Supreme Court grants appeal leave, says life sentences must run concurrently

The case concerns an appeal by Gopi @ Sahaya Puruna challenging the Madras High Court's decision to enhance his sentence from life imprisonment to imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life and to direct that multiple sentences run consecutively. The core issue is whether the High Court could enhance the sentence in an appeal filed by the accused and whether life imprisonment sentences must run concurrently.

Who it concerns: Appellant: Gopi @ Sahaya Puruna; Respondent: The State, Rep. by the Inspector of Police; Bench: Justice Vijay Bishnoi.

What the court decided

• The Court granted leave to appeal.
• The Court noted that the High Court enhanced the sentence from life imprisonment to imprisonment for the remainder of natural life.
• The Court cited settled law (Nagarajan vs. State of Tamil Nadu) stating that an appellate court cannot enhance a sentence in an appeal filed by the accused if no appeal for enhancement was filed by the State, victim, or complainant.
• The Court identified the questions for determination as: whether the High Court was justified in enhancing the sentence and whether it ought to have affirmed the direction of consecutive sentences.

Also in the document

• The judgment text provided is truncated and does not contain the final operative order or relief granted by the Supreme Court.
• The Court explicitly stated that the right of appeal is a constitutional right and an accused cannot be left worse off by an appellate court in an appeal filed by the accused.