2026 INSC 880 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO S. 3884-3885 OF 2026

(@ Special Leave Petition (CRL.) Nos. 15334-15335 OF 2026)

(@ Special Leave Petition (CRL.) Diary No. 50265 OF 2025)

GOPI @ SAHAYA PUR UNA ….APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

THE STATE, REP. BY

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

…RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

VIJAY BISHNOI, J.

1. Leave Granted.

2. These appeals have been preferred by the Appellant

challenging the Judgment dated 20.12.2011 (hereinafter

referred to as “impugned judgment”) passed in Referred Trial

(MD) No. 01/2010 and Criminal Appeal (MD) Nos. 411 of

2009 and Criminal Revision Case (MD) Nos. 201 and 963

of 2011 by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court

2

(hereinafter referred to as “the High Court”) in exercise of suo

moto revisional jurisdiction.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

3. Dr. A. Malik Mohammed was residing in his house in the

Kanyakumari District along with his wife, Katheeja Bibi.

Gnanaprakasam was working as a watchman under Dr.

Mohammed at the time of the gruesome incident.

4. The first accused, Ambarasu, was a driver by profession

and was briefly employed by Dr. Mohammed before being

relieved from service due to his behaviour. He was friend with

the second accused, Gopi (Appellant herein).

PROSECUTION’S CASE

5. On 08.11.2007 at 7:00 PM, Ambarasu and the Appellant,

entered inside Dr. Mohammed’s residence, caught hold of

Gnanaprakasam and killed him. They proceeded into the

house of Dr. Mohammed where Ambarasu caught hold of Dr.

Mohammed and killed him. In continuation, both the accused

caught hold of Mrs. Katheeja Bibi, threatened her to hand over

valuables and demanded money. The accused thereafter

abducted Mrs. Bibi, and took her with them in the Tata Indica

3

(KL 02 W189) that belonged to Mr. Mohammed. The accused

persons pledged Mrs. Bibi’s gold chain, bracelets and rings for

cash, took her to Ongoor village situated in Vilupuram District

and burnt her alive by pouring a mixture of petrol and diesel

on her and setting her on fire.

6. On 12.11.2007 Mrs. Bibi’s brother (PW1) went to Dr.

Mohammed’s house, and upon realising suspicious

circumstances, informed Nesamony Nagar Police Station,

Nagercoil and the police along with PW1 thereafter discovered

the bodies of Dr. Mohammed and Gnanaprakasam within the

house premises. PW1 thereafter formally registered FIR as

Crime No. 784 of 2007 under Section 302 of Indian Penal

Code, 1860 (“IPC”). Both the accused were arrested on

19.11.2007. The Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari Division at

Nagercoil (hereinafter referred to as “Trial Court”) framed as

many as 12 charges against both the accused, under Sections

120(B), 449, 302 (3 counts), 201 (2 counts), 379, 364, 392 (2

counts) and 472 of IPC. Both the accused were jointly tried.

Witnesses were examined, documents and materials were

studied after which both the accused were questioned under

Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The case

4

was thereafter adjourned for examination of defence witnesses.

At this stage, accused Ambarasu did not appear before the

Court on the next hearing date and had absconded. The Trial

Court therefore split-up the case against accused Ambarasu

as a separate case and numbered the same as Sessions Case

No. 94/2009. The Trial Court thereafter proceeded with the

trial in S.C. No. 97/2008 as against the Appellant alone. After

hearing arguments on either side, the Trial Court delivered the

Judgment dated 01.10.2009 in S.C. No. 97/2008 as against

the Appellant. The Trial Court acquitted the Appellant of the

charges under Sections 379, 472, 201 and 392 of IPC but

found him guilty and convicted him for the offence under

Sections 120-B, 449, 302 (3 counts), 392, 201, and 364 of IPC

and sentenced him as follows:

Charge

No.

Sentences

under

Section (s)

Quantum of

Substantive

Sentence

Quantum of

Fine

Sentence in

Default of

payment of

fine

1 120-B IPC Life

Imprisonment

Rs. 5,000/- S.I for one

year

2 449 IPC Life

Imprisonment

Rs. 5,000/- S.I for one

year

3 302 IPC Life

Imprisonment

Rs. 10,000/- S.I for two

year

5

4 302 IPC Life

Imprisonment

Rs. 10,000/- S.I for two

year

5 392 IPC Rigorous

Imprisonment

for 10 years

Rs. 10,000/- S.I. for six

months

8 364 IPC Life

Imprisonment

Rs. 10,000/- S.I. for one

year

10 302 IPC Life

Imprisonment

Rs. 10,000/- S.I. for two

years

11 201 IPC Rigorous

Imprisonment

for seven years

Rs. 5,000/- S.I. for six

months

The Trial Court directed the above sentences to run

consecutively.

