra

REPORTABLE
2026 INSC 1161
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.5072 OF 2026
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8535
of 2025)
Raju Shantaram Koli …….Appellant(s)
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ……. Respondent(s)
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.5073 OF 2026
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.)
No.20839 of 2026)
(Arising out of Diary No. 49371 of 2026)
J U D G M E N T
K. V. Viswanathan, J.
1) Considering the nature of the matter and the fact
that the appellant has been in jail throughout, delay is
condoned.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ANITA MALHOTRA
Date: 2026.10.27
18:19:00 IST
Reason:
2) Leave granted.
1

3) Criminal Appeal arising out of Special Leave
Petition (Crl.) No. 8535 of 2025 calls in question the
correctness of the judgment and order dated
13.01.2025 passed by a Division Bench of the High
Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Writ Petition
No. 842/2024. By the said writ petition, the appellant
prayed that a direction be issued to the effect that the
imprisonment for life awarded to him in Sessions Trial
No. 282/2010 for the offences punishable under
Sections 302 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(for short ‘the IPC’) be directed to run concurrently. The
said writ petition had been disposed of by the High
Court by holding that a writ court cannot review the
judgment and order dated 10.06.2016, passed by a
coordinate Bench of the said Court. So holding, the
impugned order left it open to the appellant to
challenge the sentence before the appropriate Court, as
may be maintainable in law.
2

4) In Criminal Appeal arising out of Diary No. 49371 of
2026, the only question raised is whether the two
sentences of life imprisonment, imposed upon the
appellant, for the offences under Sections 302 and 376
of the IPC, can be directed to run consecutively.
BRIEF FACTS:
5) The following are the undisputed facts. On
30.04.2010, the appellant was arrested and taken into
custody on the allegation that he committed rape and
murder of a 12-year-old victim on 29.04.2010. The
appellant stood trial in Sessions Case No. 282/2010
before the Additional Sessions Judge, Thane,
Maharashtra.
6) By a judgment dated 27.09.2013, the Additional
Sessions Judge, convicted the appellant for the offence
punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced
him to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay a
fine of Rs. 5,000/- and, in default, to suffer simple
3

imprisonment for 5 (five) months. Further, the
Additional Sessions Judge, convicted the appellant for
offences punishable under Section 376 read with
Section 342 of the IPC and sentenced him to suffer
imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.
5,000/- and, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment
for 5 (five) months, on both counts.
7) What is important to note is that the substantive
sentences awarded to the appellant-accused were
directed to run consecutively, one after other, and not
concurrently.
8) The appellant challenged the aforesaid judgment
of the Trial Court by filing Criminal Appeal No. 975/2014
before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. The
High Court, by its judgment dated 10.06.2016,
confirmed the conviction and sentence awarded to the
appellant, including the direction to serve the
consecutive sentences for the said offences. In the
4

operative portion, the High Court expressly noticed that
the Trial Court had imposed consecutive sentences on
the appellant and that the High Court would not like to
interfere with the same.
9) It is this judgment of the High Court which is called
in question in the Criminal Appeal arising out of Diary
No. 49371 of 2026 on the limited issue of correctness of
the imposition of consecutive sentences.
10) We have heard Mr. M.Y. Deshmukh, learned counsel
for the appellant and Mr. Bharat Bagla, learned counsel
for the State.
11) The question before us is whether the Trial Court as
well as the High Court were justified in imposing
consecutive life sentences in a single trial for offences
under Section 302 and Section 376 read with 342 of the
IPC?
12) At the outset, we may point out that since the
appellant has separately challenged by way of an
5

appeal by special leave the judgment of the High Court
and since we have condoned the delay and admitted
the special leave petition, we are not required to decide
the question arising in the first matter, (i.e., Criminal
Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.
8535 of 2025) as to whether a writ court could have
passed an order for concurrent sentences.
13) The issue, whether consecutive life sentences can
be awarded to a convict on being found guilty of a
series of offences for which he has been tried in a
single trial, came up for consideration before a
Constitution Bench of this Court in Muthuramalingam
and Others vs. State Represented by Inspector of
Police, (2016) 8 SCC 313.
14) In Muthuramalingam (supra), this Court held as
under:-
“ 10. It would appear from the above two
pronouncements that the logic behind life
sentences not running consecutively lies in the
fact that imprisonment for life implies
6

imprisonment till the end of the normal life of
the convict. If that proposition is sound, the logic
underlying the ratio of the decisions of this Court in
O.M. Cherian and Duryodhan Rout cases would also
be equally sound. What then needs to be examined
is whether imprisonment for life does indeed imply
imprisonment till the end of the normal life of the
convict as observed in O.M. Cherian and Duryodhan
Rout cases. That question, in our considered opinion,
is no longer res integra, the same having been
examined and answered in the affirmative by a long
line of decisions handed down by this Court. We may
gainfully refer to some of those decisions at this
stage.
18. The legal position is, thus, fairly well
settled that imprisonment for life is a sentence
for the remainder of the life of the offender
unless of course the remaining sentence is
commuted or remitted by the competent
authority. That being so, the provisions of
Section 31 under Cr.P.C. must be so
interpreted as to be consistent with the basic
tenet that a life sentence requires the prisoner
to spend the rest of his life in prison. 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. So understood
Section 31 (1) would permit consecutive
running of sentences only if such sentences do
not happen to be life sentences. That is, in our
opinion, the only way one can avoid an obvious
impossibility of a prisoner serving two
consecutive life sentences.
23. Parliament, it manifests from the provisions of
Section 427(2), was fully cognizant of the anomaly
that would arise if a prisoner condemned to undergo
life imprisonment is directed to do so twice over. It
has, therefore, carved out an exception to the
general rule to clearly recognise that in the
7

