 Section 71 of Indian Penal Code is today's topic which would be explained by Mr. Viram Kumar a former judge of Kerala High Court. We all know that it's the session during the weekdays which normally we don't go. But once we have Justice Viram Kumar and he accepts that he's going to take a session, we have no other alternative. They have called us Tina, there is no other alternative. So to understand the nuances of the latest things. And I will also say that if we have to see what are the changes, challenges under the BNSS. Just go to his various topics and descriptions which he has given in the live law. That's a treat for a legal mind to understand. But that's not a topic for the day. It's 1971 because it's remembering of the war, etc. So we are on the war footing with the understanding of the law when Justice Ram Kumar is here. And we are too glad to always be enriched from his knowledge. Thank you sir for accepting and writing over to you. Thank you Mr. Vikas. Good evening friends. Today we will be discussing section 71 of the Indian Penal Code IPC for short. This section deals with one offense made up of several offenses. This section deals with one offense made up of several offenses. If you closely read the section, there could have been three subsections in the section. But there are no subsections. But however, for the sake of convenience and understanding and comprehension, we will dissect the section into three separate limbs. So I will read each limb separately and deal with them so that it will be more easy for you to comprehend the scope and the amplitude of the section. Now I will read the first limb of section 71 of IPC. Where anything which is an offense is made up of parts, any of which parts is itself an offense. I'll repeat. Where anything which is an offense is made up of parts, any of which parts is itself an offense. The offender shall not be punished with the punishment of more than one of such offenses unless it be so expressly provided. This is actually when a same offense is being repeated as against the same person. Same offense being repeated as against the same person. What is the mode of punishment is what section 71 first limb says. Now we have got an illustration also. A, the accused gives Z the victim 50 strokes each 50 strokes with a stick. A, the accused gives Z the victim 50 strokes with a stick. Here A may have committed the offense of voluntarily causing her punishable under section 323 IPC by the whole beating and also by each of the blows which make up of the whole beating. He gives 50 strokes with a stick to Z the victim. Each of these strokes is an offense calling under section 323. Altogether also he says nothing but 323 only. Therefore if A were to be liable to be punishment for each blow and if the punishment of one year, it is punishable with imprisonment up to one year. 323 is punishable up to imprisonment for one year. If A were to be convicted for under section 323 and if punishment of imprisonment was to be given to A, the accused for each of the 50 blows then he will have to be in the jail for 50 years All for what? 50 blows. Yes, 50 blows. Again the same person. So even though each of the blow can amount to 323 IPC, the whole beating altogether also will amount to 323 only. Therefore the law allows only one punishment to be imposed. This is the importance of the first limb of section 71. I will read it again. Where anything which is an offense, that is every beating is an offense. He is made up of parts, 50 blows. Each blow is a part. So when anything is an offense, 50 blows together is an offense. Each of the parts of these 50 blows is also an offense, same offense. Then he can be punished for any of the parts only, not all the parts together. That is the meaning of the first limb of section 71. Now we pass on to the second limb of section 71. Where anything is an offense, falling within two or more separate definitions of any law in force by which offenses are defined or punished. See, where anything is an offense, falling within two or more separate definitions of any law in force for the time being by which offenses are defined or punished. The offender shall not be punished with a more severe punishment than the court which tries him could award for any one of such offenses. This is where the acts allegedly constitute an offense under two or more different definitions. Ingredients of the offense may be different. Ingredients of the two sections may be different. But the acts constitute, acts committed under the definition of two different sections constitute an offense. The best illustration is given in the section itself. See, section 352 and 323, I will deal with that. So the section says the offender shall not be punished with a more severe punishment than the court which tries him could award for any one of such offenses. Two different sections, the acts constituting an offense under two different sections of the same law or different law. Now, the ingredients are not identical. But the course of action, the acts constitute an offense under two different sections of same law or different law. Then he should not be punished for all those offenses only for any one of such offenses. The most severe punishment can be