No sentence enhancement without State or victim appeal; multiple life terms must run concurrently, rules Supreme Court

Dr. A. Malik Mohammed, his wife Katheeja Bibi, and their watchman Gnanaprakasam resided in Kanyakumari District. On 8 November 2007, the appellant Gopi and co-accused Ambarasu allegedly entered the residence, killed Gnanaprakasam and Dr. Mohammed, abducted Mrs. Bibi, robbed her valuables, and later burnt her alive after taking her to Ongoor village.

The appellant was convicted by the Trial Court under Sections 120-B, 449, 302 (three counts), 392, 364 and 201 of the IPC and was sentenced to multiple terms of imprisonment, including life imprisonment, with the sentences directed to run consecutively.

On the appellant’s appeal, the High Court set aside the conviction under Section 120-B IPC but affirmed the remaining convictions. While exercising suo motu revisional jurisdiction, it enhanced the life sentences to imprisonment for the remainder of the appellant’s natural life and confirmed the consecutive running of sentences, although no appeal for enhancement had been filed by the State, victim, or complainant.

The Supreme Court granted leave and limited notice to the question of sentence.

Whether the High Court, while deciding the appellant’s appeal and exercising suo motu revisional jurisdiction, could enhance his sentence from life imprisonment to imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life in the absence of an appeal for enhancement by the State, victim, or complainant?

Whether the sentences of life imprisonment and fixed-term imprisonment imposed for multiple offences arising from the same trial could be directed to run consecutively?

The Court applied Section 386(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, under which an appellate court hearing an accused’s appeal may alter or reduce the sentence but cannot enhance it in a manner that places the accused in a worse position.

Relying on Nagarajan v. State of Tamil Nadu, following Sachin v. State of Maharashtra, the Court held that an appellate court cannot enhance an accused’s sentence in an appeal filed solely by the accused, particularly when no enhancement appeal or revision has been filed by the State, victim, or complainant.

The Court further applied Section 31 CrPC and the Constitution Bench decision in Muthuramalingam v. State, which establishes that multiple life sentences cannot run consecutively and that, where a sentence of life imprisonment is imposed along with fixed-term sentences, the sentences must run concurrently because life imprisonment extends to the remainder of the convict’s natural life.

The appellant had approached the High Court seeking appellate relief against his conviction and sentence. The High Court, despite setting aside the Section 120-B conviction, enhanced the remaining life sentences to imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life through suo motu revision, without any enhancement proceeding initiated by the State or other authorised party. Applying the principle that an accused cannot be placed in a worse position merely because he exercised his right of appeal, the Supreme Court held that the enhancement was impermissible and illegal.

On the question of concurrency, the Court noted that the appellant had received life sentences under Sections 449, 302 and 364 IPC, as well as fixed-term sentences under Sections 392 and 201 IPC. In view of Muthuramalingam, life imprisonment cannot be made to run consecutively either with another life sentence or with a fixed-term sentence; consequently, the direction for consecutive sentences was legally unsustainable.

It further modified the sentencing direction and ordered that all sentences imposed on the appellant shall run concurrently, rather than consecutively.

The appeals were accordingly disposed of.