SUBMITTED BY RAYAVARAM UDAY KIRAN

REDDY

[Link] 20BLA1102

SUBJECT: PENOLOGY AND VICTIMOLOGY

ASSIGNMENT: SENTENCING AND TYPES OF SENTENCES IN

IPC
Introduction

According to the law, punishment is retribution against the criminal for any suffering they have caused to their
person or property. An criminal can be deterred from committing crimes against people, property, and the
government by receiving punishment. Consequently, there are several kinds of penalties, including restorative,
retributive, rehabilitative, and deterrent ones.
Policy for Sentencing

The following criteria are used to gauge the punishment policy under the Indian Penal Code:
 The gravity of the violation;
 The seriousness of the crime; and
 Its general effect upon public tranquillity.
The measure of guilt and the punishment measures are correlated. As a result, the sentencing guidelines for a
given offence are uniform.

The Malimath Committee, also known as the Committee on Reforms of the Criminal Justice System in India,
was founded in March 2003 by the Ministry of Home Affairs. The committee's goal was to provide suggestions
for the Indian judiciary's sentence guidelines. According to the aforementioned committee's findings, criteria for
sentencing must be introduced in order to reduce the confusion surrounding sentence determination. The
committee noted that there is a lack of uniformity because "for many offences, only the maximum punishment is
prescribed and for some offences, the minimum may be prescribed."
The sentencing policy becomes unclear as a result of the judges' broad discretion in determining the length of
the sentence. The necessity of statutory sentencing guidelines was reiterated in 2008 by the Madhava Menon
Committee, which was part of the Committee on Draft National Policy on Criminal Justice.
The British Parliament's white paper states that "deterrence and protection of society from evils" should be the
goals of any sentencing legislation. The absence of a sentencing strategy will have a significant negative impact
on society in addition to the legal system.

Fundamental Principles for Imposition of Different Types of Punishments

According to the US Institute of Peace, the need for criminal justice coercion and the proportionality of
punishment in relation to the type and severity of the threat to fundamental freedoms, human rights, social
values, and rights guaranteed and protected by the Constitution or international law can serve as the foundation
for the imposition of punishment.

The Supreme Court of India used several principles in the Soman v. Kerala case while using its discretionary
authority. The three main tenets are rehabilitation, deterrence, and proportionality. Both aggravating and
mitigating circumstances should be taken into account when applying the proportionality principle. Criminal
activity is associated with mitigating conditions, while aggravating factors are related to the crime.
"Giving punishment to the wrongdoer is at the heart of the criminal justice delivery, but in our country, it is the
weakest part of the administration of criminal justice," the Supreme Court declared in paragraph 12 of the
Soman case. There are no established legal or legislative rules to help the trial court provide the accused with a
fair penalty once he is found guilty of the allegations.

The court also recognised and agreed with the statement made in the State of Punjab v. Prem Sagar case, which
read, "We have not been able to develop legal principles as regards sentencing in our judicial system."
The superior courts except making observations with regard to the purport and object for which punishment is
imposed upon an offender have not issued any guidelines.” Therefore, there is a necessity to have a sentencing
policy with due consideration to the recommendations made by the Madhava Menon Committee and Malimath
Committee.

Scope of Section 53

In the Indian Penal Code, 1803 (“Code”), Section 53, specifically deals with different types of punishments
which can be given by the Criminal Courts if the person is held liable under the Code.

There are five kinds of punishments recognized under Section 53 of the Code:

1. Death;
 2. Imprisonment for life;
3. Imprisonment:

1. Rigorous Imprisonment; or
2. Simple Imprisonment.

1. Forfeiture of property;
2. Fine.
The courts are expected to adhere to the procedures and provisions outlined in other adjective and substantive
legislation in light of the aforementioned penalties.

According to the Code's structure, the judge has discretion over the minimum penalty while prescribing the
maximum. The judge has all the resources necessary to decide on a sentence that would satisfy the requirements
of justice in a given situation. Both the maximum and minimum sentence durations were specified by the Code
for serious offences.

Awarding Appropriate Sentence is the Discretion of the Trial Court:

[Link] Madhya Pradesh High Court's three-judge panel noted the following sentencing plan in the case of Sibbu
Munnilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh: When classifying infractions, the highest penalty that the offender could
face is taken into consideration.
[Link] the case of the death penalty, a part provides for life in prison as a form of punishment. Life in jail will be
taken into consideration as an option. Additionally, the death penalty will only be applied in the "rarest of rare
cases." The judge must pay careful consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case while imposing the
death penalty.
[Link] are two types of imprisonment - simple and rigorous.
[Link] years of harsh incarceration is equivalent to life in jail.
5. The distinction between life in jail and incarceration is that the former can be severe and last until the inmate's
death, while the latter can span anywhere from 24 hours to 14 years.
6. Finally, offences that are punished by a fine are those for which a fine is the only possible punishment.
The Supreme Court held in the 2017 case of State Of H.P vs. Nirmala Devi that the trial court has the authority
to impose penalties in accordance with the plan outlined in the code.

