S.31 CrPC/ S.25 BNSS

Source: Orissa High Court

Why in News?

Justice V. Narasingh of the Orissa High Court, in Ramesh Chandra Behera v. State of Orissa (2026), held that where an accused is convicted for two or more offences committed in a single transaction, the trial court cannot order the resulting sentences to run consecutively, and modified the sentence to run concurrently while also extending probation benefits to the petitioner. 

What was the Background of Ramesh Chandra Behera v. State of Orissa (2026) Case? 

• On 17.03.2023, while the victim was alone at home, the petitioner allegedly entered her house and attempted to commit rape on her. 
• On hearing her shout, the victim's son arrived and resisted the petitioner, who allegedly inflicted injuries on the victim's head and on the son's hand. 
• It was further alleged that the petitioner had earlier threatened to kill the victim. 
• The petitioner was booked under Sections 451, 341, 323, 354 and 506 of the IPC, and the trial court convicted him under Section 451 IPC (house trespass to commit an offence) and Section 323 IPC (voluntarily causing hurt). 
• The trial court rejected the petitioner's prayer for release under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, and sentenced him to one year's simple imprisonment under Section 451 IPC and six months' simple imprisonment under Section 323 IPC, directing that the sentences run consecutively. 
• On appeal, the Sessions Court reduced the sentence under Section 451 IPC from one year to six months but did not interfere with the remaining part of the order. 
• Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a criminal revision before the Orissa High Court, primarily challenging the denial of benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the single transaction rule for sentencing: The Court noted that although the conviction was recorded for offences arising out of a single transaction, both the trial court and the appellate court had directed the sentences to run consecutively. Relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in O.M. Cherian alias Thankachan v. State of Kerala & Ors. (2014), it reiterated that when a prosecution arises from a single transaction constituting two or more offences, the sentences must run concurrently, and there is no rule that consecutive sentencing is the norm with concurrent sentencing as the exception. 
• On the Supreme Court's ruling in Mohd. Akhtar Hussain: The Court relied on the Supreme Court's holding in Mohd. Akhtar Hussain v. Collector of Customs (1988), which laid down the single transaction rule for concurrent sentencing — that where a single transaction constitutes two offences under two enactments, consecutive sentences are improper, although this rule does not apply where the offences arise from separate transactions or distinct facts. 
• On mitigating factors in sentencing: Invoking Oscar Wilde's observation that "every saint has a past, and every sinner a future", the Court held that mitigating factors must be considered while imposing sentence. Referring to Section 235(2) CrPC and Section 258(2) BNSS — which require the accused to be heard before sentencing — the Court emphasised that courts must not pass sentencing orders mechanically, but must account for the circumstances of the offence and any mitigating factors. 
• On the fine imposed under Section 451 IPC: The Court set aside the fine imposed under Section 451 IPC and directed instead that the amount be paid as compensation to the victim under Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act. 
• On denial of benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act: The Court expressed surprise that the lower courts had not considered the case fit for the benevolent provisions of the PO Act. Relying on the Supreme Court's recent observations in Chellammal v. State represented by the Inspector of Police (2025), it held that courts are duty-bound to record reasons where they decline to apply the PO Act in a given case. 
• On relief granted: The Court modified the sentence to run concurrently instead of consecutively, extended the benefit of probation under Section 4 of the PO Act, and directed the petitioner to deposit compensation of Rs. 1,000 within six months. 

What is Section 25 of BNSS? 

Section 25 BNSS – Sentence in Cases of Conviction of Several Offences at One Trial: 

• Sub-section (1): Where a person is convicted at one trial of two or more offences, the Court may sentence him to the several punishments prescribed for such offences, subject to Section 9 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The Court must, having regard to the gravity of the offences, direct whether such punishments are to run concurrently or consecutively. 
• Sub-section (2): In case of consecutive sentences, the Court is not required to commit the offender for trial before a higher court merely because the aggregate punishment exceeds what it is competent to inflict for a single offence, subject to two provisos: 
• (a) The person shall not be sentenced to imprisonment for a period exceeding twenty years in any case. 
• (b) The aggregate punishment shall not exceed twice the punishment the Court is competent to inflict for a single offence. 
• Sub-section (3): For the purpose of an appeal by the convicted person, the aggregate of consecutive sentences passed against him under this section is deemed to be a single sentence. 
• Legislative lineage: Section 25 BNSS corresponds to and is similar in substance to Section 31 of the erstwhile Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.