Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
Section 9
Limit of punishment of offence made up of several offences
(1) Where anything which is an offence is made up of parts, any of which parts is itself an offence, the offender shall not be punished with the punishment of more than one of such his offences, unless it be so expressly provided.
(2) Where—
(a) anything is an offence falling within two or more separate definitions of any law in force for the time being by which offences are defined or punished; or
(b) several acts, of which one or more than one would by itself or themselves constitute an offence, constitute, when combined, a different offence, the offender shall not be punished with a more severe punishment than the Court which tries him could award for any one of such offences. Illustrations.
(a) A gives Z fifty strokes with a stick. Here A may have committed the offence of voluntarily causing hurt to Z by the whole beating, and also by each of the blows which make up the whole beating. If A were liable to punishment for every blow, he might be imprisoned for fifty years, one for each blow. But he is liable only to one punishment for the whole beating.
(b) But, if, while A is beating Z, Y interferes, and A intentionally strikes Y, here, as the blow given to Y is no part of the act whereby A voluntarily causes hurt to Z, A is liable to one punishment for voluntarily causing hurt to Z, and to another for the blow given to Y.
Why this exists
This rule descends from the Indian Penal Code (Section 71) drafted by the Law Commission in the 19th century. It was meant to prevent unfair 'double counting' — punishing someone many times over for what is really one continuous wrongful act, just because it can be technically broken down into smaller offences or fits multiple legal definitions. At the same time, it protects against the opposite unfairness: letting someone escape extra punishment for genuinely separate acts just because they happened close together in time.
How courts read it
Courts have long distinguished between a single offence artificially split into parts (where only one punishment applies) and truly distinct offences arising from separate acts (where multiple punishments are proper). In State of Bombay v. S.L. Apte (1961), the Supreme Court clarified that this principle governs punishment within a single trial and is different from the constitutional double jeopardy protection under Article 20(2), which only bars a second prosecution after an earlier one has actually resulted in punishment. Courts examine whether acts form one transaction or are factually distinct before applying this section.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: If an act matches multiple offence definitions, the accused can be punished under every one of them, stacking up punishments.
Fact: The section says the offender is punished only for one of those offences, not for all of them combined — the court picks whichever offence's punishment applies. - Myth: This provision means a person can never be punished twice for actions during the same incident.
Fact: Separate, distinct acts within the same incident (like hitting a different victim who intervenes) can still attract separate punishments, as the illustration with Y shows.