Consecutive and Concurrent Sentences Under BNSS

Consecutive and Concurrent Sentences under BNSS

In the realm of criminal justice, Consecutive and Concurrent Sentences under BNSS determine the nature and duration of punishment for a convicted individual. The expressions “concurrently” and “consecutively” mentioned in CrPC (now BNSS 2023) are of immense significance while awarding punishment to the accused once found guilty of any offence punishable under IPC (now BNS) or/and any Special Act arising out of one trial.

The choice between consecutive and concurrent sentences significantly impacts the length of incarceration, rehabilitation prospects, and societal justice. Understanding these sentencing methods is essential for comprehending their broader legal implications. This article explores these concepts, their legal framework under BNSS 2023, and the judicial approach toward them.

CONCURRENT SENTENCES UNDER BNSS

It is important to point out that very often, it happens that when the accused is convicted in one case under different offences and sentenced to different terms of imprisonment under each offence, all such sentences are directed to run concurrently. The idea behind it is that the imprisonment to be suffered for one offence will in fact and in effect be imprisonment for other offences as well.[1]

So, when an accused is convicted of two or more offences in one trial, and the judge orders that the punishment of all offences will run concurrently, then it means that the convict will serve two or more sentences at the same time. In simple words, concurrent sentences are multiple sentences that run simultaneously. In concurrent sentences, overall, years of imprisonment are less because the small imprisonments are also served while serving the largest imprisonment.

For instance, A has been convicted of three criminal offences. The first one was punishable with 10 years, the second with 5 years, and the third with 3 years. The court has ordered the sentences to run concurrently, then A will serve all the sentences at the same time, and his total years of imprisonment will be 10 years, which will include both the 5 years and 3 years imprisonment together. Therefore, his total years of imprisonment will be 10 years.

The various advantages of concurrent running of sentencing are:

  1.     Judicial Efficiency 
  2.     Reduces Overcrowding
  3.     Encourages rehabilitation
  4.     Cost Effective

The disadvantages are as follows:

  1.     Victim Dissatisfaction
  2.     Less Deterrence in Convicts
  3.     Potential of injustice

While concurrent sentencing can ensure the efficiency of the justice system and support rehabilitation, it also raises concerns about adequate punishment and deterrence. Balancing these factors is crucial in the Indian judicial context to ensure fair and effective criminal justice.

CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES UNDER BNSS

When an accused is convicted of two or more offences in one trial, and the judge orders that the punishment of all offences will run consecutively, then each sentence is served one after the other. In the consecutive sentences, overall, years of imprisonment are more because each sentence is served one after the other.

For instance, Maria has been convicted of three criminal offences. The first one is punishable with 3 years of imprisonment, the second one with 2 years, and the third one with 5 years of imprisonment. The court has ordered the sentence to run consecutively, and then A will serve each sentence one after the other in the sequence as decided by the court. Therefore, the total years of imprisonment will be 10 years.

The various advantages of consecutive running of sentences are:

  1.     Deterrence in society
  2.     Victim Satisfaction
  3.     Public Confidence in the Legal System

There are disadvantages are as follows:

  1.     Increase in costs
  2.     Prison Overcrowding
  3.     Affects Rehabilitation process

Consecutive sentencing in India offers a means to impose stricter penalties and ensure justice for multiple offenses, thereby enhancing deterrence and public confidence in the legal system. However, it also presents challenges such as increased prison overcrowding, higher costs, and potential hindrances to rehabilitation efforts. Balancing these factors is crucial to achieving an equitable and effective criminal justice system.  

LEGAL FRAMEWORK UNDER BNSS

The legal provisions with respect to the consecutive and concurrent running of sentences are given in New Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Section 25 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, relates to the quantum of punishment, which may be legally passed when there is one trial and the accused is convicted of “two or more offences.” The court may pass several punishments for two or more offences of which the accused is found guilty, but the aggregate punishment should not exceed the limits fixed in provisos (a) and (b) of section 25(2), that is; (i) it should not exceed 14 years; and (ii) it cannot exceed twice the maximum imprisonment awardable by the sentencing court in a single offence. It also states that the court shall consider the gravity of offences and order such punishments to run consecutively or concurrently. [2]

Section 25 of BNSS is an improved version of Section 31 of CrPC because it directs the court to mandatorily consider the gravity of offences while ordering the punishments to run concurrently or consecutively. However, in section 31, the multiple sentences were assumed to run consecutively unless explicitly stated by the court to run concurrently, and no grounds were specified.

