Paper Accepted for presentation in the Asian Symposium of Legal Pluralism “Limits of

Law, Limits of Legality” on 29-30 march 2018, Faculty of Law Universitas, Jakarta,
Indonesia
Crime beyond Legality: An Analysis of Cognizable Crime under the Indian Penal Code

(Deepika M G, K Guru Vamsi Krishna, Kamana Tanya

Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Bangalore, India)

Abstract

Despite the constitutional and legal provisions to deal with the prevention and mitigation of crime,
the rate of crime in India is sharply on the rise. While most of crimes of serious nature are found in
the developing part of the world, very less attention has been paid by criminologists for studying
crime in developing countries. Cognizable crime in India dealt under Indian Penal Code (IPC) and
the Special Local Laws (SLL) consists of crimes of different types. It is assumed that most of the types
of crimes committed and dealt under the IPC are the ones most sensible to socio economic indicators
and policy measures. Given the data published by the National Crime Records Bureau on the
incidence and the rate of crime across the states of India, we examine the nature and trends in crime
rates under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and its association with the select socio economic variables
of India. We use a two group discriminant model (by dividing the states into two groups- states with
high crime rates, which are above the national average and states with low crime rates, which are
ones below the national average) to examine as to which of the above mentioned predictor variables
differentiate between the two groups. The results interestingly demonstrate that the Gini coefficient,
representing income inequality is the most important of all the variables in explaining the difference
between the two groups. The empirical results however do not show any association with other socio-
economic variables like the rate of poverty, unemployment, literacy and education. This strongly
supports the earlier global studies that distribution of income is a significant determinant of
interregional differences in crime rates in India.

(Keywords: Cognizable crime, Indian Penal code, development, inequality, discriminant model,
India)

1. Introduction

While most of crimes of serious nature are found in the developing part of the world, very less
attention has been paid by criminologists for studying crime in less developed countries. Much of the
literature in the area has focussed on exploring crimes of western countries. The official statistics
available on crime and the victim surveys support that crime rates in most developed part of the world
have shown a declining trend in the last years, but evidence supports that the rate of crime has
increased in developing countries (Farell, et. al., 2011; Elonheimo, 2014). The association between
economic growth and crime has been a significant issue dealt by many theories of crime. It is assumed
that most of the types of crimes committed and dealt under the IPC are the ones most sensible to socio

1
economic indicators and policy measures. To the question whether economic growth leads to
increased rate of crime or crime rate has fallen due to economic growth had divergent answers at
different time periods. Typical Marxist view asserted that capitalism resulting in subordinate position
of the workers led to increased crime. Some other scholars argued that increase in urbanization and
industrialization led to alienation and anti-social behaviour. But later this assumption was undermined
when many nations observed industrialisation, urbanization and rapid social change have been
accompanied by decline in crime rates. Cognizable crime in India dealt under Indian Penal Code
(IPC) and the Special Local Laws (SLL) consists of crimes of different types. Crime against body,
crime against property, economic crimes, crimes against public order and sexual offences are the
broad categories of crime dealt under the Indian Penal code, where the crimes of violent nature
occupy a substantial share. Given the data published by the National Crime Records Bureau on the
incidence and the rate of crime across the states of India, we examine the nature and trends in crime
rates under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and its association with the select socio –economic variables
of India.

2. Related Work

The theories of crime until the 1980s had assumed that crime rates were the consequence of economic
progress. The typical Marxist view asserted that capitalism resulting in subordinate position of the
workers led to increased crime. Yet another set of scholars argued that increase in industrialization
leading to urbanization led to alienation and anti-social behaviour. One popular argument in support
of this was that urban neighbourhoods plagued by poverty, bad housing and unemployment has led to
normless situations. But later this assumption was undermined when many nations observed
industrialization, urbanization and rapid social change have led to decline in crime rates.