imposed for any one of those offenses. Suppose the two offenses, one is punishable with a three months. Another is punishable with six months. Then he can be awarded. The maximum punishment he can be awarded is six months. Now, this limb of, second limb of section 71 approximate to section 220, subsection 3 of the RPC with regard to the joint of charges. When we look into chapter 17, chapter 17 CRPC, that is the chapter dealing with framing of charge by the court. Under section, under chapter 17, there are sections 211 to 224. Now under section 211 to 224, there is a section 220. Actually, 218, there are, this chapter 17 is divided into part A and part B. Part A deals with the form of charges, form, merely the form of charges. What all the charges should contain? What all the court charges should contain? The date of occurrence, the offense committed, the victim, the description of the victim, description of the accused, date and time of the offense, etc. Then part B deals with the joint of charges. All charges can be joined together. There is the rule under section 218. One is that every offense shall be, shall be separate charge for each and every distinct offense. Separate charge for each and distinct offense and separate trial for each charge. Separate trial for each charge is the rule under section 218. But then there are four exceptions to that rule. That every offense shall be tried separately is the rule. There are four exceptions. First exception is section 219. Second exception is 220. Third exception is 221. And fourth exception is 223. Now we are dealing with section 220 clause 3. The second limb of section 71 which is approximate to subsection 3 of section 220. Section 220 is the provision relating to charges, which all charges can be joined. There also the wording is identical, almost identical. I will read section 223 of chapter 17 CRP, joint of charge. If the acts alleged a constitute an offense falling within two or more separate definitions of any law in force for the time being by which offenses are defined or punished. The person accused of them may be charged with and tried at one trial for each of such offenses. So if two or more separate definitions of under same law or different law constitute an offense and both the offenses can be tried at one trial. So 220 clause 3 deals with the joint of charges. Both the charges can be joined in one trial. It can be tried together in one trial. Then the punishment to be imposed is section 71. Second limb of section 71. What the section says is he shall be punished only for the highest gravest of the punishments of the two offenses. Now the illustration will put you at comfortable, more comfortable. This illustration is illustration I to section 220 clause 3 CRP. Illustration I to section 220 clause 3. A, the accused wrongfully strikes be the victim with a cane. A may be separately charged with and convicted of offenses under section 352 IPC that is assault and criminal force. Same IPC only, assault and criminal force and under section 323 IPC for voluntarily causing her. The consequences say beating with a stick, wrongfully striking with a cane. It amounts to an offense under 352 IPC for assault and criminal force. It also amounts to an offense under 323 IPC wrongfully for voluntarily causing hurt. Now 323 is punishable with imprisonment up to one year and fine and or fine up to rupees 1000. Punishment for 352 IPC is only imprisonment up to three months and or fine up to 500 rupees. Now here by virtue of section 220 clause 3 of CRP, the accused can be separately charged with and tried at one trial. Both for section 323 and 352 IPC because consequence are same, same committed in the same transaction. Now he can be separately charged and tried and punished also for each of those offenses. Separate punishment also can be imposed on the accused but in view of the second impulse section 71 IPC, the accused cannot be punished with a more severe punishment which the court could inflict for anyone of those offenses. This means that the punishment for both sections 352 and 323 that can be separate punishment also given. But it should not exceed the punishment prescribed for the graver of the two punishments namely which is the graver 323, imprisonment up to one year. So separate punishment can be given. For example 352, three months maximum is given, imprisonment for three months can be given. For the other if imprisonment up to one year is given, this role is violated. There 323 maximum imprisonment can be given is only nine months, all together one year. That is the rule under, I can give another illustration also. That is illustration K to section 220 clause 3. A exposes her child with the knowledge that she is thereby likely to cause his death. Child is being exposed to ambient weather, rain and ambient heat. With the knowledge that the child is likely to, that exposure to the weather is likely to cause the death of the child. A may be either the mother, a disappointed mother or maybe a ward in whose custody the child is interested to. Maybe a home nurse or somebody like that. The child dies as a consequence of such exposure. A may be separately charged with and convicted for offenses under section 317. 