- (1.) Leave granted in SLP (Crl.) No. 5351 of 2014. These appeals arise out of a common judgment and order passed by the High Court of Madras, whereby criminal appeals filed by the Appellants against their conviction and sentence of life imprisonment awarded to each one of them have been dismissed.
(2.) When the appeals came up for hearing before us, Mr. K.K. Mani, learned Counsel for the Appellants, confined his submissions to the validity of the direction issued by the trial Court and affirmed by the High Court that the sentence of imprisonment for life awarded to each one of the Appellants for the several murders allegedly committed by them would run consecutively and not concurrently. It was contended by Mr. Mani that in terms of Section 31 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to the Appellants even for different murders they were alleged to have committed could run but concurrently and not consecutively as has been ordered by the trial Court and the High Court. In support of his submission Mr. Mani placed heavy reliance upon the decision of a three-Judge Bench of this Court in O.M. Cherian @ Thankachan v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2014 4 RCR(Cri) 922, in para 13 whereof, this Court has observed: "13. Section 31(1) Code of Criminal Procedure. enjoins a further direction by the court to specify the order in which one particular sentence shall commence after the expiration of the other. Difficulties arise when the Courts impose sentence of imprisonment for life and also sentences of imprisonment for fixed term. In such cases, if the Court does not direct that the sentences shall run concurrently, then the sentences will run consecutively by operation of Section 31(1) Code of Criminal Procedure. There is no question of the convict first undergoing the sentence of imprisonment for life and thereafter undergoing the rest of the sentences of imprisonment for fixed term and any such direction would be unworkable. Since sentence of imprisonment for life means jail till the end of normal life of the convict, the sentence of imprisonment of fixed term has to necessarily run concurrently with life imprisonment. In such case, it will be in order if the Sessions Judges exercise their discretion in issuing direction for concurrent running of sentences. Likewise if two life sentences are imposed on the convict, necessarily, Court has to direct those sentences to run concurrently."
(3.) Reliance was also placed upon the decision of another two-Judge Bench of this Court in Duryodhan Rout v. State of Orissa, 2014 3 RCR(Cri) 700, in which this Court, in para 27, has observed: "Section 31 of Code of Criminal Procedure. relates to sentence in cases of conviction of several offences at one trial. Proviso to Sub-section (2) to Section 31 lays down the embargo whether the aggregate punishment of prisoner is for a period of longer than 14 years. In view of the fact that life imprisonment means imprisonment for full and complete span of life, the question of consecutive sentences in case of conviction for several offences at one trial does not arise. Therefore, in case a person is sentenced of conviction of several offences, including one that of life imprisonment, the proviso to Section 31(2) shall come into play and no consecutive sentence can be imposed.";