Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 · Chapter III: Power of Courts
Section 31: Sentence in cases of conviction of several offences at one trial
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 from 1 July 2024. It still applies to matters and proceedings from before that date, as the repealing law provides.
In plain words
When a person is convicted of several offences at one trial, the court can give separate punishments for each, subject to section 71 of the Indian Penal Code. Prison terms run one after the other unless the court orders them to run concurrently.
- The total cannot exceed fourteen years, or twice what the court can impose for a single offence.
- For appeal purposes, the total of consecutive sentences counts as a single sentence.
A simplified explanation, prepared with AI assistance from the official text below and checked automatically against it for numbers and cross-references. The official text is the law and prevails over this summary. Not legal advice.
Official 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.
Corresponding sections were matched by comparing the wording of both official texts, and for the IPC and BNS, also against a published correspondence table. Wording, punishments and structure often changed, so read both sections before relying on the match.
Source: India Code (Legislative Department), the text of the Act as it stood before its repeal. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here. Official text on India Code.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 31
-
State (NCT) of Delhi v. Rajeev Sharma
Issue arose as to whether the courts below were justified in convicting the petitioners u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 for dishonour of cheques and sentencing them to six months of simple imprisonment…
- Mohsin Ibrahim Sayyed v. National Investigation Agency
- Sharjeel Imam v. State of NCT Delhi & Anr
- Ajay Kumar v. The State NCT of Delhi
- Kashish Jain v. State NCT of Delhi
- Suraj @ Juganu v. State
- Iqram v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors
- Sunil Kumar @ Sudhir Kumar & Anr. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh
- Rajan v. The Home Secretary, Home Department of Tamil Nadu and Ors.
- Gagan Kumar v. The State of Punjab
- Jitendra @ Kalla v. State of Govt. of NCT of Delhi
- Sharad Hiru Kolambe v. State of Maharashtra and Others
- Neera Yadav v. Central Bureau of Investigaton
- Vikas Yadav v. State of U.P. and Ors. Etc. Etc.
- Muthuramalingam & Ors. v. State Rep. by Insp. of Police
- O.M. Cherian @ Thankachan v. State of Kerala & Ors.
- Duryodhan Rout v. State of Orlssa
- Sanaullah Khan v. State of Bihar
- Ramesh Chilwal @ Bombayya v. State of Uttarakhand
- Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu v. John David
- Chatar Singh v. State of M.P.
- Kamalanantha and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu
- K. Prabhakaran v. P. Jayarajan