Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Section 10

Punishment of Person Guilty of One of Several Offences, Where It Is Doubtful of Which

Section 10 covers a narrow but practical situation: a court has found a person guilty of one of several specified offences, but it is not clear from the finding itself which one. In that situation, the offender is punished for the offence carrying the lowest punishment, unless every one of the specified offences carries the same punishment.

Please note: This page reflects our understanding of the law as of the date it was last reviewed. Parliament, the State Legislatures, and the courts continue to amend and interpret this law, and this page may not yet reflect the most recent change. Please verify the current text of the law independently, and consult a licensed advocate for advice on your own matter, before relying on this page.

Corresponding Provision Under Prior Law

Verified against the National Crime Records Bureau's official BNS–IPC concordance (Sankalan Portal) and cross-checked directly against the bare text of both Acts. Lexovia classes Section 10 as Exact correspondence:

BNS 10	Covers	IPC, 1860 equivalent	Category
10	Punishment of person guilty of one of several offences, where it is doubtful of which	S.72 (same rule; the marginal headings are worded slightly differently)	Exact

Comparing the bare text directly, BNS Section 10 reproduces old IPC Section 72 word for word, with no substantive change of any kind.

Quick Reference

Section 10 is a general sentencing rule for an uncertain finding of guilt, not a penal provision creating its own offence — it carries no BNSS First Schedule entry or cognizable/bailable/compoundable/triable-court classification of its own.

When it applies: a court has found a person guilty of one of several specified offences, but the finding itself does not identify which one.
Default rule: the offender is punished for whichever of the specified offences carries the lowest punishment, unless all of them carry the same punishment (in which case that shared punishment simply applies).

Statutory Text (Verbatim)

In all cases in which judgment is given that a person is guilty of one of several offences specified in the judgment, but that it is doubtful of which of these offences he is guilty, the offender shall be punished for the offence for which the lowest punishment is provided if the same punishment is not provided for all.

Source: Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act No. 45 of 2023), as published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary.

Explanation & Illustration (Lexovia's Commentary — Not Statutory Text)

The default-punishment rule as a whole

Explanation (Lexovia's Commentary)

This section deals with a specific evidentiary gap: sometimes the facts proved at trial establish, beyond doubt, that the accused is guilty of one of several possible offences, without establishing which one. Rather than leaving the sentencing outcome unresolved, or requiring an acquittal purely because the exact offence among the specified alternatives cannot be pinned down, this section supplies a default: the offender is punished for whichever of the specified offences carries the lowest punishment. In effect, the accused is not punished at the harsher of the alternatives merely because the finding does not resolve which offence was committed, and a punishment is still imposed. Where every one of the specified offences happens to carry the same punishment, the qualifying words “if the same punishment is not provided for all” make clear the whole question is moot — that shared punishment simply applies, since there is no lower or higher option to choose between.

Illustration (Lexovia's Own Example)

A court finds, on the evidence, that A is guilty either of criminal breach of trust or of theft in respect of the same property, but the evidence does not establish which of the two offences was actually committed. Section 316(2) punishes criminal breach of trust with imprisonment of up to five years, or fine, or both, while Section 303(2) punishes theft, on a first conviction, with imprisonment of up to three years, or fine, or both; treat A as a first offender and the stolen property as worth five thousand rupees or more (so the community-service proviso to Section 303(2) does not apply). Under this section, A is punished for theft — the offence carrying the lower punishment of the two — rather than for the more severely punished offence.

Want legal research on any topic or drafting? Order Now →

Related / Cross-Referenced Sections

FAQs

Does this section apply whenever there is any doubt at trial?

No. It applies only to the specific, narrow situation where the finding on guilt itself specifies several possible offences and states it is doubtful which one was committed — not to general uncertainty about guilt itself.

Which punishment applies if the possible offences carry different punishments?

The offender is punished for whichever of the specified offences carries the lowest punishment, protecting against the harsher outcome being applied merely because the exact offence could not be pinned down.