01 Read
What happened
The Supreme Court has held that when multiple sentences are awarded alongside life imprisonment, all additional sentences must run concurrently with the life sentence, not consecutively. The Court also ruled that a High Court cannot exercise revisional powers suo motu to enhance punishment while hearing a convict's appeal. Both principles operate as safeguards against judicial overreach in sentencing, grounding the decision in Sections 427 and 397 of the CrPC and their BNSS equivalents.
02 Understand
Why it matters
This ruling addresses two distinct but related principles of criminal sentencing procedure.
**Concurrent vs. Consecutive Sentences:** Under Section 427 CrPC (Section 484 BNSS), when a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is convicted and sentenced for another offence, the subsequent sentence runs concurrently with the prior one unless the court directs otherwise. The Supreme Court has now crystallised this further — where one of the sentences is life imprisonment, no additional sentence can run consecutively. This is because life imprisonment is a sentence for the remainder of the convict's natural life; stacking another sentence after it is legally meaningless and conceptually contradictory. The principle preserves internal coherence in sentencing law.
**Revisional Power and Enhancement:** The second limb is equally significant for procedure. When a convict appeals to the High Court, the High Court exercises appellate jurisdiction. It cannot simultaneously invoke suo motu revisional powers under Section 397 CrPC to enhance the sentence — doing so would convert an appeal by the accused into a proceeding against them. This violates the principle that a party cannot be worse off by exercising their legal right to appeal. The distinction between appellate and revisional jurisdiction is a perennial CLAT PG examiner favourite, tested through passage-based and statement-evaluation questions.
Both principles connect to broader themes of proportionality, procedural fairness, and the limits of judicial power in criminal proceedings.
**Concurrent vs. Consecutive Sentences:** Under Section 427 CrPC (Section 484 BNSS), when a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is convicted and sentenced for another offence, the subsequent sentence runs concurrently with the prior one unless the court directs otherwise. The Supreme Court has now crystallised this further — where one of the sentences is life imprisonment, no additional sentence can run consecutively. This is because life imprisonment is a sentence for the remainder of the convict's natural life; stacking another sentence after it is legally meaningless and conceptually contradictory. The principle preserves internal coherence in sentencing law.
**Revisional Power and Enhancement:** The second limb is equally significant for procedure. When a convict appeals to the High Court, the High Court exercises appellate jurisdiction. It cannot simultaneously invoke suo motu revisional powers under Section 397 CrPC to enhance the sentence — doing so would convert an appeal by the accused into a proceeding against them. This violates the principle that a party cannot be worse off by exercising their legal right to appeal. The distinction between appellate and revisional jurisdiction is a perennial CLAT PG examiner favourite, tested through passage-based and statement-evaluation questions.
Both principles connect to broader themes of proportionality, procedural fairness, and the limits of judicial power in criminal proceedings.
Remember + Why it matters
The key recall facts and exact examiner angle for CLAT PG are in the Crux app.
01
Key figure and date from this topic
02
Specific number or threshold to remember
03
Policy or regulatory implication
Read + Understand free forever · 30-day free trial