The relationship between crime and inequality is dealt under three traditional economic and
sociological theories of crime - economic theory of crime by Becker (1968), Merton’s strain theory
(1938) and social disorganization theory of Shaw and McKay (1942). In the economic theory of crime
which originated with Becker (1968) developed later by Eherlich (1973), Block and Hienieke (1975)
individuals do a benefit cost analysis before committing the crime. They compare the expected return
from crime to that of the likelihood of being caught and the severity of punishment. Inequality as a
cause of crime is supported with the fact that the poor who have low returns from market feel it
worthwhile to take the share from the rich who have high returns from market. Chiu and Madden
(1998) have established a formal model where the choice is made by individuals between legitimate
and criminal activities. A few other studies have also looked into the deterrent effects of the justice
system and empirically tested as to how increased police expenditure and involvement along with the
imprisonment rates can reduce crime (Kelly 2000)

2
Merton’s (1938) Strain theory argues that crime is the result of comparison of the unsuccessful people
who are frustrated with those who succeed materialistically and socially. This frustration causes
strain on individuals and more the inequality, greater the feeling of low status and higher the strain.
The theory suggests that individual alienation can arise not just from income inequality but also
because of racial discriminations. Social disorganization theory on the other hand argues that crime
takes place due to the weakening of mechanisms of social control. The factors that weaken social
control mechanisms are racial heterogeneity, poverty, residential mobility and instability in the family
relations (Shaw and Mckay, 1942 and Kornhauser 1978). To summarise, the three ecological theories
of crime are more to be seen like compliments than as substitutes to analyse crime, where each
focusses on different facets of causal relationship between inequality and crime. Social
disorganization theory focuses on informal social deterrents to crime, strain theory explains on
pressures to commit violent crime while the economic theory of crime is concerned largely with the
incentives to commit property crime which also discusses on the negative effects of the criminal
justice system (Kelly, 2000).

Bourguignon (1999) addresses on the question whether inequality exacerbate collective and private
violence. He has developed a model in which crime is seen as a function of five variables - the
percentage of poor in the total population, the relative benefits gained from criminal activity, the
severity of punishments, the probability of detection and a parameter of honesty. Bourguignon, with
an empirical analysis also demonstrates that the distribution of income is a significant determinant of
international, and inter-temporal differences in crime rate. Some studies have shown that education
has a particular importance in all socio- economic factors contributing to crime (Tsushina, 1996;
Comertler and Kar 2007; Scorem and Cellini 1998). Alcan and Sahin (2011) have shown that being
illiterate increases the rate of crime against property and as the educational level is inversely related to
rate of crime. Glaeser and Sacerdote (1996), have established the link between incidence of crime
and urbanization, as to why we should expect the effect of density of population on crime rates.
Similarly, the study by Soares (2000) explores the relation between development and crime. This
paper interestingly demonstrates that these earlier results showing positive association between crime
and development are due not to increase in crime with development but due to increases in crime
reporting. The results of the analysis of the panel of social data which is corrected for reporting bias
suggest that development affects crime negatively. Income inequality is seen to be the variable that is
closely and positively related to crime rates.

A study by Kelly (2000) conducted in urban counties in America considers the relationship between
inequality and crime. His empirical study concludes that the nature of property and violent crime are
different. Inequality did not display any effect on property crime but it has a strong impact on violent
crime. Contrastingly, poverty and police activity have significant relation with property crime but has
little impact on violent crime. The study therefore concludes that economic theory of crime is suitable

3
to explain property crime while violent crime can be better explained social disorganization and strain
theories.

Some global studies on crime quantitatively testing the association of crime rate with socio economic
variables have largely used the classification techniques. Downs (1970) had demonstrated using factor
analysis that cities with high violent activities are the largest, the poorest with high population density
populated by less educated people who have low income and higher unemployment rates than those in
cities in where no incidents of racial violence have taken place. Land, et, al (1990) have applied
discriminant factor analysis to cluster US cities based on crime rates. The variables included for
analysis are median income of the family, population below poverty line, Gini index representing
income inequality, percent of population that is black, and percent of children below 18 years of age
not living with parents. Williams and Gedeon (2004) have also used multivariate analysis to help
classify US cities as safe or unsafe according to several variables.

3. Data Sources

The study is based on the available secondary sources of information. Data on total incidence and rate
of cognizable crime at the state level has been gathered from the National Crime Records Bureau for
the years from 2013 to 2015. Data for other variables used for analysis like Sex ratio, Literacy rate,
Poverty rate are taken from census of India reports for the year 2001 and 2011. Per capita SDP is
obtained from the CSO, HDR ranking of states is taken from an earlier study and unemployment rate
from the Fifth Annual Employment-unemployment survey of the ministry of labour and employment,
government of India for the year 2015. The Gini coefficients for the states have been obtained from
the Planning commission website which shows the Gini coefficient of distribution of consumption for
the period 2009-10. Data on education which is the enrolment numbers to graduate programs is
obtained from All India Survey on Higher Education (2015-16) published by the Ministry of Human
Resource Development, Department of Higher Education, New Delhi.

