Project of – (INDIAN PENAL CODE) TOPIC- THEORIES OF PUNISHMENT

Table of Contents

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT………………………………………………………………………..….III
OBJECT AND METHODOLOGY………………………………………………………………....IV
INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………………………..v
Punishment………………………………………………………………………………………
VI
Theories of punishment……………………………………………………………………….vii
CONCLUSION………………………………………………………………………………XXII
BIBLIOGRAPHY……………………………………………………………………………xxiii

1
Project of – (INDIAN PENAL CODE) TOPIC- THEORIES OF PUNISHMENT

Acknowledgement

At the very outset, I would like to thank all those who were the ‘guiding lights’ behind
this project. First of all I would like to take this opportunity with esteem privilege to
express my heartfelt thanks and gratitude to my course teacher Mr.Rohit shukla, Faculty
of law ,Indian penal code, The ICFAI University for having faith in me in awarding me
this very significant project topic of such importance. His consistent supervision,
constant inspiration and invaluable guidance have been of immense help in carrying out
the project work with success.
Next, I would like to thank my colleague’s for lending me a helping hand during the
shaping up of the project; subsequently I would like to thank my university for allowing
me to avail the computer lab and internet facilities without which this project would
have been in a distant realm.
I extend my heartfelt thanks to my family and friends for their moral support and
encouragement. I also take this opportunity to thank all those people who contribute in
their own small ways but fail to get a mention.

RIYA SINGH
19FLICDDN01106
.

2
Project of – (INDIAN PENAL CODE) TOPIC- THEORIES OF PUNISHMENT

Object and Methodology

The present research work on the topic of “THEORIES OF PUNISHMENT” is both

explorative and analytical. It sought to construct, throughout the analysis of secondary
data. Punishments are imposed on the wrong doers with the object to deter them to
repeat the same wrong doing and reform them into law- abiding citizens.
Since, the present topic was purely academic it was inevitable and inherently mandatory
that only secondary sources be made use of. Therefore, I have made use of journal
articles, leading books and of course the source of knowledge for students: Internet.

RIYA SINGH

19FLICDDN01106

3
Project of – (INDIAN PENAL CODE) TOPIC- THEORIES OF PUNISHMENT

INTRODUCTION

A Punishment is a consequence of an offense. Punishments are imposed on

the wrong doers with the object to deter them to repeat the same wrong
doing and reform them into law- abiding citizens. The kind of punishment to
be imposed on the criminal depends or is influenced by the kind of society
one lives in. The aim of the different theories of punishments is to transform
the law-breakers into law-abiders.

4
Project of – (INDIAN PENAL CODE) TOPIC- THEORIES OF PUNISHMENT

What is Punishment?
• Punishment is anything that is painful e.g. 'punishing work schedule'.
• Punishment in the context of parents or teachers disciplining children.
• Punishment refers to a sanction imposed for a criminal offense.
• It must involve an unpleasantness to the victim.
• It must be for an offense, actual or supposed.
• It must be to an offender, actual or supposed.
• It must be the work of personal agencies i.e. it must not be natural consequence of
an action.
• It must be imposed by an authority or an institution against whose rules the
offense has been committed. Otherwise, it becomes a mere hostile act.

Objects of Punishment
• Protection of society and security of person's life, liberty and property – an
essential function of the state. This could be achieved through instrumentality of criminal
law by imposing appropriate sentence.
• Punishment – a crucial component of criminal law
• The object of punishment is to protect society from mischievous and undesirable
elements by deterring potential offenders, by preventing the actual offenders from
committing further offences and by reforming and turning them into law-abiding citizens.
Why should offenders be punished?
• They deserve to be punished.
• Punishment will stop them from committing further crimes.
• Punishment tells the victim that society disapproves of the harm that he or she has
suffered.
• Punishment discourages others from doing the same thing.
• Protects society from dangerous or dishonest people.
• Punishment allows an offender to make amends for the harm he or she has
caused.
• Punishment ensures that people understand that laws are there to be obeyed.

5
Project of – (INDIAN PENAL CODE) TOPIC- THEORIES OF PUNISHMENT

Does the society have a right to punish?

No, the society has no right to punish the offender at any instance but that must be
imposed by the State i.e. law imposing authority against whose rules such offence has
been committed.

