Madhya Pradesh High Court
Harslata Alias Mushkan Alias Meenu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 May, 2025
Author: Atul Sreedharan
Bench: Atul Sreedharan, Anuradha Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21126
1 CRA-1586-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ATUL SREEDHARAN
&
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA
ON THE 6 th OF MAY, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1586 of 2012
SHEIKH IRFAN @ CHOTU @ ANAS @ ANNU
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Ms. Renu Gupta - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Akshay Namdeo Govt. Advocate for respondent State.
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1961 of 2012
HARSLATA ALIAS MUSHKAN ALIAS MEENU
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Kunal Dubey - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Akshay Namdeo Govt. Advocate for respondent State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Atul Sreedharan
Counsels for appellants in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1586/2012 and
1961/2012, namely, Sheikh Irfan @ Chotu @Anas @ Annu and Harshlata
alias Mushkan alias Meenu respectively have submitted that they are not
challenging their conviction or the sentences imposed. They are only
aggrieved by the learned trial Court having imposed two Life Sentences
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21126
2 CRA-1586-2012
which are to run consecutively.
2. The brief facts are that the appellants herein along with other co-
accused kidnaped a child of eight years and demanded a ransom of over
Rs.1,00,000/- and after having received the ransom released the child. At the
end of the trial, learned trial Court held the appellants herein guilty for the
offence of abduction and imposed life sentence on the appellants and after
that also held them guilty for having committed conspiracy for committing
abduction and imposed a second life imprisonment for the offence under
Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code and directed that both sentences shall
run consecutively instead concurrently. Learned counsel for the appellants
have placed before this Court the Judgment of Constitution Bench of the
Supreme Court in Muthuramalingam and others v. State represented by
Inspector of Police [(2016) 8 SCC 313], where the Supreme Court had
decided the issue whether two life imprisonments can be directed to run
consecutively, meaning thereby one after the other. The Supreme Court in
paragraph 30 of the said judgment examined previous judgments passed by it
and held that the Supreme Court had in several cases directed sentences of
imprisonment of life to run consecutively being compelled to say on account
of the gruesome nature of the crime committed by the prisoner. It referred to
the judgment of the Supreme Court itself in Ravindra Trimbak Chouthmal v.
State of Maharashtra [(1996) 4 SCC 148] where while commuting the death
sentence penalty to one of imprisonment for life, the Supreme Court had
directed that the sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment under
Section 207 I.P.C shall start running after life imprisonment has run its due
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21126
3 CRA-1586-2012
course. Similarly, it referred to another judgment of the Supreme Court in
Ronny v. State of Maharashtra [(1998) 3 SCC 625] where the Supreme
Court held that while all other sentences shall run concurrently, the sentence
under Section 376(2)(g) shall run consecutively after running of the
sentences for other offences. Thereafter the Supreme Court held that the
extent that the previous decisions may be understood to hold that life
sentence can also run consecutively, the same did not lay down the correct
proposition of law and that proposition was overruled. Thereafter in
paragraph 31 the Supreme Court held that multiple sentences for
imprisonment for life can be awarded for multiple murders or other offences
punishable with imprisonment for life and that the life sentences so awarded
cannot be directed to run consecutively but they shall be superimposed over
each other so that any remission or commutation granted by the Competent
Authority in one does not ipso facto result in remission of the sentence
awarded to the prisoner.
3 . That being the position of law that exists as on date according to
which, two life sentences cannot be directed to run consecutively but the
same shall run concurrently, to that extent, that part of the order passed by
learned trial Court in paragraph 90 of the judgment under challenge, is set
aside and it is directed that life imprisonments shall run concurrently. The
appellants herein shall be eligible to be considered for commutation of
sentence if their case is found fit by the Government in the light of the
position of law elucidated herein.
4. Thus, Criminal Appeal Nos. 1586/2012 and 1961/2012 stand
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21126
4 CRA-1586-2012
disposed of with the above said directions.
(ATUL SREEDHARAN) (ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE JUDGE
VKT
