Concurrent sentences under Section 31 CrPC depend on judicial discretion and the facts, not a rigid rule.

Section 31 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 gives the Court judicial discretion to direct sentences for two or more offences tried at one trial to run concurrently or consecutively, subject to Section 71 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The provision does not create a rigid rule favouring consecutive terms; the choice must depend on the nature of the offences and the aggravating or mitigating circumstances. Applying that discretion to the facts, the Court treated the matrimonial background, limited visits, and mediation context as relevant and ordered the sentences for the offences under Sections 498A and 306 IPC to run concurrently.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Section 31 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 confers discretion on the Court to direct sentences for two or more offences at one trial to run concurrently; (ii) Whether, on the facts of the case, the sentences imposed for the offences under Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 should run concurrently.

Issue (i): Whether Section 31 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 confers discretion on the Court to direct sentences for two or more offences at one trial to run concurrently.

Analysis: Section 31 contemplates conviction at one trial for two or more offences and permits the Court to impose the several punishments prescribed, subject to Section 71 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The wording of the provision makes it clear that the Court may direct the punishments to run concurrently, while in the absence of such a direction the sentences may run consecutively. The power is a judicial discretion to be exercised on the nature of the offences and the attending aggravating or mitigating circumstances, and there is no inflexible rule that consecutive sentences are the norm and concurrent sentences are only an exception.

Conclusion: Yes. Section 31 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 vests full discretion in the Court to order concurrent sentences where two or more offences are tried together.

Issue (ii): Whether, on the facts of the case, the sentences imposed for the offences under Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 should run concurrently.

Analysis: The discretion under Section 31 is to be exercised judicially with reference to the totality of the facts and circumstances. In the present case, the Court considered the background of the matrimonial dispute, the limited visits of the accused to India during the relevant period, and the mediation efforts that were scheduled on the date of the incident. In these circumstances, the direction that the sentences should run consecutively was modified.

Conclusion: Yes. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

Final Conclusion: The law on Section 31 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was clarified, and the sentence direction was modified in favour of the appellant by directing concurrent running of the substantive sentences.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 31 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 leaves the Court with judicial discretion to direct concurrent or consecutive sentences for multiple convictions at one trial, and that discretion must be exercised on the facts and circumstances of the case.

---