THEORIES OF PUNISHMENT –
The different theories of Punishment are as follows –
• Deterrent Theory
• Retributive Theory
• Preventive Theory
• Reformative Theory
• Expiatory Theory

A) DETERRENT THEORY-
The term “Deter” means to abstain from doing an act. The main purpose of this theory is
to deter (prevent) the criminals from doing the crime or repeating the same crime in
future. Under this theory, severe punishments are inflicted upon the offender so that he
abstains from committing a crime in future and it would also be a lesson to the other
members of the society, as to what can be the consequences of committing a crime. This
theory has proved effective, even though it has certain defects. One of the primitive
methods of punishments believes in the fact that if severe punishments were inflicted on
the offender would deter him from repeating that crime. Those who commit a crime, it is
assumed, derive a mental satisfaction or a feeling of enjoyment in the act. To neutralize
this inclination of the mind, punishment inflicts equal quantum of suffering on the
offender so that it is no longer attractive for him to carry out such committal of crimes.
Pleasure and pain are two physical feelings or sensation that nature has provided to
mankind, to enable him to do certain things or to desist from certain things, or to undo
wrong things previously done by him. It is like providing both a powerful engine and an
equally powerful brake in the automobile. Impelled by taste and good appetite, which are
feelings of pleasure a man over-eats. Gluttony and surfeit make him obese and he starts
suffering disease. This causes pain. He consults a doctor and thereafter starts dieting.

6
Project of – (INDIAN PENAL CODE) TOPIC- THEORIES OF PUNISHMENT

Thus the person before eating in the same way would think twice and may not at all take
that food. In social life punishment introduces the element of 'pain' to correct the excess
action of a person carried out by the impulse (pleasure) of his mind. We all like very
much to seize opportunities, but abhor when we face threats. But in reality pain, threat or
challenges actually strengthens and purifies a man and so an organization.
Criticism:
› Ineffective in checking crimes
› Excessive harshness tends to defeat its purpose – drawing sympathy
› Likely to harden the criminal instead of creating in his mind a fear of law.

B) RETRIBUTIVE THEORY-
This theory of punishment is based on the principle- “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a
tooth”. Retribute means to give in turn. The object of this theory is to make the criminal
realize the suffering of the pain by subjecting him to the same kind of pain as he had
inflicted on the victim. This theory aims at taking a revenge rather than social welfare and
transformation.
This theory has not been supported by the Criminologists, Penologists and Sociologists as
they feel that this theory is brutal and babric. ...An eye for an eye would turn the whole
world blind- Mahatma Gandhi
The most stringent and harsh of all theories retributive theory believes to end the crime in
itself. This theory underlines the idea of vengeance and revenge rather than that of social
welfare and security. Punishment of the offender provides some kind solace to the victim
or to the family members of the victim of the crime, who has suffered out of the action of
the offender and prevents reprisals from them to the offender or his family. The only
reason for keeping the offender in prison under unpleasant circumstances would be the
vengeful pleasure of sufferer and his family. J.M.Finnis argues in favor of retributism by
mentioning it as a balance of fairness in the distribution of advantages and disadvantages
by restraining his will. Retributivists believe that considerations under social protection
may serve a minimal purpose of the punishment. Traditional retributism relied on
punishing the intrinsic value of the offence and thus resort to very harsh methods. This
theory is based on the same principle as the deterrent theory, the Utilitarian theory. To

7
Project of – (INDIAN PENAL CODE) TOPIC- THEORIES OF PUNISHMENT

look into more precisely both these theories involve the exercise of control over the
emotional instinctual forces that condition such actions. This includes our sense of hatred
towards the criminals and a reliance on him as a butt of aggressive outbursts.

Sir Walter Moberly states that the punishment is deemed to give the men their dues.
"Punishment serves to express and to and to satisfy the righteous indignation which a
healthy community treats as transgression. As such it is an end in itself."

"The utilitarian theories are forward looking; they are concerned with the consequences
of punishment rather than the wrong done, which, being in the past, cannot be altered. A
retributive theory, on the other hand, sees the primary justification in the fact that an
offence has been committed which deserves the punishment of the offender." As Kant
argues in a famous passage:
"Judicial punishment can never be used merely as a means to promote some other good
for the criminal himself or civil society, but instead it must in all cases be imposed on
him only on the ground that he has committed a crime; for a human being can never be
manipulated merely as a means to the purposes of someone else... He must first of all be
found to be deserving of punishment before any consideration is given of the utility of
this punishment for himself or his fellow citizens."

