Indian Penal Code, 1860 · Chapter III: Of Punishments
Section 71: Limit of punishment of offence made up of several offences
The Indian Penal Code, 1860 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 from 1 July 2024.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
Where an offence is made up of parts that are each offences, the offender is not punished for more than one of them unless the law expressly says so. Where an act falls under two or more definitions, or several acts together form a different offence, the punishment cannot exceed what the court could give for any one of them.
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
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. [Where 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 where 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].
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.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 71
-
Mamman Khan v. State of Haryana
Issue arose whether the orders of the trial court, as affirmed by the High Court, directing segregation of the appellant’s trial from that of the co-accused and requiring the filing of a separate charge sheet solely on…
-
Raju @ Nirpendra Singh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Prosecutrix, a minor village girl, was allegedly kidnapped on the pretext of securing her a job, and then gang raped by accused-appellants over a period of two months by holding her captive by threatening her life.…
-
P. Manikandan v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors.
Whether the High Court was justified in directing re-investigation and retrial of the same offence on the same set of facts, after acquitting the accused by giving him the benefit of doubt; Whether, in the attending…
- Yogesh Chandar Goyal & Ors v. The State & Anr
- Ajeet Singh v. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr
- T.P. Gopalakrishnan v. State of Kerala
- Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
- Ms. P Xxx v. State of Uttarakhand & Anr
- Pradeep S. Wodeyar v. The State of Karnataka
- Anokhilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh
- Sharad Hiru Kolambe v. State of Maharashtra and Others
- Neera Yadav v. Central Bureau of Investigaton
- State of Jharkhand Through Sp, CBI v. Lalu Prasad @ Lalu Prasad Y Aday
- Muthuramalingam & Ors. v. State Rep. by Insp. of Police
- Nagaraja Rao v. Central Bureau of Investigation
- O.M. Cherian @ Thankachan v. State of Kerala & Ors.
- Duryodhan Rout v. State of Orlssa
- Essar Teleholdings Ltd. v. Registrar General, Delhi High Court & Ors
- Sanaullah Khan v. State of Bihar
- Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel v. State of Gujarat and Anr.
- The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Vimal Kumar Surana and Another
- State of Karnataka v. Muralidhar
- Baliram S/O Irrappa Kamble v. State of Maharashtra
- Parkash Singh Badal and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors.
- Chatar Singh v. State of M.P.
- The State Rep. by Inspector of Police, Pudukottai, Tamilnadu v. A. Parthiban
- State (N.C.T. of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu@Afsan Guru
- K. Prabhakaran v. P. Jayarajan
- Vivek Gupta v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr .
- State of Rajasthan v. Hat Singh and Ors.
- State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan, Farukh Salauddin & Vikram Singh
- Roshan Lal & Ors. v. State of Punjab