Limit of punishment of offence made up of several offences
Section 9 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 deals with limit of punishment of offence made up of several offences. Where anything which is an offence is made up of parts, any of which parts is itself an offence, the offender shall not be punished with the punishment of more than one of such his offences, unless it be so expressly provided. The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
(1) Where anything which is an offence is made up of parts, any of which parts is itself an offence, the offender shall not be punished with the punishment of more than one of such his offences, unless it be so expressly provided.
(2) Where---
(a) anything is an offence falling within two or more separate definitions of any law in force for the time being by which offences are defined or punished; or
(b) several acts, of which one or more than one would by itself or themselves constitute an offence, constitute, when combined, a different offence,
the offender shall not be punished with a more severe punishment than the Court which tries him could award for any one of such offences.
Illustrations.
(a) A gives Z fifty strokes with a stick. Here A may have committed the offence of voluntarily causing hurt to Z by the whole beating, and also by each of the blows which make up the whole beating. If A were liable to punishment for every blow, he might be imprisoned for fifty years, one for each blow. But he is liable only to one punishment for the whole beating.
(b) But, if, while A is beating Z, Y interferes, and A intentionally strikes Y, here, as the blow given to Y is no part of the act whereby A voluntarily causes hurt to Z, A is liable to one punishment for voluntarily causing hurt to Z, and to another for the blow given to Y.
Section 9, The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act 45 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Indian Penal Code
IPC 71 Limit of punishment of offence made up of several offences Text carried over almost unchanged 100%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Referred to by 5
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Draft stage of translated version) s. 25
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Draft stage of translated version) s. 243
- s. 2 Definitions
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita s. 25 Sentence in cases of conviction of several offences at one trial
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita s. 243 Trial for more than one offence
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Duryodhan Rout vs State of Orissa
Decided under Indian Penal Code 71, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a person is convicted of multiple offences at one trial, including one offence for which the sentence is life imprisonment, the proviso to Sub-Section (2) of Section 31 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, which limits aggregate imprisonment to 14 years, applies to prevent consecutive sentences. All sentences must run concurrently because life imprisonment means imprisonment for the entire remaining life of the convict, and the concept of consecutive sentences does not apply when one sentence is life imprisonment. The term 'imprisonment' in Section 31 CrPC includes life imprisonment as defined in the General Clauses Act, 1897, and life imprisonment is not equivalent to 14 years or 20 years but means imprisonment for the whole of the remaining period of the convict's natural life unless remitted by the appropriate Government.
On this section: Referenced in Section 31 CrPC as providing framework for sentencing in cases of multiple offences
-
State of Karnataka vs Muralidhar
Decided under Indian Penal Code 71, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases of death caused by rash and negligent driving under Section 304-A IPC, custodial sentences are necessary to reflect the gravity of the offense and to serve the dual purposes of punishment and deterrence. A court cannot waive custodial sentences merely on the basis of elapsed time without providing reasoned justification and without considering the severe consequences of inadequate sentencing on public confidence in the justice system. The sentencing court must carefully balance aggravating and mitigating factors with regard to the nature of the offense, the manner of its commission, and broader societal implications, particularly in cases involving road traffic fatalities which represent an epidemic in developing countries.
On this section: Liability for act of person bound by act; referenced by High Court as basis for imposing only fines instead of imprisonment
-
Baliram vs State of Maharashtra
Decided under Indian Penal Code 71, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A public servant can be convicted under both Section 7 (acceptance of illegal gratification) and Section 13(1)(d) (obtaining illegal gratification in pursuance of demand) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for the same transaction of demanding and accepting illegal gratification, but the offender shall not be punished with a punishment more severe than the court could award for any one of such offences. When the same transaction falls under multiple sections with different punishments, the minimum punishment of the highest minimum prescribed (here, one year under Section 13(1)(d)) shall apply in accordance with Section 71 IPC. Demand for bribe is sufficiently established through credible witness testimony combined with objective evidence like anthracene powder detection on the accused's hands and recovered currency notes when trap procedure is properly conducted with independent panch witnesses.
On this section: Limit of punishment when offence made up of parts or falling under two separate definitions. Court applied this to determine that despite dual conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d), punishment should not exceed what is permissible for one offence. Minimum punishment of one year (higher of two minimums: six months under Section 7 and one year under Section 13(1)(d)) was applied.
-
Senaul S/o. Afsar Shaikh vs State of Gujarat
Decided under Indian Penal Code 71, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a person is convicted in two separate trials for two distinct offences under two different enactments arising from the same transaction or the same basic criminal act, the court has discretion under Section 427(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code to direct that the sentences shall run concurrently rather than consecutively, particularly where the evidence in both cases is substantially the same and the offences are intimately connected. The exercise of this discretion should be guided by the totality principle, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offences, the duration of litigation, and the principle that Section 427 is intended to provide amelioration to the prisoner. The single transaction rule applies even when the offences are under different enactments, provided the underlying criminal act is the same.
On this section: Limits on punishment for offences; referenced in context of sentencing restrictions
-
Sanjeev Moses Davidson vs State
Decided under Indian Penal Code 71, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Indigence without intervening dishonesty or bad faith in liquidating the liability fastened by the District Consumer Forum or State/National Commission is no ground to incarcerate a person. Before committing a person to prison for non-payment of fines imposed by a consumer forum, the court must conduct an enquiry to determine whether the person has the means to pay but is willfully avoiding discharge of liability. Sentences of imprisonment in default of payment of fines cannot run concurrently with substantive sentences or with each other, as established by consistent judicial precedent spanning nearly a century. The legal fiction created by Section 25 of the Consumer Protection Act applies only for execution purposes and must be read in conjunction with principles of civil imprisonment for debt, which require proof of willful default and financial capacity before imprisonment.
On this section: Limits punishment where an offence is made up of several offences; prevents double punishment for the same conduct
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… a different offence, the person accused of them may be charged with, and tried at one trial for the offence constituted by such acts when combined, and for any offence constituted by any one, or more, of such acts. [ (5 )](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/21327946/) Nothing contained in this section shall affect section 9 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Illustrations to sub-section (1) (a) A rescues B, a person in lawful custody, and in so doing causes grievous hurt to C, a constable in whose custody B was. A may be charged with, and convicted of, offences under sub-section (2) of section 121 and section 263 of the …
Questions about Section 9
What have the courts held on Section 9 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
Duryodhan Rout vs State of Orissa (01 Jul 2014) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under IPC 71, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Referenced in Section 31 CrPC as providing framework for sentencing in cases of multiple offences. Another 4 judgments on this section are set out below, 3 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2003 to 2018.
How do I find court cases under Section 9 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: BNS 9, section 9 BNS, section 9 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 5 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Duryodhan Rout vs State of Orissa (01 Jul 2014).
What should I read with Section 9 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and has it changed?
5 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. It carries forward IPC 71 (Limit of punishment of offence made up of several offences), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 9 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita come into force?
Section 9 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, cited as BNS 9, came into force on 01 Jul 2024, having been enacted on 25 Dec 2023. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 2. Definitions2199 words
- 356. Defamation1543 words
- 335. Making a false document1318 words
- 101. Murder1177 words
- 303. Theft1104 words
- 3. General explanations858 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.