The following are the Appellate Court's powers under Section 386 of the CrPC:

1. After hearing from the appeal's parties, the appellate court may intervene or dismiss the appeal if it
determines there are good reasons to do so;
2. If an appeal from an order or acquittal is at issue:
The appeal court might then either reverse the order and order additional investigation into the case or order a
retrial for the accused.
3) The appellate court has the following authority in the event of a conviction appeal:
1. Overturn the verdict and sentence, acquit or release the defendant, or request a new trial from a court of
competent jurisdiction;
2. Modify the sentence's finding or maintenance, or
3. Modify the sentence's nature, extent, or both, with or without changing the conclusion. However, the court
has no authority to increase the punishment.
4) The appellate court has the following authority in the event of a sentence enhancement appeal:
1. Reverse the verdict and sentencing, acquit or discharge the accused, order a new trial, or commit the case to
trial; 2. Modify the sentence's maintaining or finding; or 3. Modify the sentence's nature or extent, with or
without changing the findings that have the authority to increase or decrease the sentence.
5) the authority to change or overturn the order in question if the appeal is from another one;
6) The appellate court has the authority to make any changes, take incidental action, or issue any consequential
orders that the court deems appropriate or just.

Additionally, the section contains a clause outlining requirements for the Appellate Court to follow when using
this authority:
The following are the conditions:
1. The Appellate Court cannot increase the punishment unless the accused is given the chance to do so; 2. The
Appellate Court cannot enforce the punishment imposed by the trial court or lower court that is the subject of
the appeal unless it believes the punishment is insufficient.

The Supreme Court ruled in the recent State of H.P. v. Nirmala Devi case that the appellate court should not go
beyond the statutory framework established by the Indian Penal Code in exercising its authority under Section
386 of the Cr.P.C. For instance, the Appellate Court cannot change the order in a way that would result in unjust
and unfair consequences, such as changing the sentence of imprisonment and fine to a penalty of fine alone.
Guidelines for Sentencing
Through legislation and judicial rulings, the sentencing theory evolved. And the decisions about sentence are
based on these criteria. The following are the guidelines that the court often adheres to:
• Excessiveness/Parsimony: Unless absolutely necessary, the penalty should not be harsh.
• Proportionality: The sentence must be appropriate for the overall seriousness of the offence.
• Parity: Similar acts committed by offenders in comparable circumstances should carry comparable penalties.

•Totality: When an offender receives many sentences, the total punishment must be reasonable, proportionate,
and commensurate with the offending behaviour.
• Goal: The punishment's goal will be accomplished by the sentencing. Punishment may be used for public
safety, rehabilitation, deterrence, etc.
• Predictability and simplicity: the judge's personality or bias should not influence the sentence. A precise and
unambiguous sentencing plan must exist.
• Truthfulness: There cannot be any room for doubt because the sentence must accurately represent the length of
time the prisoner will actually spend.

The court observed that the method established in the Bachan Singh case was later not entirely embraced by the
courts in the Sangeet & Anr. v. State of Haryana case. When imposing a sentence on the accused, both
aggravating and mitigating circumstances must be taken into account and weighed.

Different types of Punishment:

1. Death Sentence
The government-approved and court-ordered penalty known as the death sentence occurs when someone is
executed for a crime they committed. Another name for it is "Capital Punishment." Execution is the act of
carrying out such a procedure. According to the Amnesty International poll, as of July 2018, 106 countries had
abolished the death penalty for all crimes, while 56 countries still used it. In India, hanging is the procedure used
to administer the death punishment. Other methods used to carry out death penalties in real-world situations
include electrocution, lethal injection, blowing from a gun, sawing, and stoning.
There has always been debate about the death penalty. The disputes centred on the constitutional supremacy and
the legitimacy of the death penalty in relation to basic rights. However, Indian criminal courts hardly ever
impose death penalties.

The Supreme Court ruled in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab that the death penalty should only be applied in the
"rarest of the rare" circumstances. However, neither the Supreme Court nor the legislature have established what
qualifies as the "rarest of the rare cases."
The Supreme Court decided in the Jagmohan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh case that the death penalty should
be applied in a way that takes into account both the crime's aggravating and mitigating circumstances. But for
the first time, this strategy was questioned in the Bachan Singh case because of the changes made to the Cr.P.C.
According to the amendment in the Cr.P.C., a person convicted of murder faces a life sentence. However, the
court pointed out that the methodology established in Bachan Singh's case is not entirely followed in the
Sangeet & Anr. v. State of Haryana case. The crime still takes precedence over the criminal's circumstances in
the eyes of the courts. When determining punishment, the relative importance of mitigating and aggravating
elements has somewhat diminished.

