Sentence in cases of conviction of several offences at one trial
Section 25 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 deals with sentence in cases of conviction of several offences at one trial. 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, co The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
(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.
Section 25, The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Act 46 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure
CRPC 31 Sentences in cases of conviction of several offences at one trial Text carried over almost unchanged 90%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
This section refers to
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.
-
Krishna @ Bala Krishnan vs State Tr. Insp. of Police
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 31, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where eyewitness evidence establishes that members of an unlawful assembly of five or more persons came together with the common object of committing murder, attacked family members with deadly weapons and with common intent as evidenced by slogans and coordinated attack in quick succession, all members of such unlawful assembly are vicariously liable under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC for all murders committed in prosecution of the common object, even if not all members physically perpetrated each murder. The High Court's modification of conviction from Section 34 to Section 149 is justified where the facts establish common object rather than merely common intention. While multiple life sentences can be awarded for multiple murders, they cannot be directed to run consecutively, but term sentences may precede and commence before life sentences in accordance with Section 31 CrPC.
On this section: Governs running of sentences. Core issue in these appeals. Court clarified that while multiple life sentences can be awarded, they cannot run consecutively. Term sentences can precede life sentences, but once life sentence commences, no further sentence runs.
-
Muthuramalingam vs State Rep. by Insp. of Police
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 31, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases involving unlawful assembly and mass murder, where eyewitnesses testify to the presence of multiple armed persons acting in concert with a common object to commit murder, and where the accused are heard shouting slogans indicating intent to kill, the conviction can be upheld under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC even if the charge was originally framed under Section 34 IPC, provided the evidence establishes the common object of the assembly and the participation of the accused in the unlawful assembly. The vicarious liability of all members of the unlawful assembly for acts committed in prosecution of the common object is established when eyewitness testimony is credible and corroborated by other evidence such as recovered weapons and the nature of the attack.
On this section: Cumulative sentences - interpreted to mean that life sentences cannot run consecutively; term sentences may run before life sentence
-
Muthuramalingam vs State Rep. by Insp. of Police
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 31, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an unlawful assembly of five or more armed persons with a common object attacks and kills multiple persons in a coordinated manner demonstrating shared purpose through actions like shouting incitements to kill, the members of such assembly are all vicariously liable under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC for the murders committed in prosecution of the common object, even without proof of a pre-arranged plan required for Section 34. The conviction does not become fatal merely because originally charged under Section 34 if the evidence establishes the elements of Section 149 and no prejudice is shown.
On this section: Authority to direct order of sentences and whether life sentences can run consecutively; Constitutional Bench judgment upheld legitimacy of consecutive sentences but with specific direction on execution order
-
Duryodhan Rout vs State of Orissa
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 31, 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: Sentences in cases of conviction of several offences at one trial; central provision in dispute - Court held that proviso (a) limiting aggregate to 14 years applies to life imprisonment, making consecutive sentences impermissible
-
Duryodhan Rout vs State of Orissa
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 31, 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 including one for which life imprisonment is the sentence, all sentences imposed under the Indian Penal Code must run concurrently rather than consecutively, because life imprisonment extends for the entire remaining span of the convicted person's natural life and is not confined to any definite period. The proviso to subsection (2) of Section 31 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which limits aggregate punishment to 14 years in cases of consecutive sentences, precludes the imposition of consecutive sentences when life imprisonment forms part of the conviction, as this would exceed the statutory limit. The term 'imprisonment' in Section 31 Cr.P.C includes life imprisonment, and life imprisonment means imprisonment for the full span of life unless commuted by the appropriate Government under Sections 55, 433, or 433A of Cr.P.C.
On this section: Sentences in cases of conviction of several offences at one trial; central issue of the case regarding whether consecutive sentences can be imposed when one sentence is life imprisonment
-
Muthumani Thevar vs State by Insp. of Police
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 31, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where members of an unlawful assembly of five or more persons are shown by credible eyewitness evidence to have: (1) Assembled with deadly weapons; (2) Attacked family members in succession creating circumstances showing knowledge that murder is likely to be committed; (3) Acted with shouts indicating common object to kill ('kill them', 'hack them'); and (4) Executed barbaric and brutal killings of multiple persons including vulnerable victims, all members of such assembly can be held vicariously liable for murders under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC even in the absence of a prior arranged plan, provided the eyewitness testimony is credible and corroborated. The test is whether the assembly entertained a common unlawful object of causing deaths and whether the accused intentionally joined the assembly being aware of facts rendering it unlawful.
On this section: Central issue in the case regarding whether sentences of life imprisonment can run consecutively. Constitution Bench clarified that while multiple life sentences can be awarded, they cannot run consecutively
-
Sanjeev Moses Davidson vs State
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 31, 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: Governs sentencing in cases of conviction of several offences at one trial; permits concurrent or consecutive sentences of imprisonment but does not permit concurrent sentences for imprisonment in default of fines
-
Senaul S/o. Afsar Shaikh vs State of Gujarat
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 31, 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: Sentences in cases of conviction of several offences at one trial; provides that sentences may run consecutively or concurrently at court's discretion
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.
Questions about Section 25
What have the courts held on Section 25 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita?
Krishna @ Bala Krishnan vs State Tr. Insp. of Police (09 Dec 2016) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under CRPC 31, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Governs running of sentences. Core issue in these appeals. Court clarified that while multiple life sentences can be awarded, they cannot run consecutively. Term sentences can precede life sentences, but once life sentence commences, no further sentence runs. Another 7 judgments on this section are set out below, 6 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2003 to 2018.
How do I find court cases under Section 25 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha 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: BNSS 25, section 25 BNSS, section 25 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 8 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Krishna @ Bala Krishnan vs State Tr. Insp. of Police (09 Dec 2016).
What should I read with Section 25 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 9 (Limit of punishment of offence made up of several offences), so none of them can safely be read on its own. It carries forward CrPC 31 (Sentences in cases of conviction of several offences at one trial), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 25 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita come into force?
Section 25 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, cited as BNSS 25, 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
- 359. Compounding of offences1355 words
- 187. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours1122 words
- 2. Definitions956 words
- 243. Trial for more than one offence930 words
- 35. When police may arrest without warrant881 words
- 480. When bail may be taken in case of non-bailable offence823 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 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.