Total incidence of crime (TC) is the total number of incidences of crime reported each year. Rate of
crime (RC) is the crime per lakh of population. Sex ratio (SR) is the number of females per thousands
of males. Literacy rate (LR) the total percentage of the population at a particular time aged seven
years or above who can read and write. Per capita SDP, (PSDP) is the Gross State domestic product
divided by population of the state. Poverty Rate (PR) is defined as the ratio of the number of people
(in a given age group) whose income falls below the poverty line; taken as half the median household
income of the total population). Human Development Index and Rank (HDR) (It is a composite
statistic of life expectancy, education, and per capita income indicators, which are used to rank states
Unemployment Rate (UR), is share of the labor force that is jobless, expressed as a percentage. The
Gini coefficient (GI) is a measure of statistical dispersion intended to represent the income or wealth

4
distribution of a nation’s residents and is the most commonly used measure of inequality. If the Gini
coefficient is zero it expresses perfect equality and the value of 1 expresses maximum inequality. In
India much of the discussion on inter personal income distribution is carried on the basis of the
household consumption expenditure data collected by the NSSO every five years. It is assumed that
absolute consumption expenditure is used as a proxy for income distribution.

4. Methodology

The study has used descriptive statistics to understand the nature, dimensions and magnitude of
different types of crime under IPC in India. For analysing the socio economic factors associated with
the rate of crime at the state level we perform a two group discriminant analysis by classifying the
states into those with crime rate above the national average and those below.

4.1 The Discriminant Model

Discriminant analysis is a causality technique used when the dependent variable is categorical and the
predictor or independent variables are metric or non-metric in nature. The model develops the
discriminant functions or linear combinations of predictor or independent variables which will best
discriminate between the groups of the dependent variable. The model helps in concluding as to
which of the predictor variables contribute to the most of the intergroup differences. The discriminant
model is linear combination of the variables and the model can be expressed as -
D = b₀+b₁X₁+b₂X₂+b₃X₃+…………….+bᵢXᵢ where, D is the discriminant score; bs are the
discriminant function coefficients and Xs are the predictor or independent variable. The coefficients
or weights are estimated in such a way that the groups differ to the best extent on the values of the
discriminant function. This happens when the ratio of between group sums of squares to within
groups sum of squares for the discriminant score is at a maximum. It is so estimated that any other
linear combination of the predictors will result in smaller ratio. Statistics associated with discriminant
model revels that a high canonical correlation (closer to 1), a low wilks lambda (closer to 0) and a
high eigen value speak of the goodness of the fit of the model. Canonical correlation measures the
extent of association between the discriminant scores and the groups. It is a measure of association
between the single discriminant function and a set of dummy variables that define the group
membership. For each discriminant function, the eigenvalue is the ratio of between group to within
group sums of squares. Higher eigenvalue implies superior functions. Sometimes also call the Ʋ
statistic, Wilks’ λ for each predictor is the ratio of the within-group some of squares to the total sum
of squares. Its value varies between 0 and 1. Large values of λ (near 1) indicate that group means do
not seen to be different. Small values of λ (near 0) indicates that the group means seem to be different.
The diagonal elements of the classification matrix show the number of cases rightly classified as

5
against their prior probabilities. The Centroid is the mean values in values for discriminant scores for
a particular group. There are as many centroids as there are groups, because there is one for each
group. The means for a group on all the functions are the group centroids. The unstandardized
discriminant coefficients are multiplied by the values of the variables. These products are summed
and added to the constant term took obtain the discriminant scores. The standardized discriminant
function coefficients are used as the multipliers when the variables have been standardized to a mean
of 0 and a variance of 1. The F values are calculated from a one-way ANOVA, with the grouping
variable serving as the categorical independent variable. Each predictor, in turn, serves as the matrix
dependent variable in ANOVA. Structure correlations, also referred to as discriminant loadings,
represent the simple correlations between the predictors and the discriminant function. The
coefficients in the structure matrix displays the relative importance of each variable in classifying
across the two groups.