317 is exposure and abandonment of child under 12 years of, 12 years by parents or persons having care of the child. That is 317 IPC. Punishment is imprisonment up to seven years and or five. Then this also amount to section 304 IPC. That is culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Since the exposure was with the knowledge that he is likely to, she or she, he or she is likely to cause death of the child. It may fall under part two of section 304 culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Which is the graver offense or which offense he is graver punishment 304. Undoubtedly 304. Where if the death is caused with the intention of causing death, then imprisonment up to life or imprisonment up to 10 years and fine. But if death is caused with the knowledge that the child is likely to, here it is knowledge likely to die. Then imprisonment up to 10 years and fine. So imprisonment up to 10 years is the maximum punishment whereas 317 is only 7 years. If the court were to convict him or her for both the offenses, it should not exceed 10 years. Because the other is 317 is punishable up to 7 years. 304 up to 10 years. So knowledge in where the death is caused with the knowledge that the child may die. Then the total punishment should not exceed 10 years. It cannot be 17 years or both together. Though separate trial, same separate charge, separate offenses, separate charge and same trial can be had. And both the accused can be punished for both the offenses and separate sentence also can be imposed. Therefore it should not exceed the gravest of the two. That is 304 part 2 is the gravest. So it should not exceed 10 years. Now I suppose you have understood the principle. Now there is one decided case also. These are two exceptions. These are two illustrations even in the text itself. 220 clause 3. Now I will give you a decided case also. Now there was an earlier opium act. Opium act of 1878. Subsequently we have another opium act. Now opium act of 1878 for possessing opium. The punishment was imprisonment up to 1 year. For transporting opium also the punishment was imprisonment up to 1 year. Now a person was convicted for both the offenses. For both possessing and transporting opium under the opium act 1878. Now what should be the punishment that can be imposed if he is convicted for both the offenses? Both are punishable with 1 year. Both offenses are punishable with imprisonment for 1 year. So if he is convicted for both offenses the maximum punishment which can be imposed is only 1 year. The correct punishment can be imposed. But I will give you the citation. AIR 1958 Supreme Court 935. AIR 1958 Supreme Court 935 corresponding to 1958 criminal law journal 1432. B.P. Singha and Saeed Jaffer Imam. Saeed Jaffer Imam is the author of the judgement. There the accused was sentenced by the High Court to imprisonment for 6 months under section 9A of the opium act 1878. And to 3 months imprisonment under section 9B. Both are punishable up to 1 year. For 1 offense he was punished up to 9 years. 6 years. I am sorry 6 months. For the other offense even though same punishment is prescribed he was sentenced to imprisonment for 3 months. So altogether 9 months. 9 months imprisonment alone was imposed. So it is within the 1 year imprisonment. Therefore it was within the limit prescribed under 2nd limb of section 71. This is what the Supreme Court held ultimately. So held that the punishment since the punishment did not exceed the 1 year which is the limit prescribed under the 2nd limb of section 71. The sentence imposed by the High Court was proper. This is the 3rd. Now we pass on to the 3rd limb of section 71. 3rd limb of section 71 is 1 or more acts committed and 1 such acts constitute 1 offense. 2nd act also constitute 1 offense. Both the acts together will constitute another offense. Where several acts of which 1 or more than 1 would by itself or themselves constitute an offense constitute when combined a different offense. The offender shall not be punished with a more severe punishment than the court which tries him could award for any one of such offenses. This is the 3rd limb of section 71 IPC. It approximates to subsection 4 of section 220 CRPC with regard to the joiner of charges. I will now read subsection 4 of section 220. If several acts of which 1 or more than 1 would by itself or by themselves constitute an offense constitute when combined a different offense. The person accused of them may be charged with and tried at one trial for the offense constituted by such acts when combined and for any offense constituted by 1 or more such acts. Now comes the illustration. Now this is illustration M to section 220 subsection 4. A the accused commits robbery on B the victim. And in doing so voluntarily causes hurt to B. A may be separately charged with and convicted of offenses under section 323 IPC. That is causing voluntarily causing hurt and convicted under 323. Then under section 392 IPC, committing robbery. He was committing robbery. So he can be charged under section 392 IPC for robbery and under section 394 IPC. That is voluntarily causing hurt while in the act of committing robbery. That is 394. Gravest offense. Gravest of the three. Now punishment under 323 is imprisonment up