"Kant argues that retribution is not just a necessary condition for punishment but also a
sufficient one. Punishment is an end in itself. Retribution could also be said to be the
'natural' justification” in the sense that man thinks it quite natural and just that a bad
person ought to be punished and a good person rewarded.
However 'natural' retribution might seem, it can also be seen as Bentham saw it, that is as
adding one evil to another, base and repugnant, or as an act of wrath or vengeance.
Therefore as we consider divine punishment we must bear in mind, as Rowell says, the
doctrine of hell was framed in terms of a retributive theory of punishment, the wicked
receiving their just deserts, with no thought of the possible reformation of the offender. In
so far as there was a deterrent element, it related to the sanction hell provided for
ensuring moral conduct during a man's earthly life.

8
Project of – (INDIAN PENAL CODE) TOPIC- THEORIES OF PUNISHMENT

Thus the researcher concludes that this theory closely related to that of expiation as the
pain inflicted compensates for the pleasure derived by the offender. Though not in
anymore contention in the modern arena but its significance cannot be totally ruled out as
fear still plays an important role in the minds of various first time offenders. But the
researcher feels that the basis of this theory i.e. vengeance is not expected in a civilized
society. This theory has been severely criticized by modern day penologists and is
redundant in the present punishments.
Criticism:
› Punishment per se is not a remedy for the mischief committed by an offender.
› Punishment itself is an evil and it is justified only when it yields better results.
C) PREVENTIVE THEORY –
This theory too aims to prevent the crime rather than avenging it. As per this theory, the
idea is to keep the offender away from the society. This criminal under this theory is
punished with death, life imprisonment etc. This theory has been criticized by some
jurists. Unlike the former theories, this theory aims to prevent the crime rather than
avenging it. Looking at punishments from a more humane perspective it rests on the fact
that the need of a punishment for a crime arises out of mere social needs i.e. while
sending the criminals to the prisons the society is in turn trying to prevent the offender
from doing any other crime and thus protecting the society from any anti-social elements.

Fitchte in order to explain this in greater details puts forward the illustration, An owner of
the land puts an notice that ‘trespassers’ would be prosecuted. He does not want an actual
trespasser and to have the trouble and expense of setting the law in motion against him.
He hopes that the threat would render any such action unnecessary; his aim is not to
punish trespass but to prevent it. But if trespass still takes place he undertakes
prosecution. Thus the instrument which he devised originally consists of a general
warning and not any particular convictions.

Thus it must be quite clear now by the illustration that the law aims at providing general
threats but not convictions at the beginning itself. Even utilitarian such as Bentham have

9
Project of – (INDIAN PENAL CODE) TOPIC- THEORIES OF PUNISHMENT

also supported this theory as it has been able to discourage the criminals from doing a
wrong and that also without performing any severity on the criminals. The present day
prisons are fallout of this theory. The preventive theory can be explained in the context of
imprisonment as separating the criminals from the society and thus preventing any further
crime by that offender and also by putting certain restrictions on the criminal it would
prevent the criminal from committing any offence in the future. Supporters of this theory
may also take Capital Punishment to be a part of this theory. A serious and diligent
rehabilitation program would succeed in turning a high percentage of criminals away
from a life of crime. There are, however, many reasons why rehabilitation programs are
not commonly in effect in our prisons. Most politicians and a high proportion of the
public do not believe in rehabilitation as a desirable goal. The idea of rehabilitation is
considered mollycoddling. What they want is retribution, revenge, punishment and
suffering.
Thus one an easily say that preventive theory though aiming at preventing the crime to
happen in the future but it still has some aspects which are questioned by the penologists
as it contains in its techniques which are quite harsh in nature. The major problem with
these types of theories is that they make the criminal more violent rather than changing
him to a better individual. The last theory of punishment being the most humane of all
looks into this aspect.
Criticism:
Undesirable effect of hardening the first offenders/ juvenile offenders by putting them in
the association of hardened criminals.
D) REFORMATIVE THEORY –
This theory is the most humane of all the theories which aims to reform the legal
offenders by individual treatment. The idea behind this theory is that no one is a born
Criminal and criminals are also humans. Under this theory, it is believed that if the
criminals are trained and educated, they can be transformed into law abiding citizens.
This theory has been proved to be successful and accepted by many jurists. The most
recent and the most humane of all theories are based on the principle of reforming the
legal offenders through individual treatment. Not looking to criminals as inhuman this
theory puts forward the changing nature of the modern society where it presently looks

10
Project of – (INDIAN PENAL CODE) TOPIC- THEORIES OF PUNISHMENT

into the fact that all other theories have failed to put forward any such stable theory,
which would prevent the occurrence of further crimes. Though it may be true that there
has been a greater onset of crimes today than it was earlier, but it may also be argued that
many of the criminals are also getting reformed and leading a law-abiding life all-
together. Reformative techniques are much close to the deterrent techniques.