5. Results and Discussions

5.1 An overview of Crime in India

The Criminal Procedure Code of India (Cr. P. C) of India classifies Crimes under two heads – i)
Cognizable Crimes covered under Sec 2 (c ) of Cr. P. C and ii) Non- Cognizable Crime under section
2 (1) of Cr. P. C. Cognizable Crime: A Cognizable offense or a case is defined as one which an officer
in Charge of a police station may investigate without the order of a magistrate and effect arrest
without warrant. The police have a direct responsibility to take immediate action on the receipt of a
complaint or of credible information relating to such crimes, visit the scene of the crime, investigate
the facts, apprehend the offender and arraign him before the court of law having jurisdiction over the
matter. Cognizable crimes are broadly categorised as those falling either under the Indian Penal Code
(IPC) and those covered by the Special Local Laws (SLL). Non-Cognizable crimes: Non Cognizable
crimes are defined as those which cannot be investigated by Police without the order of a competent
magistrate. Police do not initiate investigation in non-cognizable crimes except with magisterial
permission. First schedule of the Cr. P.C. gives the classification of the offenses of the IPC into
Cognizable and non-Cognizable categories.

The Crimes classified under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) includes crimes against body which consists
of murder, culpable homicide, etc; crime under sexual offences which includes rape, assault on
women, etc; Crimes relating to Property offenses which consists of robbery, dacoity, etc; crimes
relating to public order like riots, arson, etc; Economic Crimes which includes Criminal breach of
trust, cheating, forgery and counterfeiting; Human Trafficking which includes procuration of minors,
importation of girls from foreign country, selling and buying of minors for prostitution; crime relating
to offences against the state: offenses against the state under the section 121, 124 A IPC and

6
promoting enmity between different groups; crime against children which covers foeticide,
infanticide, procuration of minors, murder, exposure and abandonment, offenses under the POCSO
act, etc; crime against women: Rape assault on women, cruelty by husband and relatives, etc; crime
against SCs and STs: Cases under the protection of Civil Rights Act, the SC, ST (POA) Act, etc.
Crime under Special and Local Laws (SLL) which pertains to 52 different Acts which covers Arms
Act, 1959, Narcotic Drugs Act, 1985, Copyright Act 1957, Commission of Sati Prevention Act, 1987,
Forest Act, etc.

5.2 Trends in Cognizable crime in India

Fig 1: Trends in IPC cognizable crime in India

Source: Crime in India, 2015, NRCB

Cognizable crime and its reporting in India has been continuously on the rise. In the year 2015 around
29, 4900 cases were reported under IPC and 43, 76,669 were reported under S SLL. A total of
48,31,515 cognizable crimes were reported in India. IPC crimes have a percentage share of 61.6%
while percentage of SLL cases was 38.4% of the total cognizable crimes during 2016. (Crime in India
2016).

Table 1: Total Cognizable crimes registered during 2011-15

Crime Crime Incidence Crime Rate

Heads
Year 2014 2015 2016 2014 2015 2016
IPC 28,51,563 29,49,400 29,75,711 229.2 234.2 233.6
SLL 17,20,100 17,61,276 18,55,804 138.3 139.9 145.7
Total 45,71,663 47,10,676 48,31,515 367.5 374.1 379.3
Source: Crime in India: 2016

7
There is a sharp increase in the growth rate of both the rate of crime and that of incidence in the
decade of 2000, with the increase being sharp since the year 2012.

Fig. 2: Cases Registered and Rate of IPC crimes (percentage change over the years)

Source: Crime in India, 2015, NRCB

The incidence and the rate of crime has sharply grown over the years, with steep growth esp since the
year 2012 (Fig 2). It is also argued that the reporting of crime has increased since the year 2012 rather
than the growth in the rate of crime.

Fig 3: Percentage Distribution of IPC Crimes during 2015

Source: Crime in India, 2015, NRCB

Of the total IPC crimes theft constitutes the largest percentage (15.9%), followed by injuries due to
rash driving (15.3%), causing death by negligence (4.5%), etc. Classified in other way, Crime against
body occupies the largest percentage (29.1%), followed by crime against property (21.2%), Economic
crimes (5.1%), crime against public order (2.9%), sexual offenses (4.4%) and other IPC crimes
(37.3%).

Fig 4: State/UT wise IPC Crime Rate (in 2015)

8
Source: Crime in India, 2015, NRCB

Figures on the Crime rate across the states and UTs of India reveals that in addition to the capital city
of Delhi, Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Haryana, Odisha and Bihar are the states with high crime rates.
Nagaland, Lakshadweep, Daman and Due, Uttarkhand have recorded very low crime rates.

Fig 5: IPC Cases for Investigation and their Disposal by Police during 1961-2015

Source: Crime in India, 2015, NRCB

9
Fig 6: IPC Cases for Trial and their Disposal by Courts during 1961-2015

Source: Crime in India, 2015, NRCB

The matter of concern is the gap that is seen between the crime incidence and, reporting, recording,
disposal for trail and completion of the trials. In the year 2015, of the 4010195 cases were taken for
investigation and only 2869395 cases were completed with investigation. Of the 10502256 total cases
before trial only 1325989 cases were completed of trial.

