S.31 CrPC/ S.25 BNSS | Court Can't Order Consecutive Sentences For Offences Committed In 'Single Transaction': Orissa High Court

Reiterating the Apex Court ruling in O.M. Cherian alias Thankachan v. State of Kerala & Ors. (2014), the Bench of Justice V. Narasingh modified the consecutive sentence imposed on the petitioner and ordered it to run concurrently, since the offences were committed in a single transaction. It observed,

“Answering the reference as to whether substantive sentences can be directed to run concurrently or consecutively in the light of Section 31 of the Cr.P.C., the Apex Court laid down the law that when the prosecution is based on a single transaction which constitutes two or more offences, the sentences are to run concurrently…However, being oblivious to the salutary principles of sentencing referred to hereinabove, the learned Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court directed the sentences to run consecutively.”

On 17.03.2023, while the victim was alone, the petitioner allegedly entered her house and attempted to commit rape on her. Hearing her shout, her son arrived there and resisted the petitioner. The petitioner allegedly inflicted injuries on the head of the victim as well as on the hand of the son of the victim. It was further alleged that, prior to the incident, the petitioner had threatened to kill the victim.

Accordingly, petitioner was booked under Sections 451/341/323/354/506 of the IPC. The trial Court convicted him under Sections 451 (house trespass in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment) and 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) of the IPC.

Rejecting the prayer for release under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (the 'PO Act'), the Court sentenced the petitioner to undergo one year simple imprisonment under Section 451 IPC and six months simple imprisonment under Section 323 IPC, with a direction that the substantive sentences shall run consecutively.

The petitioner preferred an appeal, and the Sessions Court reduced the period of sentence from one year to six months under Section 451, while not interfering with any other part of the order. Against such order, the petitioner filed this criminal revision.

The petitioner primarily questioned legality of the rejection of his prayer for extension of benefit under the PO Act.

No consecutive sentence for offences committed in a 'single transaction'

Before delving into the question of applicability of the PO Act, another aspect of the sentence order passed by the trial Court caught the High Court's attention. It was found that even though the conviction is recorded for offences committed in a single transaction, yet the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court deemed it proper to order running of the sentences in a consecutive manner.

The Court referred to Mohd. Akhtar Hussain v. Collector of Customs (1988) where the Supreme Court had held that,

“The basic rule of thumb over the years has been the so-called single transaction rule for concurrent sentences. If a given transaction constitutes two offences under two enactments generally, it is wrong to have consecutive sentences. It is proper and legitimate to have concurrent 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.”

The Apex Court in O.M. Cherian (supra) found the aforesaid judgment to be in tandem with the scheme under Section 31 of the CrPC. It had also held there is no basis to hold that normal rule is to order the sentence to be consecutive and exception is to make the sentences concurrent.

Justice Narasingh also invoked the oft-quoted line of Oscar Wilde, "every saint has a past, and every sinner a future" to rule that mitigating factors must be taken into account while imposing sentences. Referring to Section 235(2) CrPC/ Section 258(2) BNSS [the accused to be heard before passing sentence], he emphasized the intention of the legislature that the Courts must not pass orders of sentence mechanically or in a pedantic manner, but by taking into account the circumstances under which the offence has been committed and the mitigating circumstances, if any.

Resultantly, the Court modified the sentence by replacing the order of consecutive sentence with concurrent sentence, since the offences were committed in a single transaction. It also set aside the order of fine under Section 451 IPC, which is now directed to be paid as a 'compensation' to the victim as per the provision of Section 5 of the PO Act.

Benefit under the PO Act

The Court was surprised as to why the two lower Courts did not consider the case to be a fit one to apply the benevolent provisions of the PO Act. Reiterating the observations made by the Supreme Court recently in Chellammal v. State represented by the Inspector of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 461, it asserted that a duty has been cast upon the Courts to indicate as to why they are not resorting to the provisions enshrined under the PO Act in a given case.

As a corollary, the benefit of the PO Act was directed to be extended to the petitioner and the Court ordered his release on probation under Section 4 of the Act. The petitioner was further directed to deposit the compensation of Rs.1000/- within a period of six months.

Case Title: Ramesh Chandra Behera v. State of Orissa

Case No: CRLREV No. 305 of 2026

Date of Judgment: June 30, 2026

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. A.K. Sahoo, Advocate

Counsel for the State: Mr. C.R. Swain, Additional Government Advocate

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 70