Reform in the deterrent sense implied that through being punished the offender
recognized his guilt and wished to change. The formal and impressive condemnation by
society involved in punishment was thought to be an important means of bring about that
recognition. Similarly, others may be brought to awareness that crime is wrong through
another's punishment and, as it were, 'reform' before they actually commit a crime. But,
although this is indeed one aspect of rehabilitation, as a theory rehabilitation is more
usually associated with treatment of the offender. A few think that all offenders are 'ill'
and need to be 'cured' but the majority of criminologists see punishment as a means of
educating the offender. This has been the ideal and therefore the most popular theory in
recent years. However, there is reason to believe this theory is in decline and Lord
Windlesham has noted that if public opinion affects penal policy, as he thinks it does,
then there will be more interest shown in retribution in the future.

This theory aims at rehabilitating the offender to the norms of the society i.e. into law-
abiding member. This theory condemns all kinds of corporal punishments. These aim at
transforming the law-offenders in such a way that the inmates of the peno-correctional
institutions can lead a life like a normal citizen. These prisons or correctional homes as
they are termed humanly treat the inmates and release them as soon as they feel that they
are fit to mix up with the other members of the community. The reformation generally
takes place either through probation or parole as measures for reforming criminals. It
looks at the seclusion of the criminals from the society as an attempt to reform them and
to prevent the person from social ostracism. Though this theory works stupendously for
the correction of juveniles and first time criminals, but in the case of hardened criminals
this theory may not work with the effectiveness. In these cases come the importance of

11
Project of – (INDIAN PENAL CODE) TOPIC- THEORIES OF PUNISHMENT

the deterrence theories and the retributive theories. Thus each of these four theories has
their own pros and cons and each being important in it, none can be ignored as such.
Criticism:
› Prisons are not to be transformed into dwelling houses in the name of the
transformation of prisoners.
› Deterrent motive should not be abandoned.

E) EXPIATORY THEORY –
Under this theory, it is believed that if the offender expiates or repents and realizes his
mistake, he must be forgiven. According to the Modern Expiation Theory, compensation
is awarded to the victim from the wrongdoer. By crimes awarding compensation from the
pocket of the wrong-doer, he is punished and is prevented from doing such offenses in his
remaining life. This also becomes a lesson to the remaining public. Generally, in other
systems of punishment, the victim is not taken into consideration. The present criminal
justice system concentrates only on punishing the criminal. The Courts are not in a
position to point out the grievance of the victim or his family members. They only have
the aim to 1 prevent the crimes. They only know to’ punish criminals. Recently by the
efforts of the sociologist’s criminologists, penologists, etc., the criminals are also not
punished severely, and there are certain rehabilitative and reformative steps taken to
reform the criminals. It is a good and welcome measure. Then what about the real
victims, who suffered in the hands of such criminals? In majority cases, the real victim
also becomes a criminal and wants to take revenge against the wrong-doer or his family.
Psychologically, economically, socially, etc., the victim is not satisfied by mere
punishment on the criminal. The jurisprudents, jurists, criminologists, penologists,
sociologists, etc., too are not concentrating.