The following are the IPC clauses that allow for the death penalty as a form of punishment:

 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

Procedure When Death Penalty is Imposed

The death sentence is executed by two modes in India:

1. Hanging by the neck till death (this is mostly ordered by the Courts);
2. Being shot to death.
The execution of death penalties is outlined in jail manuals from each of India's states. According to Section
354(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act of 1950, the method of execution is hanging by the neck till
death. The accused has the right to challenge the court's decision once the death sentence has been imposed. The
execution is carried out in accordance with Section 354(5) of the Cr.P.C. when all remedies have been
exhausted and the order has been confirmed. The Air Force Act of 1950, the Army Act of 1950, and the Navy
Act of 1957 all provision for the execution process individually. However, only defence officers are subject to
the process outlined in the aforementioned defence statutes.

The Prison manual of different states of India gives detailed instructions about the execution particulars. Some
are as follows:

1. The prisoner who is convicted for death sentence shall be given a proper diet, examined twice a day.
The officers shall satisfy that the prisoner has no article by which he can attempt for suicide.
2. The description of the rope and testing of rope.
3. Regulation of the drop while executing the hanging.
4. Time of executions.

Constitutional Validity of Death Penalty

The death penalty is a long-standing topic. It has been examined, disputed, and discussed for a long time.
Nevertheless, as of right now, no decision has been made regarding the removal or continuation of the clause.
Since the British era, the death penalty has been the method of punishment. This practice has been outlawed in
several nations. Nonetheless, the "an eye for an eye" or retributive retribution principle is used in Arab nations.
India is one of the nations listed above that has kept the right to execute people unless certain "special reasons"
or "rarest of rare case" circumstances occur.

The Indian Constitution's Article 21 guarantees the right to life and liberty, which includes the right to live with
human dignity. The law recognises some circumstances where the state may impose restrictions on rights in the
interest of public order and the rule of law. The Supreme Court established the "due process" premise in Maneka
Gandhi v. Union of India, which allows a state to deny its citizens their rights. The following are examples of
due process in the context of the death penalty:

 Death penalty to be given in ‘rarest of the rare’ cases;

  The accused shall be given the ‘right to heard’;
 As per Article 136, the death penalty shall be confirmed by the High Court;
 Under Section 379 of the Cr.P.C., the accused have the right to appeal in the Supreme Court;
 Under Section 433 and 434 Cr.P.C., the accused may pray for commutation, forgiveness, etc. of the
sentence.

Imprisonment for Life

Life imprisonment is one of the types of punishment which is recognized under Section 53 of the IPC. Earlier
this was also known as transportation for life. This punishment is given for serious crimes wherein the convicted
remains in prison until his/her last breath.

Scope of Section 57
When calculating fractions of terms of punishment, Section 57 of the IPC is utilised. It is crucial to note that this
section does not grant the prisoner any explicit or implicit right to have his life sentence reduced to 20 years.
Inmates may request relief under certain provisions of the Code, such as Sections 116, 119, 120, and 511.

Does the 14-year period qualify as a life sentence?

The Apex Court made it plain in the 2014 case of Duryodhan Rout v. State of Orissa that, in accordance with
Section 55 of the Code and Sections 433 and 433 A of the Cr.P.C., life imprisonment is not limited to 14 years
of incarceration; only the relevant government has the authority to commute the life sentence.
The government has the authority to reduce a life sentence to a sentence of 14 years or fewer in prison, or to
release a prisoner who has served more than 14 years.

The question "whether there is any section in the law wherein the life imprisonment without formal remission
by the appropriate government can be automatically treated as one for a definite period?" was raised in the 1961
case of Gopal Vinayak Godse vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. arrived at the Supreme Court as a legal
[Link] response to the inquiry, the court cited the judicial committee's finding that, while living arrangements
will be regarded as transportation for 20 years, this does not imply that they will be regarded as identical for all
reasons. Furthermore, Section 57 IPC does not apply to the provisions that changed transportation for life to
imprisonment for life. Therefore, a life sentence or life in prison must be interpreted as a term of incarceration or
life in jail throughout the duration of the prisoner's life until his natural death.

Imprisonment

The general meaning of imprisonment means captivity or to put someone in prison. Under Section 53 of IPC,
imprisonment can be of two types. One is simple and the other is rigorous. As per Section 60 of the IPC, the
competent court has the discretion to decide the description of sentencing. It can be of various types, like:

1. Wholly or partly rigorous; or

2. Wholly or partly simple; or
3. Any term to be rigorous and the rest simple.

Forfeiture of Property

Forfeiture generally means the loss of property without any compensation in return, which is the result of the
default caused by the person in terms of contractual obligation, or in paying penalty for illegal conduct.