7. Aggrieved by the Judgment and Order of the Trial Court,

the Appellant challenged his conviction and sentences before

the High Court by filing Criminal Appeal (MD) No. 411/2009.

8. Meanwhile, accused Ambarasu was secured and his trial

was conducted wherein the Trial Court, in S.C. No. 94/2009

delivered judgment on 08.09.2010 thereby acquitting him from

charges under Sections 379 (7th charge), 472 (12th charge),

201 (6th charge) and 392 (9th charge) of IPC. However, the

Trial Court convicted him under Sections 120-B, 449, 302 (3

6

counts), 392, 364, 201 and 485 of IPC and awarded capital

punishment along with other sentences.

9. Further, the proceedings of Ambarasu were submitted

under Section 366 of the CrPC to the High Court. The Appeal

filed by the Appellant against the judgment dated 01.10.2009

in S.C. No. 97/2008 was clubbed with the proceedings of

Ambarasu and the High Court also registered suo moto

revision under Sections 397 and 401 of CrPC against

Judgment and order in both S.C. No. 94/2009 and S.C. No.

97/2008, and delivered a common judgment.

10. After perusing the records, the High Court set aside the

Appellant’s conviction under Section 120(B) of IPC and

acquitted him of the said charge. It affirmed the Appellant’s

conviction under Sections 449, 302 (three counts), 392, 201

and 364 of IPC. The High Court, however, enhanced the

Appellant’s sentence from imprisonment for life to that of

imprisonment for the remainder of his life and to pay a fine of

Rs. 15,000/-. It further confirmed the Trial Court’s decision of

the consecutive running of sentences. With regards to

Ambarasu’s death sentence, the High Court observed that

Ambarasu’s case does not warrant the extreme punishment of

7

death. Therefore, the High Court reduced Ambarasu’s

sentence of death to that of imprisonment for the remainder of

his life. It is not clear whether the accused Ambarasu has

challenged the impugned order passed by the High Court.

11. Assailing the Judgment of the High Court, the Appellant

preferred the instant appeals before this Court. This Court vide

Order dated 16.03.2026, issued notice limited to the question

of sentence.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS

12. The Counsel for the Appellant challenged the High

Court’s order of enhancement of sentence by contending that

the High Court, through its revisional jurisdiction, cannot

enhance a convict’s sentence without an appeal for

enhancement preferred either by the State, the victim or the

Complainant. He stated that the High Court erroneously

enhanced the Appellant’s sentence from that of Life

Imprisonment to that of Imprisonment for the remainder of

natural life.

13. He further argued that both the Trial Court and the High

Court erred in directing the sentences to run consecutively. He

8

relied on Muthuramalingam and Ors. v s. State,

Represented by Inspector of Police as reported in (2016) 8

SCC 313 to argue that a sentence of life imprisonment can

only run concurrently with other fixed-term sentences.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

14. The Counsel for the Respondent argued that the High

Court’s decision was in line with the settled principles of law

and does not warrant interference.

ANALYSIS

15. To appreciate the contentious submissions made at the

bar, we have meticulously perused the materials on record,

including the judgments of the Courts below. The questions

that require determination in these appeals are: whether the

High Court was justified in enhancing the sentence awarded

to the Appellant herein; and whether it ought to have affirmed

the direction of running of sentences consecutively.

16. It is required to be stated outrightly that the Trial Court

convicted the Appellant under Sections 120-B, 449, 302 (3

counts), 392, 364, and 201 of IPC and sentenced him to

undergo Life Imprisonment on several charges and imposed

9

fines totalling to Rs. 63,000/-, all running consecutively. The

High Court in the impugned judgment set aside the Appellant’s

conviction and sentence under Section 120 -B of IPC but

maintained his conviction and sentence imposed under

Sections 449, 302 (3 Counts), 392, 201 and 364 of IPC and

further enhanced the sentence of life imprisonment to that of

imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life. It also

affirmed the Trial Court’s direction for the sentences to run

consecutively.