12
Project of – (INDIAN PENAL CODE) TOPIC- THEORIES OF PUNISHMENT

PUNISHMENTS UNDER INDIAN PENAL CODE

Six kinds of punishment were described in the original Indian Penal Code. In the year
1949 the third punishment “Penal Servitude” was removed. Now there are five kinds of
punishment under I.P.C.
S. 53 – 60: Different types of punishment
Death Penalty
Life Imprisonment
Imprisonment for other period (rigorous and simple)
S. 63 – 70: Imposition of fines including provisions for alternate sentences.
S. 71 -72: Nature of punishment for offences made up of several offences.
S. 73 – 74: Solitary confinement as punishment and its limits.
S. 75: Enhanced punishment for certain offences in case of offenders convicted
previously.
1. Death:
The punishment of death may be imposed on the following offences:
(a) Waging or attempting to wage war or abetting the waging of war against the
Government of India -Section 121 I.PC.
(b) Abetment of mutiny actually committed – Sec. 132 of I.P.C.
(c) Giving or fabricating false evidence upon which an innocent person suffers death –
Sec. 194
(d) Murder – Section 302; We
(e) Punishment for murder by a life-convict – Sec. 303 [This Section was struck down by
the Supreme Court holding that it was unconstitutional, while disposing the case Mithu v.
State of Punjab, AIR 1983 SC 4731;
(g) Attempt to murder by a person under sentence of imprisonment for life, if hurt is
caused – Sec. 3071.PC;
(h) Dacoity with murder – Sec. 396 I.P.C.
The Courts have a high range of discretionary powers in passing death sentences. The
death punishment is also called “Capital Punishment”. The word “capital” means “the
head or top of the column”. Thus the capital punishment means “removal of head”,
“death penalty” or “beheading”.

13
Project of – (INDIAN PENAL CODE) TOPIC- THEORIES OF PUNISHMENT

It is the maximum punishment possible to be imposed on a criminal. This punishment

occupies topmost position among the grades of punishments. This punishment can be
imposed in extreme cases and rarely that too in extremely grave crimes.
The capital punishment can be imposed on a criminal who commits a pre-planned and
premeditated murder in cold blood. The offences with sections in which the death penalty
can be imposed are explained above.
Most of the developed countries have removed death sentences from their respective
penal code due toagitations caused by the suggestions of sociologists, reformists,
criminologists, etc.
In India too, there is a serious discussion on this topic. Sections from 366 to 371 of the
Criminal Procedure an. Code, 1973 explain the “Submission of Death Sentences for
Conformation”. Sections from 413 to 416 of Code, 1973 explain the provisions for
“execution, suspension, postponement of capital sentences”
(f) Abetment of suicide of a child, an insane or intoxicated person – Sec. 305 of IPC;
Constitutional Validity of Death Sentence
The constitutional validity of the death penalty was challenged from time to time in
numerous cases starting from Jagmohan Singh v. State of U.P where the SC rejected the
argument that the death penalty is the violation of the “right to life” which is guaranteed
under article 19 of the Indian constitution. In another case Rajendra Prasad v. State of
UP, Justice Krishna Iyer has empathetically stressed that death penalty is violative of
articles 14, 19 and 21. But a year later in the landmark case of Bachan Singh v.
State of Punjab, by a majority of 4 to 1 (Bhagwati J.) dissenting the Supreme Court
overruled its earlier decision in Rajendra Prasad. It expressed the view that death
penalty, as an alternative punishment for murder is not unreasonable and hence not
violative of articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, because the “public
order” contemplated by clauses (2) to (4) of Article 19 is different from “law and
order” and also enunciated the principle of awarding death penalty only in the ‘rarest
of rare cases’. The Supreme Court in Machhi Singh v State of Punjab laid down the
broad outlines of the circumstances when death sentence should be imposed.

Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1980 SC 898

14
Project of – (INDIAN PENAL CODE) TOPIC- THEORIES OF PUNISHMENT

The death penalty provided under S. 302 read with s. 354(3) of CrPC is unconstitutional
and void as being violative of Articles 14 & 21. Death penalty does not serve any social
purpose or advance any constitutional value & is totally arbitrary and unreasonable...only
in the rarest of rare cases, death penalty is to be imposed.
Life imprisonment is the rule and death penalty is an exception
Machchi Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1983 SC 957 (Guidelines for determining rarest of
rare cases)
• Manner of commission of murder
• Motive for commission of murder
• Anti-social or socially abhorrent nature of crime
• Magnitude of crime
• Personality of victim of murder
Similarly in various other cases the Supreme Court has given its views on death penalty
and on its constitutional validity. But the punishment of death penalty is still used in
India, some time back the death penalty was given to Mohammad Ajmal Kasab. The
Pakistani gunman convicted in 2008 Mumbai attacks was sentenced to death by hanging
and after a long discussion, politics and debate was finally hanged on 21 November 2012.
Next in the row is Afzal Guru, convicted in 2001 Parliamentary attacks was also hanged
after a huge political discussion on 9 February 2013.The next convict in the death row is
Devendra Pal Singh Bhullar, convict of 1993 car bombing will be hanged in the coming
days as his mercy petition was rejected by the Supreme Court by holding that in terror
crime cases pleas of delay in execution of death sentence cannot be a mitigating factor.