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 the Government of
India.
2. Under Section 127 for receiving property taken during war or depredation mentioned in sections 126
and 126 of IPC.
Fine

The court may impose a fine as an alternative for imprisonment or can add it is an addition to the imprisonment.
In certain cases the fine is added along with imprisonment. Section 63 to 69 covers various fines under the IPC.
However, as per Section 64 of the Code, when there is a default in the payment of a fine, the court may order for
imprisonment.

Amount of Fine should not be Excessive

As per Section 63 of the IPC, when the sum is not expressed under the provisions of the Code, the amount of
fine to which the offender is liable is unlimited, however, the fine shall not be excessive.

Sentence of Imprisonment for Non-payment of Fine

Under IPC Section 64, the following offences are covered:

1. Imprisonment with fine;

2. Imprisonment or fine;
3. Fine only and where the offender is sentenced to:
(i) imprisonment; or

(ii) fine or both.

In such cases, the court of competence shall direct the sentence to the offender for a certain term. Under Section
66 of the IPC, the court has the discretion to provide any description for the imprisonment.

Scope of Section 65
As per Section 65 of IPC, the court shall limit the imprisonment when the offender is sentenced to imprisonment
and fine because of non-payment of fine. The limit of imprisonment shall not exceed one-fourth of the term of
imprisonment which is the maximum period of the particular offence.

Scope of Section 67
Under Section 67 of IPC, the offences for which this section will be applicable is the offence which is
punishable with fine only.

1. The imprisonment so awarded shall be simple only;

2. However, the term shall not exceed the following scale:

 If fine does not exceed Rs. 50- the term shall not exceed two months;
 If fine does not exceed Rs. 100- the term shall not exceed four months;
 If fine exceeding of Rs. 100 to any amount- term shall not exceed six months.

Conviction for Doubtful Offences

According to Section 72 of the IPC, the court may impose the least severe penalty if the same penalty is applied
to all of the offences committed by the offender and there is uncertainty about which offence the offender has
committed and it is difficult to get proof of the offences.

Solitary Confinement

Solitary confinement, or "Sol. Conf.," is covered by Section 73 of the IPC. The Code outlines the manner in
which the Court may impose punishment. The judge must remember that solitary confinement cannot go longer
than three months. The following is the scale:

Sol. Conf. will not exceed one month if the term is less than six months; Sol. Conf. will not exceed two months
if the duration is more than six months but less than a year; and Sol. Conf. will not exceed three months if the
term is more than a year.
According to Section 74 of the IPC, a person can only be placed in solitary confinement for a maximum of
fourteen days.
Additionally, if the duration of solitary confinement is longer than three months, then confinement shall not
exceed 7 days in one month.

Scope of the Sections Providing Solitary Confinement

In the case of Sunil Batra Etc vs Delhi Administration And Ors. the court observed that the Sol. Conf. should
not be ordered unless it is deemed to be required as per the offence committed by the offender. The offence shall
be extreme violence or the commission of the offence shall be brutally committed by the offender. However, the
court felt that Sol. Conf. inhumane and horrendous.

Enhanced Punishment

The court noted that the Sol. Conf. should not be issued unless it is judged necessary in light of the offence
committed by the defendant in the case of Sunil Batra Etc vs. Delhi Administration And Ors. Extreme violence
is the crime, or the perpetrator must carry out the crime in a violent manner. But the court thought Sol. Conf.
was terrible and cruel.
Section 75 - Scope
A person who is convicted for the second time of an offence punishable under Chapter XII (Offences Relating
to Coin and Government Stamps) or Chapter XVII (Offences Against Property) is subject to a greatly enhanced
sentence under Section 75 of the Code if they are sentenced to more than three years in prison.

However, when considering the alteration in Section 30 of the Cr.P.C., which gives the Session Judge the
authority to decide such matters, even while it appears that the magistrate is competent under Section 348 of the
Cr.P.C., the magistrate is not competent to award a punishment under this provision. Although some groups of
cases are subject to enhancement under Section 75, the Court is not required to do so at the time of
[Link] clause is typically applied to provide a deterrent effect. Furthermore, prior convictions for
attempting to commit an offence beyond the purview of this section must be reported.

Conclusion:

The types of punishments under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including capital punishment, imprisonment,
forfeiture of property, and fines, 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. It explains sentencing principles, the role of judicial discretion, and factors
influencing punishment, such as aggravating and mitigating circumstances are thus mentioned.

Bibliography:

 [Link]
 [Link]
 [Link]