5.3 Results of Discriminant Model.

We run a two group discriminant model for analysing the factors influencing rate of crime in India. 28
states of India are classified into high crime states with and states with low crime rate based on the
national average of the rate of crime. Group1 belongs to the states with high crime rate with crime rate
above the national average. And group 2 belongs to the states with low crime rate with crime rate
below the national average. Thus the 2 groups form the categorical dependent variable in the model.
In the initial model we include the following independent variables, i.e Sex ratio (SR), Literacy rate
(LR), Poverty rate (PR), Per capita SDP of the states (PSDP), Unemployment rate (UR), Gini
coefficient (Gini) and Human development ranking (HDR) of the states. Due to high collinearity of
HDR with other variables we drop this variable in our final model and include other independent
variables. Results of two group discriminant model is displayed in tables 2 to 9 below.

10
Table 2: Group Statistics
Valid N (listwise)
GroupRC Mean Std. Deviation Unweighted Weighted
1.00 SR 953.6667 51.96656 15 15.000
LR 76.3013 8.14916 15 15.000
PR 17.9780 11.18902 15 15.000
PCSDP 75108.9333 45931.77588 15 15.000
UR 63.0000 46.57406 15 15.000
Gini .3204 .04461 15 15.000
GERPL 2320.5055 894.99487 15 15.000
2.00 SR 944.6923 34.48039 13 13.000
LR 77.2431 7.68761 13 13.000
PR 21.6838 10.79911 13 13.000
PCSDP 56398.1538 28474.10649 13 13.000
UR 68.8462 36.66026 13 13.000
Gini .2730 .05025 13 13.000
GERPL 2081.3838 649.52537 13 13.000
Total SR 949.5000 44.15251 28 28.000
LR 76.7386 7.80573 28 28.000
PR 19.6986 10.96764 28 28.000
PCSDP 66421.7857 39301.13509 28 28.000
UR 65.7143 41.60383 28 28.000
Gini .2984 .05227 28 28.000
GERPL 2209.4847 785.87135 28 28.000

11
Table 3: Tests of Equality of Group Means

Wilks' Lambda F df1 df2 Sig.

SR .989 .280 1 26 .601
LR .996 .098 1 26 .757
PR .971 .789 1 26 .383
PCSDP .942 1.614 1 26 .215
UR .995 .133 1 26 .718
Gini .788 6.986 1 26 .014
GERPL .976 .636 1 26 .432

Table 4: Eigenvalues
Canonical
Function Eigenvalue % of Variance Cumulative % Correlation
1 .458a 100.0 100.0 .561
a. First 1 canonical discriminant functions were used in the analysis.

Table 5: Wilks' Lambda

Test of Function(s) Wilks' Lambda Chi-square Df Sig.

1 .686 8.489 7 .291

Table 6: Canonical Discriminant Function Coefficients

SR .008
LR -.088
PR -.007
PCSDP .000
UR -.006
Gini 15.487
GERPL .000
(Constant) -5.946
Unstandardized coefficients

12
 Table 7: Structure Matrix
Gini .766
PCSDP .368
PR -.257
GERPL .231
SR .153
UR -.106
LR -.091
Pooled within-groups correlations between
discriminating variables and standardized canonical
discriminant functions. Variables ordered by absolute
size of correlation within function.

Table 8: Functions at Group

Centroids
Function
Group RC 1
1.00 .607
2.00 -.701
Unstandardized canonical
discriminant functions evaluated at
group means

Table 9: Classification Results

Predicted Group Membership
Group RC 1.00 2.00 Total
Original Count 1.00 12 3 15
2.00 6 7 13
% 1.00 80.0 20.0 100.0
2.00 46.2 53.8 100.0
a. 67.9% of original grouped cases correctly classified.

Tables 4, 5 show that the discriminant model is fairly a good fit with eigenvalues at .458, canonical
correlation at .561 and Wilks lambda at .686. Table 9 on classification results shows that 67.9% of
cases are rightly classified. The canonical discriminant function coefficients shown in Table 6 and the
structure matrix in Table 7 reveals not many variables are significant in differentiating between the
two groups. However, interestingly we see that gini coefficient has emerged highly significant in

13
explaining the differences. Results therefore supports that higher inequality leads higher rate of crime
in India.