2. Imprisonment for Life:

Before 1955, the words “transportation for life” was used. The Code of Criminal
Procedure Amendment Act, 1955 (Act No. 26 of 1955) substituted the words
“Imprisonment for life” in place of “transportation for life”.

15
Project of – (INDIAN PENAL CODE) TOPIC- THEORIES OF PUNISHMENT

The general public thinks that imprisonment for life means only 14 years imprisonment,
and the convict shall be released as soon as the 14 years period is lapsed. It is wrong
presumption.
Actually, the punishment under the Imprisonment for Life means imprisonment for the
whole of the remaining period of the convicted person’s natural life. During the British
Rule, the convicts under “transportation for life” was used to be deported to the
Andaman’s and other Colonies and were taken for ever from the society of all who were
acquainted with him.
After independence, such system was stopped. Now the convicts under imprisonment for
life are imprisoned in the Prisons of the States concerned. The life convict is not entitled
to automatic release on completion of fourteen years’ imprisonment, unless on special
occasions, the Government may pass an order considering the good behavior and conduct
LIFE IMPRISONMENT IN INDIA
Life imprisonment implies a jail term for the convict’s entire life, the Supreme Court has
held, clearing a misconception on this sentence. The apex court also said that its
Constitution bench’s landmark judgement of 1980 on criterion for imposing death
penalty needs a “fresh look” as there has been “no uniformity” in following its principles
on what constitutes “the rarest of rare” cases. It appears to us there is a misconception
that a prisoner serving a life sentence has an indefeasible right to be released on
completion of either fourteen years or twenty years imprisonment. The prisoner has no
such right.
“A convict undergoing life imprisonment is expected to remain in custody till the end of
his life, subject to any remission granted by the appropriate government,” a bench of
Justices K.S. Radhakrishnan and Madan B. Lokur said.
The bench, however, clarified that under remission the appropriate government
cannot reduce the period of sentence less than 14 years for a life convict.
Life imprisonment where death has been commuted to life sentence has to be served for
the entire life of the convicted but subject to remission; a minimum of 14 years must be
spent in imprisonment. Various precedents have been set regarding this substantial point
of law.

16
Project of – (INDIAN PENAL CODE) TOPIC- THEORIES OF PUNISHMENT

Life imprisonment when death sentence has been commuted to sentence of life, in its
literal meaning is equivalent to imprisonment till life ends but under various statutes its
literal meaning is defeated.
Life imprisonment when death sentence has been commuted to sentence of life, in its
literal meaning is equivalent to imprisonment till life ends but under various statutes its
literal meaning is defeated. of the convict remitting the balance of imprisonment for life.

3. Imprisonment:
The Fourth kind of punishment is “Imprisonment”. It is of two descriptions, viz.—
(i) Rigorous, i.e., with hard labor; and
(ii) Simple.
(i) Rigorous Imprisonment i.e. with Hard Labor:
There are certain offences defined in the Indian Penal Code, for which rigorous
imprisonment may be imposed by the Courts. Examples: House- trespass under Section
449 of IPC; fabricating false evidence with intent to procure conviction of an offence
which is capital by the Code (Sec. 194); etc.
For such offences, rigorous imprisonment may be imposed. In rigorous imprisonment, the
convicted person is put to do hard labor such as digging earth, cutting stones, agriculture,
grinding corn, drawing water, carpentry, etc. The Supreme Court suggested that the
offenders imposed hard labor should be paid minimum wages.
The trial Court, while disposing Bombay Blast Case (2007), sentenced Sanjay Putt, a
Bollywood Hero, for rigorous imprisonment for a period of six years. Until the Supreme
Court gave the Bail, Sanjay Dutt did carpentry work for 30 days and earned Rs. 39/-
during that period.
While disposing the case Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (AIR 1980 SC 1675), the
Supreme Court observed: “Hard labor in Sec. 53 has to receive a humane meaning.
A girl student or a male weakling sentenced to rigorous imprisonment may not be forced
to break stones for nine hours a day. The prisoner cannot demand soft jobs but may
reasonably be assigned congenial jobs. Sense and sympathy are not enemies of penal
asylums.”
(ii) Simple imprisonment:

