Trial/Appellate Court Has Full Discretion To Order Sentences To Run Concurrently: SC
⚖️ Supreme Court on Concurrent Sentences
📌 Legal Provision: Section 31 CrPC
Section 31(1) CrPC: When a person is convicted at one trial of two or more offences, the Court may sentence him for each offence.
The Court has discretion to order:
Sentences to run consecutively (one after another), or
Sentences to run concurrently (together).
Section 31(2) CrPC puts a limitation:
The total imprisonment cannot exceed 14 years.
The total must not exceed twice the punishment which the Court is competent to impose for a single offence.
📌 Supreme Court’s Ruling
The SC recently reiterated that:
Both Trial Courts and Appellate Courts have full discretion to decide whether multiple sentences imposed should run concurrently or consecutively.
This discretion must be exercised judicially, not arbitrarily, keeping in mind:
Nature of offences
Circumstances of the case
Ends of justice
Appellate Courts can modify sentences passed by Trial Courts and order concurrency, if the facts justify it.
📌 Important Case Laws
Mohd. Akhtar Hussain v. State of Bihar (1988) 4 SCC 635
Principle: When offences arise out of the same transaction, sentences should normally run concurrently, unless there are special reasons.
O.M. Cherian @ Thankachan v. State of Kerala (2015) 2 SCC 501
The SC held that Section 31 CrPC vests full discretion in the Court.
It is not mandatory that sentences must be consecutive.
Courts should prefer concurrent sentences when offences are part of the same transaction.
Muthuramalingam v. State (2016) 8 SCC 313
Clarified that life sentences cannot be stacked consecutively; they run concurrently.
But for fixed-term sentences, Court retains discretion.
Malkeet Singh Gill v. State of Chhattisgarh (2022, SC)
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that Appellate Courts too can exercise discretion under Section 31 CrPC.
Even if Trial Court orders consecutive sentences, the Appellate Court can direct concurrency in suitable cases.
📌 Practical Effect
If a person is convicted for three offences of 5 years each:
Consecutive → 15 years total.
Concurrent → 5 years total (all run together).
Thus, concurrency is often applied in cases where the offences are interlinked or form part of the same transaction, preventing unduly harsh punishment.
✅ Conclusion
Both Trial Courts and Appellate Courts have wide discretion under Section 31 CrPC.
Concurrency is not automatic; it depends on judicial evaluation of facts.
The guiding principle: Justice, proportionality, and fairness.
RELATED Blog
0 comments