Chapter III
Section 31 CrPC: Sentence in cases of conviction of several offences at one trial
New Law Update (2024)
Section 29 BNSS
TRIAL COURT
Punishment
Procedural – Trial / Charge
Cognizable?
Bailable?
Compoundable?
Bare Act Text
(1) When a person is convicted at one trial of two or more offences, the Court may, subject to the provisions of section 71 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), sentence him for such offences, to the several punishments, prescribed therefor which such Court is competent to inflict; such punishments when consisting of imprisonment to commence the one after the expiration of the other in such order as the Court may direct, unless the Court directs that such punishments shall run concurrently.
(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 fourteen 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.
Important Sub-Sections Explained
Section 31(1)
This sub-section grants the court the authority to impose separate punishments for multiple offences committed by a person in a single trial, specifying that these sentences can run either consecutively (one after the other) or concurrently (at the same time), subject to Section 71 of the IPC.
Section 31(2)
This crucial sub-section imposes strict limitations on the aggregate period of imprisonment when consecutive sentences are awarded. It mandates that the total imprisonment cannot exceed fourteen years, nor can it be more than twice the maximum punishment the court is competent to inflict for a single offence.
Section 31(3)
This sub-section simplifies the appeal process for a convicted person by stipulating that the total of all consecutive sentences passed under this section shall be treated as a single sentence for the purpose of filing an appeal.
Landmark Judgements
M.R. Kudva v. State of A.P., (2007) 2 SCC 713:
This judgement clarified that the discretion to make sentences concurrent or consecutive rests solely with the Court, to be exercised judiciously based on the facts and circumstances of each case. It also held that if sentences are ordered to run concurrently, the issue of aggregate punishment exceeding the Magistrate’s power under Section 31 CrPC does not arise.
V.K. Agarwal v. CBI, (2005) 10 SCC 535:
The Supreme Court reiterated that the aggregate of consecutive sentences cannot exceed twice the maximum punishment the court is competent to inflict for a single offence, nor can it exceed 14 years. The Court reaffirmed the discretion of the presiding judge in deciding whether sentences should run concurrently or consecutively.
Muthuramalingam v. State, Represented by Inspector of Police, (2016) 8 SCC 303:
This ruling emphasized that the power under Section 31 CrPC is discretionary and must be exercised with due application of mind, considering the nature of the offences, the gravity of the crime, and the overall circumstances to ensure that justice is served.