17
Project of – (INDIAN PENAL CODE) TOPIC- THEORIES OF PUNISHMENT

This punishment is imposed for the lighter offences. Examples: public servant unlawfully
engaging in trade or unlawfully buying or bidding for property (Sections 168-169);
absconding to avoid service of summons or other proceedings, or not attending in
obedience to an order from a public servant (Sections 172-174); to obstruct traffic or
cause public nuisance; eve- teasing, drunken brawls, etc.; refusing oath when duly
required to take oath by a public servant (Section 178); wrongful restraint (Sec. 341);
defamation (Sec. 500) etc.
Solitary Confinement:
Section 73 of the Code empowers the Courts to impose solitary confinement to certain
persons and in relation to certain offences. This punishment is also part of the
imprisonment.
A harsh and hardened convict may be confined in a separate cell to correct his conduct.
He is put separately without intercourse with other prisoners. All connections are severed
with other world.
The object of this punishment is to reform the hardened and habitual offender and in
order to experience him with loneliness. There are certain restrictions in imposing
solitary confinement. They are:—
(a) Solitary confinement should not exceed three months of the whole term of
imprisonment.
(b) . It cannot be awarded where imprisonment is not part of the substantive sentence.
(c) It cannot be awarded where imprisonment is in lieu of fine.
(d) It cannot also be awarded for the whole term of imprisonment. Further according to
Section 73, the following scale shall be adhered,—
(i) Time not exceeding one month if the term of imprisonment shall not exceed six
months;
(ii) A time not exceeding two months if the term of imprisonment shall exceed six
months and shall not exceed one year;
(iii) A time not exceeding three months if the term of imprisonment shall exceed one
year.
In several European countries, including Great Britain, this punishment was repealed.

18
Project of – (INDIAN PENAL CODE) TOPIC- THEORIES OF PUNISHMENT

Section 74 limits the solitary confinement. If it is imposed for a long time, it adversely
effects on human beings and creates mental derangement.
This Section says that solitary confinement shall in no case exceed fourteen days at a
time with intervals between the periods of solitary confinement of not less duration than
such periods, and when the imprisonment awarded shall exceed three months, such
confinement shall not exceed seven days in any one month of the whole imprisonment
awarded, with intervals between the periods of solitary confinement of not less duration
than such periods.
Enhanced Punishment:
Section 75 the Code permits to impose enhanced punishment for certain offences under
Chapter-XII or Chapter-XVII after previous convictions.
According to this Section, whoever, having been convicted by a Court in India, of an
offence punishable under Chapter-XII or Chapter-XVII of this Code, with imprisonment
of either description for a term of three years or upwards, shall be guilty of any offence
punishable under either of those Chapters with like imprisonment for the like term, shall
be subject for every such subsequent offence to imprisonment for life, or to imprisonment
of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, as Chapter-XII, containing
Sections 230 to 263-A, explains about the offences relating to coins and Government
Stamps.
Chapter-XVII containing Sections 378 to 462 explains the offences against property, i.e.,
theft, extortion, robbery, Dacoity, criminal misappropriation of property, criminal breach
of trust, receiving of stolen property, cheating, mischief and criminal trespass.
Conditions for imposing enhanced punishment:—
(a) The accused must have been previously convicted;
(b) Such conviction must be for any offence mentioned in Chapter-XII or XVII; to
(c) Such previous conviction must have been for an offence punishable for not less than
three years;
(d) Subsequent offence must also be punishable with imprisonment for not less than three
years.
4. Fine:

