Life convict subsequently sentenced to life or fixed term to serve concurrent sentences, separate declaration not required: Kerala HC

The Court was hearing a petition relating to Section 427 CrPC, which deals with situations where sentences are to be served consecutively or concurrently. In the facts of the case, a man undergoing life imprisonment was denied ordinary leave after he was subsequently sentenced with two sentences under the NDPS Act.

Judge Bechu Kurian Thomas ordered thus:

“Under Section 427(1) Cr.PC, punishments imposed on an accused, if not specifically imposed, would run consecutively. However, section 427(2) deviates from this and provides that if the first conviction imposes a life sentence, subsequent sentences, whether for a term or for life, would run concurrently… Where the first conviction for life sentence, the subsequent sentences, whether for life or only for a fixed term, shall run concurrently according to the legal effect, even without a declaration from the court.”

The petitioner is a life prisoner and has been in prison for the past thirteen years. He was sentenced to jail under the NDPS Act in two cases: seven days in one case and six months in the other. However, the judgments did not specify whether these sentences would run concurrently with the existing life sentence or consecutively.

The petitioner approached the High Court alleging that he could not get ordinary leave as there was no clarity whether his sentence would run concurrently with his earlier life sentence or consecutively.

The Court noted that the prison authorities refused permission to the petitioner, stating that the jail term for the next two convictions under the NDPS Act would not run concurrently. It noted that since these sentences have not yet expired, the prison authorities were of the view that the petitioner was not eligible for ordinary leave as per the amendment of Rule 7 of the Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Rules, 2014.

Based on Section 427 (2) of the CrPC, the Court stated that where a convict undergoing life imprisonment is later convicted of another offence, whether for life imprisonment or for a fixed term, the new sentence shall run concurrently with the existing life sentence will serve a prison sentence.

The Court distinguished this from Article 427(1), which concerns situations where subsequent sentences are imposed on a person who served a sentence for a fixed term and not for life imprisonment. In such situations, the Court has declared that the penalties apply concurrently, unless the Court explicitly declares that the penalties apply concurrently.

“The distinction between Article 427(1) and Article 427(2) is that under paragraph (1) the first sentence of imprisonment imposed may only be for a fixed period and not for life, while under paragraph (2) the first sentence of imprisonment imposed should have been life in prison the Court clarified.

The Court also referred to Gopakumar v. State of Kerala and Another (2008) where the Supreme Court had held that no specific declaration was required from the Court under Article 427 (2) when punishment was imposed on a life convict. In that case, the Court ruled that the prison authorities were bound by the legal provision and that they should understand that the subsequent sentences will run concurrently with the existing life sentence.

As such, the Court stated that the sentences subsequently imposed on the petitioner under the NDPS Act will run concurrently with his existing life sentence.

Counsel for the petitioners: Advocate K. Rakesh

Counsel for respondents: Public Prosecutor Sreeja V, Amicus Curiae Mitha Sudhindran

Case number: CRL.MC NO. 5468 OF 2024

Case title: Ali @Aliyar v. State of Kerala

Visa: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 653

Click here to read/download the order