Supreme Court rules life sentences must run concurrently, not consecutively

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.

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

• The Court held that the High Court was not justified in enhancing the sentence from life imprisonment to imprisonment for the remainder of natural life in an appeal filed by the accused, as no appeal for enhancement was filed by the State, victim, or complainant.
• The Court held that sentences of life imprisonment must run concurrently, not consecutively, with other fixed-term sentences.
• The Court set aside the High Court's enhancement of the sentence and the direction for consecutive running of sentences.

Written from the document by AI, and checked against it. The original below is authoritative.

The original document