19
Project of – (INDIAN PENAL CODE) TOPIC- THEORIES OF PUNISHMENT

The Courts may impose fine along with or without imprisonment. The Indian Penal Code
mentions the punishment of fine for several offences, generally with or without
imprisonment.
Amount of fine:
According to Section 63, where no sum is expressed to which a fine may extend, the
amount of fine to which the offender is liable is unlimited, but shall not be excessive.
Sentence of imprisonment for non-payment of fine:
According to Section 64, in every case of an offence punishable with imprisonment as
well as fine, in which the offender is sentenced to a fine, whether with or without
imprisonment, and in every case of an offence punishable with imprisonment or fine, or
with fine only, in which the offender is sentenced to a fine, it shall be competent to the
Court which sentences such offender to direct by the sentence that, in default of payment
of the fine, the offender shall suffer imprisonment for a certain term, which imprisonment
shall be in excess of any other imprisonment to which he may have been sentenced or to
which he may be liable under a commutation of a sentence.
Limit to imprisonment if fine imposed is not paid:
Section 65 lays down that the term for which the Court directs the offender to be
imprisoned in default of payment of a fine shall not exceed one- fourth of the term of
imprisonment which is the maximum fixed for the offence, if the offence be punishable
with imprisonment as well as fine.
Description of imprisonment for non-payment of fine:
Section 66 lies down that the imprisonment which the Court imposes in default of
payment of a fine may be of any description to which the offender might have been
sentenced for the offence.
Imprisonment for non-payment of fine when offence punishable with fine only:
According to Section 67, if the offence be punishable with fine only, the imprisonment
which the Court imposes in default of payment of the fine shall be simple, and the term
for which the Court directs the offender to be imprisoned, in default of payment of fine,
shall not exceed the following scale,—
When the fine shall not exceed fifty rupees – the term of imprisonment shall not exceed
two months;

20
Project of – (INDIAN PENAL CODE) TOPIC- THEORIES OF PUNISHMENT

Termination of imprisonment on payment of fine:

According to Section 68, whenever the fine is paid the imprisonment shall be terminated
forthwith.
According to Section 69, if, before the expiration of the term of imprisonment fixed in
default of payment, such a proportion of the fine be paid or levied that the term of
imprisonment suffered in default of payment is not less than proportional to the part of
the fine still unpaid, the imprisonment shall terminate.
Illustration:
A is sentenced to a fine of one hundred rupees and to four months’ imprisonment in
default of payment. Here, if seventy-five rupees of the fine be paid or levied before the
expiration of one month of the imprisonment, A will be discharged as soon as the first
month has expired.
If seventy five rupees be paid or levied at the time of the expiration of the first month, or
at any later time while A continues in imprisonment, A will be immediately discharged.
If fifty rupees of the fine be paid or levied before the expiration of two months of the
imprisonment, A will be discharged as soon as the two months are completed. If fifty
rupees be paid or levied at the time of the expiration of those two months, or at any later
time, while A continues in imprisonment, A will be immediately discharged.

21
Project of – (INDIAN PENAL CODE) TOPIC- THEORIES OF PUNISHMENT

Conclusion

Some of the elements of these theories of punishment can be amalgamate. We might

recommend readjustment when possible and deterrence when not possible. We might
also recommend restoration in addition to retribution. And forward-looking and
backward-looking elements might be balanced against one another, to decrease crime
while giving no more punishment than deserved. In the first place the traditional,
accepted idea of proper dealing of convicted criminals is still the conventional one of
punishment. Theories upon which the use of punishment is justified have shifted in
vogue. The form of the treatment has altered significantly. Life imprisonment has largely
been substituted for hanging; disfigurement gave place to flogging and flogging in its
turn to solitary confinement, or bread and water. The savagery once part and parcel of
punishment have been eradicated or ameliorated. Nevertheless, the essential character
of the treatment imposed has not been swap; its form is different, but its nature still is
disciplinary.
That idea pervades judicial utterance and legislative enactment. The penal purpose
dominates both the content of the criminal law and its application. It is in fact the
essential sum and substance of the law today.
But though punishment is still clearly the motive of the law, the grounds of the
punishment is not so clear. The once academically popular belief that punishment
should be imposed only for the purpose of punishment, to the end of exacting an owed
atonement, has passed into antiquation. In the main it has yielded place to concepts of
punishment as an inhibitory of new wrongdoing. But it is by no means obsolete. It still
affects both the contented of the law and its administration.

22
Project of – (INDIAN PENAL CODE) TOPIC- THEORIES OF PUNISHMENT

Bibliography

1. HTTPS://WWW.LATESTLAWS.COM/ARTICLES/CAPITAL-PUNISHMENT-AND-

THEORIES-OF-PUNISHMENT-EXPLAINED/

2. https://www.toppr.com/guides/legal-aptitude/indian-penal-code/theories-
and-kinds-of-punishment/#:~:text=There%20are%20majorly%20four
%20theories,preventive%20theory%2C%20and%20reformative%20theory.
3. https://law.jrank.org/pages/9576/Punishment-THEORIES-
PUNISHMENT.html
4. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/atd-bmcc-criminaljustice/chapter/section-
2-5-theories-of-punishment/
5. http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/pun_theo.html

23