Q. Explain the Various Theories of Punishment.

I. Introduction
The term ‘punishment’ refers to the penalty imposed by lawful authority upon a person who has committed
a legal wrong or offence.
It is the state’s retributive response to crime, meant to maintain social order, deter future offences, and
reform offenders.
Definition:
According to Bentham, “Punishment is an evil inflicted by public authority on an offender for some
offence.”
Thus, punishment aims not merely at inflicting pain but at securing justice, reform, and protection of society.

II. Theories of Punishment

Theories of punishment explain the purpose or justification for imposing penalties on offenders. The main
theories are discussed below:

1. Retributive Theory (Theory of Retaliation)

Meaning:
 Based on the moral philosophy of retaliation — “Let the punishment fit the crime.”
 The offender deserves to suffer because he has caused suffering to others.
Objective:
 To inflict proportional pain as moral revenge or retribution.
 To satisfy the collective conscience of society.
Example:
Capital punishment for premeditated murder.
Case Law:
 K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (1962):
The accused, a naval officer, killed his wife’s lover. The Court held that moral culpability required
punishment, signifying that law cannot be replaced by personal vengeance — a retributive approach
tempered by due process.
Criticism:
 Ignores the possibility of reform.
 Often results in cruelty and vengeance rather than justice.

2. Deterrent Theory
Meaning:
 Seeks to deter both the offender (specific deterrence) and others (general deterrence) from
committing crimes.
 Fear of punishment prevents future crimes.
Objective:
 To maintain law and order by creating fear in the minds of potential offenders.
Case Laws:
 Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980):
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the death penalty, stating it should be
awarded only in the “rarest of rare” cases where the alternative of life imprisonment is
unquestionably inadequate. The Court recognized deterrence as a legitimate purpose of punishment.
 Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983):
Elaborated on “rarest of rare” by categorizing aggravating circumstances; reaffirmed deterrence
through proportionate punishment.
Criticism:
 Crimes committed under passion, influence, or mental disorder are not deterred by fear.
 Excessive severity may harden offenders instead of reforming them.

3. Preventive Theory (Theory of Disablement)

Meaning:
 Punishment aims to prevent the offender from repeating offences by incapacitating them through
imprisonment, death, or other restraints.
Objective:
 Protection of society from dangerous individuals.
Example:
Life imprisonment, preventive detention laws, cancellation of licenses for habitual offenders.
Case Law:
 State of Maharashtra v. Saeed Sohail Sheikh (2013):
The Court justified preventive detention to safeguard public order, emphasizing the preventive role
of punishment.
Criticism:
 It focuses on restraining offenders but does not cure criminal tendencies or reform them.

4. Reformative Theory (Theory of Reformation)

Meaning:
 Views crime as a social disease and the criminal as a patient.
 Aims to reform the offender through education, counselling, vocational training, and moral guidance.
Objective:
 Rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders into society as responsible citizens.
Case Laws:
 Mohd. Giasuddin v. State of A.P. (1977):
Justice Krishna Iyer held that punishment should be reformative and humanizing, not retributive. The
purpose is to awaken the conscience of the wrongdoer.
 State of Gujarat v. High Court of Gujarat (1998):
The Supreme Court emphasized that prison administration must focus on reformation and not
degradation of prisoners.
 Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978):
The Court condemned solitary confinement and stressed humane treatment of prisoners consistent
with Article 21 of the Constitution.
Criticism:
 Not effective for hardened or habitual criminals.
 May be viewed as too lenient.

5. Expiatory Theory (Theory of Atonement)

Meaning:
 Based on religious and moral grounds — the offender must repent and atone for his sin to cleanse
his conscience.
 Found in ancient Hindu and religious philosophies.
Objective:
 Moral purification of the offender through repentance and self-punishment.
Example:
Voluntary acts like confession, community service, or penance.
Criticism:
 Impractical in modern secular legal systems; lacks objective standards for application.

6. Compensatory Theory (Victim-Centric Approach)

Meaning:
 A modern theory focusing on restitution and compensation to the victim, rather than punishing the
offender alone.
 Recognizes that justice is incomplete unless the victim is restored.
Objective:
 To repair the loss suffered by the victim and promote restorative justice.
Legal Provisions:
 Section 357 & 357A CrPC – Empower courts to order compensation to victims.
 Section 5(6) of the Victim Compensation Scheme, 2015 – Provides state compensation for victims
of certain crimes.
Case Laws:
 Delhi Domestic Working Women’s Forum v. Union of India (1995):
The Supreme Court directed the State to establish compensation schemes for rape victims.
 Hari Krishna v. Sukhbir Singh (1988):
Court stressed that compensation should not be viewed as charity but as a part of criminal justice.
Criticism:
 Difficult to quantify the extent of harm and adequate compensation.