case of life sentences for two distinct offences
separately tried and held proved the
sentences cannot be directed to run
consecutively. The provisions of Section 427(2)
CrPC apart, in Ranjit Singh case, this Court has
in terms held that since life sentence implies
imprisonment for the remainder of the life of
the convict, consecutive life sentences cannot
be awarded as humans have only one life. That
logic, in our view, must extend to Section 31
CrPC also no matter Section 31 does not in
terms make a provision analogous to Section
427(2) of the Code. The provision must, in our
opinion, be so interpreted as to prevent any
anomaly or irrationality. So interpreted Section
31(1) CrPC must mean that sentences awarded
by the Court for several offences committed by
the prisoner shall run consecutively (unless
the Court directs otherwise) except where
such sentences include imprisonment for life
which can and must run concurrently. We are
also inclined to hold that if more than one life
sentences are awarded to the prisoner, the
same would get super imposed over each
other. This will imply that in case the prisoner
is granted the benefit of any remission or
commutation qua one such sentence, the
benefit of such remission would not ipso facto
extend to the other.
31….. That apart the view taken in Kamalanantha
case has not noticed the basic premise that a life
sentence once awarded would imply that a prisoner
shall spend the remainder of his life in prison. Once
that happens there is no question of his undergoing
another life sentence. To the extent the decision in
Kamalanantha case takes the view that the Court
can for each offence award suitable punishment
which may include multiple sentences of
imprisonment for life for multiple offences
punishable with death, there is and can be no
quarrel with the stated proposition. The Court can
and indeed ought to exercise its powers of awarding
8

the sentence sanctioned by law which may include a
life sentence. But if the decision in
Kamalanantha purports to hold that sentence
of imprisonment for life can also be directed to
run consecutively, the same does not appear
to be sound for the reasons we have already
indicated earlier. We need to remember that
award of multiple sentences of imprisonment
for life so that such sentences are super
imposed over one another is entirely different
from directing such sentence to run
consecutively.
34. In conclusion our answer to the question is
in the negative. 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 super imposed 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 .”
(Emphasis supplied)
15) The correct legal position, as set out by this Court
in Muthuramalingam (supra) is, life sentences
awarded for multiple offences in a single Trial, cannot
be directed to run consecutively. However, such
sentences would be super imposed over each other so
that any remission or commutation granted by the
competent authority qua one, does not ipso facto result
9

in remission of sentence awarded to the prisoner for
the other.
16) For the reasons stated above, Criminal Appeal
arising out of Diary No. 49371 of 2026 is partly allowed.
The impugned order, to the extent it upholds the life
sentence imposed for the offence punishable under
Section 302 and the life sentence imposed for the
offences punishable under Section 376 read with
Section 342 to run consecutively, is set aside. The net
result is, the direction in the Trial Court judgment in
Sessions Trial No. 282/2010 dated 27.09.2013, as
confirmed by the High Court, to the effect that
substantive sentences awarded to the accused “shall
run consecutively, one after other, and not
concurrently” shall also stand set aside. The remaining
part of the operative order in Paragraph 86 of the
judgment of the Trial Court, as affirmed by the
10

judgment of the High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
975/2014, is maintained.
17) The operative order of conviction and sentence of
the appellant will now read as follows:-
“1. The accused Raju Shantaram Koli is hereby
convicted u/s. 235(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure for the offence punishable u/s. 302 of the
Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer
Imprisonment for Life and also to pay fine of Rs.
5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer
Simple Imprisonment for five months.
2. The accused is further convicted for the offences
punishable u/s. 376 and 342 of the Indian Penal
Code and sentenced to suffer Imprisonment for Life
and also to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of
payment of fine to suffer Simple Imprisonment for
five months, on both counts.
3. xxxx
4.The accused is in jail since 30.04.2010. A set off
u/s. 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is granted
to the accused for a term of the period of detention
undergone by him during the investigation, inquiry
and trial against the substantive sentence imposed
upon him.
5. The muddemal property being worthless be
destroyed after the appeal period.
6. A copy of Judgment be given to the accused free
of cost.”
18) We further direct, in accordance with
Muthuramalingam (supra), that the life sentence
11

imposed for the offence punishable under Section 302
and the life sentence imposed for the offences
punishable under Section 376 read with 342, shall be
superimposed over each other so that any remission or
commutation granted by the competent authority qua
one, does not ipso facto result in the remission of the
sentence awarded to the prisoner for the other.
19) Criminal Appeal arising out of Special Leave
Petition (Crl.) No. 8535 of 2025 is disposed of as having
become infructuous.
……….........................J.
[ K. V. VISWANATHAN ]
……….........................J.
[ ARUN PALLI ]
New Delhi;
th
27 October, 2026
12