Section 468 (1) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023[3], states that when a person is already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment or imprisonment for life, then these subsequent sentences will begin after the expiration of imprisonment which has been previously sentenced unless the court directs that these subsequent sentences shall run concurrently with the previous sentences. Section 468 (2) states that when the person is already undergoing the sentence of imprisonment of life is sentenced on subsequent conviction for imprisonment of life or imprisonment for a term then the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with the previous sentence.

JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS

When a person is tried for an offence and convicted, it is the duty of the court to impose the sentence and pass the directions to run it concurrently or consecutively. These directions, which are consequential and incidental to the affirmance of the conviction, can be passed by appellate courts under section 423(1)(d) of CrPC.[4] Therefore, it is legally obligatory upon the court of the first instance while awarding a sentence to specify in clear terms in the order of conviction as to whether sentences awarded to the accused would run concurrently or consecutively under section 31 of CrPC.[5]

The discretion to order the running of sentences concurrently or consecutively is the judicial discretion of the court, and there is no straitjacket approach for exercising such discretion by the courts. The directions that ought to be issued in a given case would depend upon the nature of the offence or offences committed and the aggravating and mitigating facts and circumstances of the case. The discretion has to be exercised along with the judicial lines and not mechanically.[6]

The basic rule of thumb, the single transaction rule for concurrent sentences, is that if a given transaction constitutes two offences under two enactments, generally, it is proper and legitimate to have concurrent sentences, and it is wrong to have consecutive sentences. But this rule has no application if the transaction relating to offences is not the same or the facts constituting the two offences are quite different. In the case of consecutive sentences, the totality principle, which means the totality of sentences that the accused has to undergo, is to be considered by the court.[7]

The SC convicted the three respondents for the offences under sections 363/366/368 and 376 IPC and considered factors like the date of commission of the offence (30/03/1984, almost 11 years ago), age of respondents at the time when the offence was committed (21-24 years), and they have not been involved in any other offence after they were acquitted by the trial court which was almost a decade ago. All of them must have got married and settled down in life till now. Based on all of the above factors the court ordered that the sentence of imprisonment shall run concurrently.[8]

In a case, SC considered the following factors for the sentences to run concurrently directly: firstly, the period of pendency of the case, i.e., 21 years. Secondly, the two sentences which were imposed on the appellant arose out of which offence in one trial i.e. offence of theft, thirdly, type of employee, i.e., postal employee, fourthly recovery of the goods and its delivery to the concerned person, fifthly, any dismissal from the services due to the previous order of conviction and lastly the medical condition of the accused, i.e., the appellant was suffering from heart ailment since very long.[9]

CONCLUSION

The choice between consecutive and concurrent sentencing impacts the length of imprisonment, rehabilitation prospects, and societal justice. Concurrent sentences run multiple sentences simultaneously, enhancing judicial efficiency, reducing prison overcrowding, and supporting rehabilitation. However, they may lead to victim dissatisfaction and concerns about insufficient punishment. Consecutive sentences, requiring sentences to be served one after the other, ensure strict punishment, enhance deterrence, and satisfy victims but can increase prison overcrowding and costs and hinder rehabilitation efforts.

The Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 guides courts to consider the gravity of offence when deciding on concurrent or consecutive sentences, balancing punishment with rehabilitation and efficiency. Judicial precedents stress case-specific discretion, ensuring decisions reflect the offence’s nature. By thoughtfully applying these methods, India’s judicial system can better achieve justice, deterrence, and rehabilitation, fostering a fair and effective criminal justice system.

______________________________________________________________________________________________

[1] State of Maharashtra v. Najakat Ali Mubarak Ali, (2001) 6 SCC 311.

[2] THE BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023, Bill No. 122 of 2023, Section 25 (India).

[3] The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Bill No. 122 Of 2023, Section 468 (India).

[4] Sawal Das v. State of Bihar, (1975) 3 SCC 156.

[5] Gagan Kumar v. State of Punjab, (2019) 5 SCC 154.

[6] O.M. Cherian v. State of Kerala, (2015) 2 SCC 501.

[7] Mohd. Akhtar Hussain v. Assistant Collector of Customs (Prevention), Ahmedabad, (1988) 4 SCC 183.

[8] State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, (1996) 2 SCC 384.

[9] Nagaraja Rao v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2015) 4 SCC 302. 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

This article was written and submitted by Aditi Goel during her course of internship at B&B Associates LLP. Aditi is a 2nd Year BB.A. LL.B student at the NLU Shimla.