Life Convict Subsequently Sentenced To Life Or Fixed Term Shall Serve Sentences Concurrently, Separate Declaration Not Required: Kerala HC

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

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas ordered thus:

“As per Section 427(1) Cr.P.C, sentences imposed upon an accused, if not specifically directed, would run consecutively. However, section 427(2) makes a departure and provides that if the first conviction imposes a sentence of imprisonment for life, the subsequent sentences, whether it has been for a term or for life, would run concurrently…When the first conviction is for life, the subsequent sentences, irrespective of whether it is for life or only for a term, will run concurrently by statutory operation, even without a declaration by the court.”

The petitioner is a life convict who has been in prison for the last 13 years. He was convicted of imprisonment in two cases under the NDPS Act: seven days in one case and six months in another. However, the judgments did not specify whether these sentences would run concurrently with the existing life sentence or consecutively.

The petitioner has approached the High Court since he was unable to obtain ordinary leave as there was no clarification whether his sentences are running concurrently with his earlier life sentence or consecutively.

The Court noted that the prison authorities were denying leave to the petitioner stating that the sentence of imprisonment for the subsequent two convictions under the NDPS Act were not specified to run concurrently. It noted that since those sentences have not expired, the prison authorities deemed that the petitioner was ineligible for ordinary leave according to the amendment to Rule 7 of the Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Rules, 2014.

Relying upon Section 427 (2) of CrPC, the Court stated when a convict undergoing life sentence is later sentenced for another crime, whether for life imprisonment or for a fixed term, the new sentence shall run concurrently with the existing life sentence.

The Court differentiated this from Section 427 (1) which deals with situations when subsequent sentences are ordered on a person who was undergoing sentence for a fixed term and not for life imprisonment. In such situations, the Court stated that sentences shall run concurrently unless the Court explicitly declares that it shall run concurrently.

“The distinction between Section 427(1) and 427(2) is that under sub-section (1) the first sentence of imprisonment imposed ought to be only for a term and not for life, while under sub-section (2), the first sentence imposed ought to have been for life”, clarified the Court.

The Court also referred to Gopakumar v. State of Kerala and Another (2008), where the High Court had held that no specific declaration from the Court was required in Section 427 (2) when sentences were imposed upon a life convict. In that case, the Court held that prison authorities were bound by the statutory provision, and they must understand that the subsequent sentences shall run concurrently with the existing life sentence.

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

Counsel for 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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 653

Click here to Read/Download Order