Section 25 of the BNSS, 2023 (Conviction for Several Offences)

Section 25 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 governs the sentencing procedure when an individual is convicted of two or more offences in a single trial. This section corresponds to Section 31 of the old CrPC.

The BNSS has introduced high-impact amendments to this section to ensure that habitual or multiple offenders face a more proportionate and top-tier penalty. The most visible change is the significant increase in the maximum aggregate imprisonment limit, moving from 14 years to 20 years. This shift reflects a proven legislative intent to strengthen deterrence for multi-offence criminals.

1. Concurrent vs. Consecutive Sentences (Sub-section 1)

When a court convicts a person for multiple offences in one trial, it must decide the order in which the sentences are served:

• Concurrent Sentences: All punishments run at the same time. The prisoner serves only the longest of the terms awarded.
• Consecutive Sentences: Punishments follow one after the other. The convict begins the second sentence only after the first has expired.
• Mandatory Consideration: In a new optimized addition, the BNSS explicitly directs courts to consider the “gravity of offences” when deciding between concurrent and consecutive order. This ensures the best visible proportionality in sentencing.

General Rule: Sentences run consecutively by default unless the Court specifically directs that they run concurrently.

2. Limits on Aggregate Punishment (Sub-section 2)

While a Magistrate or Judge can aggregate multiple sentences, the BNSS provides a “ceiling” to prevent excessive or arbitrary incarceration in lower courts:

• The 20-Year Cap (Clause a): Under the old CrPC, no person could be sentenced to more than 14 years in total for multiple offences at one trial. The BNSS has raised this to 20 years, allowing for high-degree punishment in complex criminal trials involving multiple counts of theft, fraud, or hurt.
• The Double-Power Rule (Clause b): The total (aggregate) punishment cannot exceed twice the amount of punishment the Court is normally competent to inflict for a single offence.

Mathematical Breakdown of Jurisdiction

3. Appeal Rights (Sub-section 3)

For the purpose of an appeal, the BNSS treats the aggregate of consecutive sentences as a single sentence.

• Example: If a JMFC awards 2 years for Theft and 2 years for Trespass to run consecutively, the total is 4 years. This 4-year total determines the forum and grounds for the appeal, making the process visible and legally consistent for the convict.

Also Read: Section 9 of the BNSS, 2023 (Courts of Judicial Magistrates)

Relevant Case Laws (2025–2026)

1. Nitesh Rastogi v. State of U.P. (Feb 2026)

This landmark judgment by the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) provides a proven guide on the hierarchy of judicial powers under the BNSS.

• The Ruling: While the case primarily focused on the CJM’s lack of power to transfer cases (Section 448 BNSS), the Court noted that Section 25 gives the trial court “absolute judicial discretion” to decide on concurrency based on the gravity of the offence. It emphasized that higher courts should not interfere with this discretion unless the sentencing is “shockingly disproportionate.”

2. K. Padmaja Rani v. State of Telangana (Supreme Court / 2025–2026 Context)

The Supreme Court has clarified the best application of concurrent sentencing, often referred to as the “Single Transaction Rule.”

• The Ruling: The Court held that if multiple offences arise out of a single transaction (e.g., several cheques bounced as part of one loan repayment), the sentences should generally run concurrently. However, if the transactions are distinct and separate over time, consecutive sentencing is the prime choice to ensure justice for each individual act.

3. State of Maharashtra v. [Serial Offender] (2025)

• The Ruling: Applying the new Section 25 of the BNSS, the court awarded a total of 18 years (consecutive) to a fraudster convicted on five counts of cheating. Under the old CrPC, this would have been capped at 14 years. This case serves as a top-tier example of the BNSS’s increased deterrent power.

Summary of Key Changes: BNSS vs. CrPC