Consecutive sentences at one trial cannot exceed the statutory aggregate limit, and an excessive term was reduced.

Section 31 of the Code of Criminal Procedure permits consecutive sentences on multiple convictions at one trial, but the aggregate punishment remains capped by the proviso. Because the combined sentence imposed exceeded the statutory maximum, the court held the 20-year term unlawful and reduced it to the period already undergone. The appellant was therefore entitled to release forthwith if not required in any other case.

---

---

Issues: Whether the sentence of 20 years' rigorous imprisonment imposed by directing the sentences for multiple convictions to run consecutively was lawful in view of Section 31 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: Section 31 permits consecutive sentences for convictions at one trial, but the proviso limits the aggregate punishment that may be imposed by the court. The permissible aggregate could not exceed 14 years. The sentence of 20 years therefore contravened the statutory limit. In the circumstances, and considering the period already undergone in custody, the appropriate relief was to confine the sentence to the period already served.

Conclusion: The sentence of 20 years' rigorous imprisonment was illegal and was reduced to the period already undergone; the appellant was entitled to release forthwith if not required in any other case.

Ratio Decidendi: The aggregate of consecutive sentences imposed at one trial cannot exceed the statutory maximum prescribed by the proviso to Section 31 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

---