to 1 year and fine up to 1000 rupees. Punishment under 392 IPC robbery is rigorous imprisonment up to 10 years and fine. 10 years and fine. Then punishment under section 394 voluntarily causing hurt while committing or attempting to commit robbery. Impressurement for life or rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine. Here the accused could be separately charged for all the three offenses and tried at one trial by virtue of clause 4 of section 220 CRPC. That is the joiner of charges. But then regarding punishment also he can be the separate punishment can be imposed for all the three offenses. But the total punishment to be imposed on the accused cannot exceed. The more severe punishment prescribed for section 394 IPC in view of the third limbo section 71 IPC. Again penal code. This was so beautifully explained by Justice Arjit Prasad in state represented by Inspector of Police Tamil Nadu versus A. Parthiban. AIR 2007 Supreme Court 51 corresponding to 2006 11 SCC 473. 2006 11 SCC 473. Now supposing the case falls under section 220 clause 1. 220 subsection 1 of CRPC. Can section 71 IPC apply? 220 clause 1 is what? The where several distinct offenses are committed in the course of the same transaction. Several and distinct offenses are committed in the course of the same transaction. It is not section 71 will apply because section 71 deals with an offense made up of several offenses. Whereas this is distinct offenses committed in the course of the same transaction. In such case the accused can not only be tried and convicted of all those offenses at one trial. Even separate sentences can be passed for each of those offenses without any limit under section 71. The defendant has no application. For example, it was said that lurking house trespass punishable under section 457 IPC. That is lurking house trespass with intent to commit theft. Punishable with imprisonment up to 14 years. And fine and theft section 380 IPC punishable with imprisonment up to 7 years and fine. Who are committed in the course of the same transaction. The case would not fall under section 71 IPC and the accused could be convicted and sentenced separately for both those offenses. You may refer to Uday Ban versus state of UP. AIR 1962 Supreme Court 1116. AIR 1962 Supreme Court 1116 corresponding to 1962 to criminal law journal 251. The judges are J. L. Kapoor the author and Reghubar Dayal. In fact and earlier in 1945 verdict of the Madras High Court in Inray, Nadesha, Mudaliar. 1945 one MLJ179 rendered by Mokhet J was followed by the Supreme Court. With that we have completed the all the three limbs of section 71 Indian Penal Code. So section 71 limb 2 has to be read along with section 220 part 3, 220 subsection 3 approximate. Then only for framing of charge and joint trial. Likewise third limb of section 71 has to be read along with section 220 clause 4 subsection 4. Only for joint trial regarding trial of the offenses. Now punishment regarding punishment this is the rule under section 71. I suppose all of you have understood this. Now this should not be confused with section 31 of the CRPC which we discussed earlier. 31 only says when several offenses are committed during one trial, single trial. So the offenses can be, the accused can be separately tried, can be tried in one trial and separate punishment can be imposed. And if the sentence is to be, is to run concurrently no problem. But if the sentence is to run consecutively we have two rules to be followed. Under section 31 clause, subsection 2 clauses A and B. Under clause A these, these sentence shall not exceed 14 years. And under clause B the sentence, the aggregate of the sentences shall not exceed twice the sentence. Twice the punishment which that code could impose for one offense. These are the two clauses to be applied under section 31. That is only for concurrent and consecutive sentence. Unless otherwise indicated, every sentence will run consecutively. But if the sentence is to run concurrently, code has to make a specific provision in the judgement itself. These, these offenses, the sentences shall run concurrently. If the judgment is silent, the sentence shall run only consecutively. You have to distinguish between, between section 31 is regarding the mode of punishment of, mode of suffering the sentence. Whereas section 71 is the mode of imposing the punishment. And section 220 is the mode of joint of charges. All the three sections have to be separately understood. And their interaction also should be borne in mind. Thank you. Any question? I'm just checking it out. No, here it is not. But I'm just checking. Probably there was one other user. Yes. It says how would we charge and punish? Pardon? How would we charge and punish? It's not very clear. Charging is under chapter 2017 CRPC. Joint of charges section 218 to 224. Form of charges section 211 to 223, 217. Next is after recovery of victim. At the section 363, 366A. During investigation of first FIR, the victim against the kidnapped by same accused. And another FIR law whether it is legal and punishable. These questions are not. I think it will be sections I will do. Yeah. So thank you sir for sharing your knowledge. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.