17. The law on the High Court’s power to enhance a sentence

under its revisional jurisdiction is settled. In this regard, it

would be apposite to notice a decision of this Court in

Nagarajan vs. State of Tamil Nadu as reported in 2025

INSC 802, wherein it was held as under:

“9. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties

and perused the material on record. This appeal is being

disposed of by following the judgment of this Court in Sachin v.

State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal Nos. 2073-2075 of 2025

dated 21.04.2025. The relevant paragraphs of the said

judgment read as under:

“23. The question for consideration in this case is,

whether, in an appeal against conviction, the

appellate court could have directed enhancement of

the sentence in an appeal filed by the accused. Under

clause (b) of Section 386 CrPC, firstly, the appellate

court can no doubt alter the findings and sentence

and acquit or discharge the accused or order him to

be retried by a Court of competent jurisdiction

subordinate to such appellate court or committed for

10

trial. Secondly, the appellate court can also alter the

findings but maintain the sentence. Thirdly, the

appellate court can, in an appeal from a conviction,

with or without altering the finding, alter the nature

or the extent, or the nature and extent, of the

sentence but not so as to enhance the same. A plain

reading of this would imply that in an appeal against

conviction which is obviously filed by the accused, the

challenge could be two-fold: firstly, it could be against

the conviction itself in which case there is a challenge

to the sentence also; and secondly, the challenge

could be only to the sentence while accepting the

conviction. In other words, the challenge would also

be only for reduction of the sentence. The question is,

whether, in an appeal challenging the conviction and

sentence, the appellate court could, while affirming

the conviction enhance the sentence imposed by the

trial court by directing that the same had to be with

reference to other statutory provisions. There is no

doubt that the appellate court while maintaining the

conviction can reduce the sentence and grant partial

relief to an accused but in an appeal filed by the

appellant-accused, can the appellate court not only

affirm the conviction but go a step further and seek

to enhance the sentence than what has been imposed

by the Trial Court. It cannot be lost sight of that in an

appeal filed by the accused, the appellant-accused is,

at best, seeking a reversal of the conviction as well as

setting aside of the sentence and the least that the

appellant-accused can expect is even while the

conviction is affirmed, the sentence could be

maintained, if not reduced.

24. Thus, in an appeal filed by the appellant-accused

against the judgment of the conviction and sentence,

can the accused be left worse-off while the conviction

is affirmed by the appellate court exercising appellate

jurisdiction by enhancing the sentence? In such an

event, the appellant-accused would be better off, if he

either withdraws his appeal or, not to file an appeal

at all. But an appeal is not only a valuable statutory

right but also a constitutional right in criminal cases.”

10. That a right of appeal is an invaluable right, particularly for

an accused who cannot be condemned eternally by a trial

judge, without having a right to seek a re-look of the Trial

Court's judgment by a superior or appellate court. The right

to prefer an appeal is not only a statutory right but also a

constitutional right in the case of an accused. This is because

11

an accused has a right to not only challenge a judgment on its

merits, namely, with respect to the conviction and sentence

being imposed on him, but also on the procedural aspects of

the trial. An accused can question procedural flaws,

impropriety and lapses that may have been committed by the

Trial Court in arriving at the judgment of conviction and

imposition of sentence in an appeal filed against the same. It

then becomes the duty of the appellate court to consider the

appeal from the perspective of the accused-appellant therein

to see if he has a good case on merits, and to set aside the

judgment of the Trial Court and acquit the accused, or to

remand the matter for a re-trial in accordance with law, or to

reduce the sentence while maintaining the conviction or, in

the alternative, to dismiss the appeal. In our considered view,

the appellate court in an appeal filed by the accused cannot

while maintaining the conviction enhance the sentence. While

exercising its appellate jurisdiction, the High Court cannot act

as a revisional court, particularly, when no appeal or revision

has been filed either by the State, victim or complainant for

seeking enhancement of sentence against the accused.”

(Emphasis Supplied)

18. It is thus settled that in the absence of an appeal

preferred by the State or the victim or the Complainant seeking

enhancement of the sentence, the appellate court cannot

enhance the sentence of the convict on its own so as to leave

the convict in a position worse off than he was prior to filing of

the appeal.

19. In the present case, the Appellant had preferred an

appeal before the High Court wherein the High Court decided

the appeal along with the Reference made by the Sessions

Court for affirmance of death sentence imposed on Ambarasu

in Sessions Case No. 94/2009. The High Court while clubbing

12

both proceedings, exercised its suo moto revisional jurisdiction

to evaluate the entirety of trial proceedings; and even though

no appeal for enhancement had been preferred by the State or

the Complainant, the High Court went on to enhance the

Appellant’s sentence. As clearly emphasised in Nagarajan

(supra), this, in our view, is impermissible and therefore,

illegal. We, therefore, set aside the High Court’s order of

enhancement of sentence of the Appellant from that of life

imprisonment to that of imprisonment for the remainder of his

natural life.

