Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Section 25
Sentence in cases of conviction of several offences at one trial
(1) When a person is convicted at one trial of two or more offences, the Court may, subject to the provisions of section 9 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, sentence him for such offences, to the several punishments prescribed therefor which such Court is competent to inflict and the Court shall, considering the gravity of offences, order such punishments to run concurrently or consecutively.
(2) In the case of consecutive sentences, it shall not be necessary for the Court by reason only of the aggregate punishment for the several offences being in excess of the punishment which it is competent to inflict on conviction of a single offence, to send the offender for trial before a higher Court: Provided that—
(a) in no case shall such person be sentenced to imprisonment for a longer period than twenty years;
(b) the aggregate punishment shall not exceed twice the amount of punishment which the Court is competent to inflict for a single offence.
(3) For the purpose of appeal by a convicted person, the aggregate of the consecutive sentences passed against him under this section shall be deemed to be a single sentence.
Why this exists
This provision descends from Section 31 of the old Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which itself addressed a practical problem: courts of limited sentencing power (like Magistrates) often try multiple related offences together, and rigidly capping total punishment at what they could give for one offence would let serious multi-offence conduct go under-punished. The law lets courts stack sentences for efficiency and proportionality, while building in caps (20 years, and no more than double a single-offence sentence) to prevent excessive punishment, and a single-sentence fiction for appeals so the case isn't fragmented. The 2023 BNSS added an explicit instruction that courts must weigh the 'gravity of offences' when choosing between concurrent and consecutive sentencing, making an important judicial practice a statutory command.
How courts read it
Under the predecessor Section 31 CrPC, courts (including the Supreme Court in cases like Mohd. Akhtar Hussain v. Assistant Collector of Customs and later V.K. Bansal v. State of Haryana) held that the choice between concurrent and consecutive sentences is a matter of judicial discretion, to be exercised having regard to the nature of the offences, especially in cases involving multiple cheque-bounce or economic offences. Courts cautioned against mechanically ordering all sentences to run consecutively, particularly where offences arose from a single transaction or course of conduct. The old proviso capped aggregate imprisonment at 14 years; BNSS 2023 raises this ceiling to 20 years, and for the first time expressly directs courts to consider the gravity of the offences, codifying what earlier case law had already been urging judges to do as a matter of principle.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: A court must always send a case to a higher court if punishing multiple offences together adds up to more than it could give for one offence.
Fact: The law specifically says this is not required — the court can still handle it, as long as the 20-year cap and the 'double a single sentence' cap are respected. - Myth: Judges can freely stack every sentence back-to-back without limit.
Fact: There are firm ceilings: total imprisonment can never exceed 20 years, and never more than twice what the court could impose for a single offence, and the court must consider how serious the offences are before deciding concurrent versus consecutive. - Myth: Consecutive sentences count as multiple separate sentences for appeal purposes, making appeals more complicated.
Fact: The law deems all consecutive sentences together as a single sentence for the purpose of appeal, simplifying the process.