Section 31 CrPC and Section 25 BNSS: Sentences for Multiple Offences at One Trial
When a person is convicted of two or more offences in a single trial, the court may impose separate lawful punishments. The question is whether the prison terms run together or one after another, and what statutory limits apply.
Meaning of concurrent and consecutive sentences
Concurrent sentences run at the same time. For example, two prison terms of three years and two years ordered to run concurrently ordinarily result in a three-year combined period, subject to other applicable orders and laws.
Consecutive sentences run one after the other. The same terms, if consecutive, total five years, subject to statutory limits and other applicable rules.
Section 25 BNSS: Current law
Sub-section (1): Separate punishments and judicial discretion
Where an accused is convicted of two or more offences at one trial, the court may impose the punishment prescribed for each offence within its sentencing competence, subject to Section 9 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). The court must consider the gravity of the offences and direct whether the sentences run concurrently or consecutively.
Sub-section (2): Limits for consecutive imprisonment
A case need not be sent to a higher court merely because the combined consecutive sentences exceed the sentence the trial court could impose for a single offence. However, Section 25(2) imposes two limits:
- The total term of imprisonment under this provision must not exceed 20 years.
- The aggregate punishment must not exceed twice the punishment the court is competent to impose for a single offence.
These are cumulative statutory restrictions, not permission to exceed the punishment prescribed for any particular offence. Other relevant sentencing provisions must also be considered.
Sub-section (3): Appeal
For an appeal by the convicted person, the aggregate of consecutive sentences imposed under Section 25 is treated as a single sentence.
Section 31 CrPC: Earlier provision
Section 31 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 governed sentencing after conviction for several offences at one trial. Its three sub-sections provided as follows:
Section 31(1)
Subject to Section 71 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), the court could award the separate punishments authorised for the offences within its competence. Imprisonment terms would commence one after another in the order directed by the court, unless the court directed that they run concurrently.
Section 31(2)
In cases of consecutive sentences, a higher-court trial was not required merely because the combined punishment exceeded the trial court's single-offence sentencing power. The provision imposed two restrictions: total imprisonment could not exceed 14 years, and aggregate punishment could not exceed twice the punishment the court could impose for a single offence.
Section 31(3)
For purposes of an appeal by the convicted person, consecutive sentences imposed under Section 31 were deemed to be a single sentence in the aggregate.
Key statutory provisions
| Provision | Meaning and effect |
|---|---|
| Section 25 BNSS | Current procedural provision governing separate sentences for several convictions at one trial, concurrent or consecutive service, aggregate limits and appeals. |
| Section 31 CrPC | Corresponding provision under the former criminal procedure law; relevant where preserved by applicable savings rules. |
| Section 9 BNS | Limits multiple punishment where an offence consists of parts that themselves amount to offences, or conduct falls within overlapping offence definitions, subject to its statutory terms. |
| Section 71 IPC | Former substantive-law restriction on multiple punishment for composite or overlapping offences. |
| Section 531 BNSS | Repeal and savings provision relevant to identifying which procedural law applies to pending matters. |
Practical application
The sentencing court should identify each offence of conviction, the punishment legally available for that offence, the court's sentencing competence, and any statutory bar against multiple punishment. It should then determine, having regard to the gravity of the offences and applicable law, whether terms of imprisonment should operate concurrently or consecutively.
For example, if a court imposes terms of four years and three years for two distinct offences, a concurrent direction ordinarily means both terms are served together, while a consecutive direction ordinarily means a combined seven years. This illustration does not displace offence-specific restrictions, custody-credit rules, or the court's sentencing powers.
Frequently asked questions
Is consecutive imprisonment automatic under BNSS?
No. Section 25(1) requires the court to consider the gravity of the offences and order whether sentences run concurrently or consecutively.
What is the maximum consecutive sentence under Section 25 BNSS?
The provision sets a 20-year ceiling and a further ceiling of twice the punishment the court can impose for a single offence. Both restrictions must be considered, together with other applicable law.
Does Section 31 CrPC still matter?
Yes. It may remain relevant to proceedings governed by the former Code under the repeal and savings framework and to interpreting earlier judicial decisions.
Official legal sources
- India Code - official repository of central legislation (search for BNSS Act 46 of 2023, BNS Act 45 of 2023, and CrPC Act 2 of 1974).
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - government-hosted Gazette text.
- National Crime Records Bureau - BNSS chapter text.
Legal information is provided for general reference. The outcome in a particular case depends on the applicable statute, date and nature of proceedings, charges, and judicial orders.