20. Now, we shall examine the propriety of the direction for

the sentences to run consecutively, as directed by the Trial

Court and later affirmed by the High Court. In this regard, we

find it apposite to refer to the decision of the Constitutional

Bench of this Court in Muthuramalingam (supra), wherein

this Court examined at length, the question as to whether

sentences of imprisonment, especially a sentence of life

imprisonment, can be directed to run consecutively. While

referring to Section 31(1) of CrPC, the Court observed:

“7. A careful reading of the above would show that the provision

is attracted only in cases where two essentials are satisfied viz.

(1) a person is convicted at one trial, and (2) the trial is for two or

more offences. It is only when both these conditions are satisfied

13

that the court can sentence the offender to several punishments

prescribed for the offences committed by him provided the court

is otherwise competent to impose such punishments. What is

significant is that such punishments as the court may decide to

award for several offences committed by the convict when

comprising imprisonment shall commence one after the

expiration of the other in such order as the court may direct

unless the court in its discretion orders that such punishment

shall run concurrently. Sub-section (2) of Section 31 on a plain

reading makes it unnecessary for the court to send the offender

for trial before a higher court only because the aggregate

punishment for several offences happens to be in excess of the

punishment which such court is competent to award provided

always that in no case can the person so sentenced be

imprisoned for a period longer than 14 years and the aggregate

punishment does not exceed twice the punishment which the

court is competent to inflict for a single offence.

8. Interpreting Section 31(1), a three-Judge Bench of this Court

in O.M. Cherian case declared that if two life sentences are

imposed on a convict the court must necessarily direct those

sentences to run concurrently. The Court said : (SCC pp. 509-10,

para 13)

“13. Section 31(1) CrPC 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) CrPC. 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 con vict, 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, the court has to direct those

sentences to run concurrently.”

9. To the same effect is the decision of a two-Judge Bench of this

Court in Duryodhan Rout case in which this Court took the view

14

that since life imprisonment means imprisonment of full span of

life there was no question of awarding consecutive sentences in

case of conviction for several offences at one trial. Relying upon

the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 31, this Court held that

where a person is convicted for several offences including one for

which life sentences can be awarded the proviso to Section 31(2)

shall forbid running of such sentences consecutively.

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 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.…..”

(Emphasis Supplied)

21. It is thus clear that the law on this point is settled. The

proposition that flows directly from this Court’s interpretation

of Section 31 of CrPC is that a sentence of life imprisonment

cannot be directed to run consecutively, either with another

life sentence or with a fixed-term sentence. In the Appellant’s

case, the Trial Court awarded the sentence of life

imprisonment under five counts. One under Section 449 of

IPC, thrice under Section 302 of IPC for the murder of Dr. A.

Malik Mohammed, his wife Katheeja Bibi and Gnanaprakasam

and lastly under Section 364 of IPC. He was also awarded a

fixed-term sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years

15

under Section 201 of IPC. Both the Trial Court and the High

Court directed the sentences to run consecutively. This goes

against the settled position of law that in cases where the

convict is awarded multiple sentences for multiple offences

and one of the sentences awarded is life imprisonment, the

sentences must only run concurrently and not consecutively.

22. The Trial Court and the High Court awarded the

Appellant a sentence of life imprisonment under Sections 449,

302, 364 of IPC and fixed-term sentences under Sections 392

and 201 of IPC which were directed to run consecutively. In

light of the discussion above, we deem it appropriate to modify

the direction affirmed by the High Court and hold that the

sentences of the Appellant shall run concurrently.

23. We thereby conclude that the High Court wrongly

exercised its suo moto revisional jurisdiction in enhancing the

Appellant’s sentence when there was no Appeal preferred

either by the State authorities or the victim or the Complainant

for enhancement of Appellant’s sentence. Further, the High

Court erred in directing sentences to run consecutively. We,

therefore, direct that the sentences would run concurrently.

16

24. The appeals stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

Pending application(s), if any shall stand disposed of.

………………………., J.

(MANOJ MISRA)

………………………., J.

(VIJAY BISHNOI)

NEW DELHI;

AUGUST 18, 2026.