Concurrent and Consecutive running of sentences: Section 25 BNSS

Introduction

The concurrent and consecutive running of sentences is a significant aspect of criminal law, as it directly affects the duration and manner in which a convicted person serves the punishment imposed by the court. Section 25 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) provides that the Court shall, considering the gravity of offences, order such punishments to run concurrently or consecutively. In this article, we will deal with the legal framework governing concurrent and consecutive sentences under the BNSS and the principles guiding the exercise of this judicial discretion.

Definition of Concurrent running of sentences

Concurrent running of sentences means that the sentence of punishment for more than one offence or part of the same offence (where each part constitutes a separate offence) runs simultaneously rather than one after another. It gives an advantage to a convicted person as the years of imprisonment are going to be less in concurrent punishment as compared to consecutive running of the sentence.

For example, suppose a person commits the offence of dacoity and, during the commission of the dacoity, voluntarily causes grievous hurt to a victim. If the court convicts the accused for both offences and directs that the sentences shall run concurrently, the convict will serve both sentences simultaneously. In such a case, although separate sentences are imposed for each offence, the effective period of imprisonment will ordinarily be equal to the longer of the two sentences. Consequently, after completing the sentence for the offence carrying the longer term of imprisonment, the convict is not required to undergo the sentence for the other offence separately.

Definition of Consecutive running of sentences

Consecutive running of sentences means that where a person is convicted of two or more offences, the sentence for one offence commences only after the sentence for the preceding offence has been fully served. As a result, the total period of imprisonment is the aggregate of the individual sentences, making the overall punishment more severe than in the case of concurrent sentences. Since consecutive sentences substantially increase the period of incarceration, courts exercise this power with due care, having regard to the nature, gravity, and circumstances of the offences.

For example, suppose a person is convicted of house trespass and, during the same incident, also commits theft. If the court directs that the sentences shall run consecutively, the convict must first serve the sentence imposed for one offence and, upon its completion, begin serving the sentence for the other offence. Thus, the total period of imprisonment will be the combined duration of both sentences.

Legal Framework around Discretion

Section 25 of BNSS provides that a sentence in cases of conviction of several offences at one trial. The section 25(1) produced verbatim read as:-

“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.”

Section 25 BNSS has to be read with section 9 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). Section 9 of BNS provides the limit of punishment for an offence made up of several offences. Where anything 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 illustrations of the section make it clear what this section conveys:-

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.

Now, reading it with section 25(1) of BNSS, it is clear that when a person is convicted at one trial of two or more offences, the court may impose the several punishments prescribed for those offences, provided that it is competent to impose such punishments. While determining the manner in which the sentences are to be served, the court may, having regard to the gravity of the offences, direct that the sentences shall run either concurrently or consecutively.

Section 25(2) of BNSS further clarifies that where a court directs the sentences to run consecutively, it is not necessary to submit the case to a higher court merely because the aggregate term of imprisonment exceeds the ordinary sentencing powers of the Magistrate. However, this is subject to the statutory limits prescribed under Section 25(2) regarding the maximum aggregate sentence that may be imposed.

There are two proviso of section 25(2): 1) He should not be sentenced to imprisonment for more than twenty years. 2) The aggregate punishment shall not be twice the amount of punishment which the court is competent to inflict for a single offence.

Section 25(3) provides that for appeal the aggregate of the consecutive sentences passed against him under this section shall be deemed to be a single sentence.

Conclusion

The concepts of concurrent and consecutive sentences are fundamental to the law of sentencing, as they directly determine the manner and duration of punishment imposed upon a convicted person. Many countries follow both the sentencing method to inflict punishment on an offender. Similar provisions exist in several common law jurisdictions, including the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. In contrast, many civil law countries, such as Germany and France, generally prefer aggregate sentencing or impose statutory limits on the cumulative period of imprisonment to ensure that the overall punishment remains proportionate.

In India, Section 25 of the BNSS read with Section 9 of the BNS, confers upon the courts the discretion to determine whether multiple sentences should run concurrently or consecutively. While exercising this discretion, courts must carefully balance the nature, gravity, and circumstances of the offences with the overarching principles of proportionality, fairness, and justice. Consequently, the decision to order concurrent or consecutive sentences is not merely a procedural exercise but a vital aspect of achieving a just and equitable sentencing policy. Sometimes, society and justice demand the imposition of harsher punishment and the sentencing policy acts as a tool in achieving that outcome.

Read more BNSS content by clicking here.