6. Conclusions

Despite the constitutional and legal provisions to deal with the prevention and mitigation of crime, the
rate of crime in India is sharply on the rise. Cognizable crime in India dealt under Indian Penal Code
(IPC) and the Special Local Laws (SLL) consists of crimes of different types. The Economic and
sociological theories dealing with crime have established the rationale for relationship between socio-
economic variables and crimes of different types. Given the data published by the National Crime
Records Bureau on the incidence and the rate of crime across the states of India, the study ties to
examine the empirical relationship between cognizable crime in India dealt under the IPC and a given
set of socio economic indicators. We use a two group discriminant model (by dividing the states into
two groups- states with high crime rates, which are above the national average and states with low
crime rates, which are ones below the national average) to examine as to which of the above
mentioned predictor variables differentiate between the two groups. The results interestingly
demonstrate that the Gini coefficient, representing income inequality is the most important of all the
variables in explaining the difference between the two groups. The empirical results however do not
show any association with other socio-economic variables like the rate of poverty, unemployment,
literacy and education. The study seems to have gathered support to Merton’s strain theory where
income inequality can be a powerful variable in explaining the rate of crime.

References

Alcan and Sahin (2011) “Anadolu International Conference in Economics II”, 15-17 Haziran,.

Becker, G. (1968). “Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach.” Journal of Political Economy
76, 169–217.

Bourguignon, Franqois. (1998) "Crime as a Social Cost of Poverty and Inequality: A Review
Focusing on Developing Countries." Background paper prepared for World Development Report
2000. World Bank, Washington, D.C.

Block and Hienieke (1975)

Chiu and Madden (1998)

Comertler N and M Kar (2007) 5-8 “Economic and Social Determinants of The Crime Rate in
Turkey: Cross-Section Analysis” MPRA, ss.521-565

Downs (1970)

14
Data on education obtained from All India Survey on Higher Education (2015-16) published by the
Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Higher Education, New Delhi. Available
online at [Link]

Ehrlich, Isaac. 1973. "Participation in Illegitimate Activities: A Theoretical and Empirical

Investigation." Journal of Political Economy 81: 521-65.

Elonheimo, H. (2014). “Evidence for the crime drop: survey findings from two Finnish cities between
1992 and 2013. Journal of Scandinavian Studies in Criminology & Crime Prevention”, 15(2), 209–
217.

Farrell, G., Tseloni, A., Mailley, J., & Tilley, N. (2011). “The crime drop and the security hypothesis.
Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency”, 48(2), 147–175.

Gini coefficient
[Link]

Glaeser, E. and B. Sacerdote (1996) “Why is there more crimes in cities? NBER” Working Paper
5430. NBER, Cambridge, 1996.

Kelly, (2000)

Land, [Link] (1990)

Kornhauser (1978)

Merton, (1938),

NCRB, 2015, Ministry of Home Affairs, “Crime in India, 2015- Statistics” available online at http:
//[Link]

Soares Rodrigo Reis (2000) “Development, Crime, and Punishment: Accounting for the International
Differences in Crime Rates” JEL Classification: K42, O10

Rogers, John D (1989), Theories of Crime and Development: An Historical Perspective”, The Journal
of Development Studies, 25:3, 314-328, DOI:10.1080/00220388908422114

Scorcu and Cellini, 1998: “Economic Activity and Crime In the Long Run: An Empirical
Investigation on Aggregate Data from Italy, 1951-1994”, Elsevier, ss.279-292.

SedaTekeli, GulerGunsoy (2013) “The relation between education and economic crime: an
assessment for Turkey” Procedia- Social and Behavioral Sciences 106 (2013) 3012 - 3025

Soares Rodrego Reis (2000), “Development, Crime and Punishment: Accounting for the International
Differences in Crime rates” March 28, 2000

15
Shaw and Mckay (1942)

Statistics on Human Development Rank available online at

[Link]

Statistics on Literacy Rate for the year 2001 available online at

[Link]

Statistics on Literacy rate for the year 2011, available online at

[Link]

Statistics on Net SDP available online at [Link]/maps/india/[Link]

Statistics on Poverty Rate available online at [Link]

Statistics on Sex ratio for the year 2001 , available online at

[Link]

Statistics on Sex Ratio, for the year 2011 available online at

[Link]

Statistics on Unemployment rate available online at

[Link]

Tsushima,M (1996) “Economic Structure and Crime: The Case of Japan, Journal of Socio-
Economics”, Volume:25, No:4, ss.494-515

Williams and Gedoen (2004)

16