In India, the reformative theory is followed to provide punishment. The punishment awarded should neither be so harsh nor so easy so that it fails to serve its purpose in generating impact on the offender and as an eye-opener for others.it is considered that punishment should be of such a nature that it brings reform in a person’s personality and thinking.

Object of punishment

The object of punishment is to protect society from disobedient and undesirable elements by deterring potential offenders, by proving the actual offenders from committing further offences and by reforming and turning them into law-abiding citizens

Sec 53 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 prescribes 5 kinds of punishments.

1. Death Penalty
2. Life imprisonment
3. Imprisonment
   1. Rigorous
   2. Simple
4. Forfeiture of property
5. Fine

Considering the above punishments, the courts are supposed to follow the procedures and provisions which are prescribed under other adjective and substantive laws. 

As per the scheme of the Code the maximum punishment is prescribed, leaving the minimum to the discretion of the Judge. The Judge has all the means to form an opinion on the sentence which would meet the end of justice in a particular case. If the offence is grave in nature then the Code had prescribed the maximum and the minimum duration of the punishment.

1. Death Penalty

Death penalty is also called the capital punishment. Under this punishment, a person is hanged till he dies. The infliction of death sentence or taking away the offenders life by authority as a punishment for an offence is capital punishment or death penalty. In India it is awarded in rarest of rare cases.

The provisions under which the death penalty is given as punishment under IPC are as follows:

• Section 115– Abetment for an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life (if offence not committed);
• Section 118– Concealing design to commit an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
• Section 121– When armed rebellion (i.e. waging, abetting to waging of war or attempting to wage war) is made against the constitutionally and legally established government;
• Section 132– Uprising, supporting and encouraging the formation of the mutinous group of people in the nations armed forces;
• Section 194 With the intent to obtain a death sentence to an innocent by presenting concocted vexatious proof;
• Section 302– Causing murder of another;
• Section 305– Abetting suicide to an insane or minor person;
• Section 303– When a life convict person murders another person;
• Section 396– Causing dacoity with murder;
• Section 364A– Kidnapping;
• Section 376A (as per the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013)- Rape

Some other Acts under which the death penalty covered as punishment are: 

1. Section 4, part II of the Prevention of Sati Act- Abetting or aiding an act of sati.
2. Section 31A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act- Drug trafficking in cases of repeat offences.

However, the death penalty as a punishment is an exception to certain persons like intellectually disabled, pregnant women and minors.

Case Laws

Bachan Singh Vs the State of Punjab (AIR 1980 SC 898,1980)
Upheld the validity of the death penalty, but the court restricted the provision of the death penalty in rarest of rare cases only. If the case falls under this theory, then capital punishment may be given.
 

Jagmohan Singh Vs State of Uttar Pradesh (1973 AIR 947,1973 SCR (2)541)
The death penalty is unconstitutional and hence invalid as a punishment. The Supreme Court held the death penalty as valid. It held that deprivation of life is constitutionally lawful if that is done according to the procedure set by law.

2. Life Imprisonment

“Imprisonment means, at minimum, the loss of liberty and autonomy, as well as many material comforts, personal security, and access to heterosexual relations.”

The words imprisonment for life was substituted for transportation for life by Act XXVI of 1955.In its ordinary connotation imprisonment for life means imprisonment for the whole of the remaining life period of the convicted person’s natural life. According to Sec57 imprisonment for life shall be reckoned as equivalent to imprisonment for 20 year’s. But only for calculating fractions of terms of punishment imprisonment for life shall be reckoned as equivalent to imprisonment for 20yrs. But otherwise the sentence of imprisonment for life is of indefinite duration.

Case Law

1. Bhagirath And Ors Vs.Delhi Administration (1985 AIR 1050)
   The supreme court of India defined imprisonment for life as imprisonment for the remainder of the natural life of the convict. If life imprisonment is given to a person, he shall stay in the prison for a minimum of 14 years and the maximum is the rest of his life.
    
2. Naib Singh V.State of Punjab And Ors. (AIR 1986 SC 2192)
   The supreme court of India cleared the confusion with the duration of life imprisonment and section 55 of IPC. The court held that a life convict cannot claim for his release after serving 14 years in prison. Life imprisonment continues until the death of the prisoner. The only exception to this is commutation and remission.
3. In the case of Duryodhan Rout Vs. State of Orissa (2014), the Apex Court clearly stated that reading Section 55 of the Code and Section 433 and 433 A of Cr.P.C, life imprisonment is not confined to 14 years of imprisonment, only the appropriate government can commute the life imprisonment of the prisoner

3. Imprisonment –

It refers to the confinement of a convict in a place used to detain persons convicted of crimes. The IPC recognizes two forms of imprisonment, namely:

1. Rigorous and
2. simple. Rigorous imprisonment involves putting the convict to hard labor such as grinding corn, digging the earth, drawing water, cutting wood, bowing wool, making furniture, etc. whereas a convict is not put to any work in case of simple imprisonment.
   The Supreme Court in State of Gujarat vs Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat clarified that the prisoners who are put to hard labor should necessarily the paid minimum wages for the work extracted. It has also been noted by the Supreme Court that S.53-fourthly mandates the jail authorities to impose hard labor on the convict sentenced to rigorous imprisonment. In the course of doing so, the jail official cannot be said to have been committing any offense under section 374 IPC. This will not, however, be applicable in cases where the accused is awarded simple imprisonment or detained under preventive detention laws or under trial prisoners.

4.Forfeiture of Property

Under this punishment, the government seizes all the property or assets of the convicted. The seized property or asset may be movable or immovable. Forfeiture of property as punishment is for offences under section 126  and section 127.

In two provisions the forfeiture of the property has been abolished:

1. Under Section 126 for committing depredation on territories of power at peace with government of India.
2. Under Section 127 for receiving property taken during war or depredation mentioned in section 126 of IPC

Solitary Confinement

Solitary confinement means keeping the convict isolated and away from any interaction with the world. It comes under Section 73 of the Indian Penal Code.

5. Fine –

It means forfeiting money as a form of penalty. This form of punishment has been considered valid on the ground of its universality; however, the fine imposed should be proportionate to the offense committed because it not only affects the convict but also his dependents. Under IPC, a fine can be imposed as the sole punishment or an alternative punishment or for a limited amount or unlimited amount. Judges have broad discretion while quantifying the fine to be imposed, especially where the provision makes no stipulation as to the amount of fine. Courts being the administrators of justice, it is expected of them that the fines imposed should be fair, just, reasonable, and not excessive. The fine imposed should be within the convict’s capacity to pay but he must feel the pinch in paying it. The imposition of a sentence of fine should be on an individual basis and not collectively. Various cases of non-payment of fine and its various forms have been dealt with under Ss. 64-69 IPC.

Case Law

• Palaniappa Gounder Vs. State of Tamilnadu (1977 AIR 1323)
  The apex court stated that the sentence given by the court shall be proportionate to the nature of the offence which includes the sentence of fine. And the punishment shall not be unduly excessive.
  

Conclusion

All the punishments are retributive, reformative and deterrent in nature. It is stated that a reformative approach to punishment should be the object of criminal law. Here we have also discussed the important decisions made by the supreme court and when the death sentence may be passed. We have discussed various punishments which are imposed differently in different offences, the term, nature, etc varies in each case and offences and also according to courts. All the punishments are retributive, reformative and deterrent in nature. It is stated that a reformative approach to punishment should be the object of criminal law.

Hit Statistics