At times, a person is convicted, at one trial, of two or more offences. Thus, if a theft is committed, the accused may be found guilty of both theft and of causing hurt. In the circumstances, he may be awarded sentences of imprisonment for both the crimes.
Thus, he may be awarded imprisonment of 2 years for one crime and a year’s imprisonment for the second. In such cases, the question arises as to whether the accused must spend an aggregate of three years in prison, or whether both sentences should run together, in which case, he would spend only two years in prison.
If the terms of imprisonment are to be suffered one after the other, the sentences of imprisonment are said to run consecutively. If, on the other hand, the terms of imprisonment are to be suffered together, the sentences are said to run concurrently. In the latter case, the lesser sentence merges into the greater.
Image Source: 185.26.182.219
ADVERTISEMENTS:
In all cases, it is for the Court to decide whether two sentences passed against the same accused are to run concurrently or consecutively. The general rule is that such sentences run consecutively, and it is for the Court to direct, in a given case, that the sentences are to run concurrently. (S. 31)
It may also be noted that merely because the sentences are to run consecutively, and the aggregate punishment is in excess of the punishment which the Court is competent to inflict for a single offence, the Court need not send the offender to trial before a higher Court. However, for the purposes of appeal, the aggregate of all the consecutive sentences passed against an accused is deemed to be a single sentence.
Two further limitations are also imposed by S. 31 on a Court awarding consecutive sentences, viz.:
ADVERTISEMENTS:
(a) A person cannot be sentenced to imprisonment for more than fourteen years.
(b) The aggregate punishment cannot, in any case, exceed twice the amount of punishment which the Court is competent to inflict for a single offence.