III. Conclusion
No single theory of punishment is sufficient to achieve complete justice. Modern penology adopts a
combined approach, balancing deterrence, prevention, retribution, and reformation.
India’s criminal justice system today emphasizes reformative and compensatory principles, aligning with
constitutional values of human dignity (Article 21) and restorative justice.
Thus, the purpose of punishment in a modern democratic society is not vengeance, but protection of
society, prevention of crime, and rehabilitation of offenders.

Key Case Summary (for last-minute recall):

Theory Landmark Case Principle
Moral culpability & justice to
Retributive K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (1962)
society
Deterrent Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) “Rarest of Rare” & deterrence
Preventive State of Maharashtra v. Saeed Sohail Sheikh (2013) Public safety through restraint
Reformative Mohd. Giasuddin v. State of A.P. (1977) Humanizing criminal justice
Reformative Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978) Prisoner’s rights under Art. 21
Delhi Domestic Working Women’s Forum v. UOI
Compensatory Victim compensation
(1995)
Compensatory Hari Krishna v. Sukhbir Singh (1988) Compensation as justice
Short Note: Crime Control
Definition
Crime control refers to the methods, strategies, and measures adopted by the State and society to prevent,
detect, and reduce criminal activities and maintain public order.
It forms the core objective of criminal justice, ensuring safety, security, and social harmony.

Objectives
1. Prevention of crime before it occurs.
2. Detection and punishment of offenders.
3. Rehabilitation and reintegration of criminals.
4. Maintenance of law and order and public confidence in justice.

Methods of Crime Control

1. Legal Measures
 Strict penal laws: IPC, CrPC, Special Acts (NDPS, POCSO, IT Act).
 Deterrent punishments: Create fear of law (Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, 1980 – deterrent
objective).
 Swift and fair trials: Strengthen trust in justice.
2. Preventive Measures
 Policing: Surveillance, patrolling, preventive arrests, intelligence sharing.
 Community policing: Partnership between police and citizens.
 Criminal records & profiling: Tracking habitual offenders.
3. Social and Economic Measures
 Education and employment opportunities to reduce root causes of crime.
 Awareness programs against drug abuse, domestic violence, etc.
 Social welfare schemes and support for vulnerable groups.
4. Correctional and Reformative Measures
 Rehabilitation programs, probation, parole, open prisons.
 Mohd. Giasuddin v. State of A.P. (1977) – emphasized reformation over retribution.
5. Technological Measures
 CCTV surveillance, cyber policing, AI-based predictive policing tools.
 Use of forensic science and digital evidence in investigations.

Case Law
 D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997): Laid down guidelines for arrest and detention to prevent
custodial crimes and ensure accountability.
 Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): Ensured that all measures for crime control must respect
Article 21 – Right to Life and Personal Liberty.

Conclusion
Crime control is not achieved merely through punishment but through a balanced approach combining
deterrence, prevention, and rehabilitation.
A humane and efficient criminal justice system ensures both public safety and protection of individual
rights, forming the true essence of modern penology.
Q. What is Sentencing Process? Discuss the Factors to be Considered in Sentencing Process.
(10 Marks)

I. Introduction
Sentencing is the final stage of the criminal trial, where the court determines the appropriate
punishment to be imposed on the convicted offender.
It is the judicial process of deciding the quantum, nature, and mode of punishment after considering the
facts of the case, the circumstances of the offence, and the background of the offender.
The objective of sentencing is to ensure that the punishment fits both the crime and the criminal —
balancing deterrence, retribution, reform, and protection of society.

II. Meaning of Sentencing

Sentencing may be defined as:
“The judicial determination of the punishment to be imposed on a person found guilty of an offence.”
It involves applying the principles of proportionality, fairness, and justice to individualize punishment.

III. Sentencing Process in India

1. Conviction: Once guilt is established under CrPC Section 235(2), the accused is given an
opportunity to be heard on the question of sentence.
2. Hearing on Sentence: The court considers aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
3. Imposition of Sentence: The judge applies relevant statutory provisions (IPC, CrPC, or special
laws) to determine the type and quantum of punishment.
4. Appeal/Revision: Sentences can be challenged before higher courts for being excessive or
inadequate.

IV. Factors Considered in Sentencing Process

The sentencing discretion of judges is guided by both legal provisions and judicial precedents.
The following factors are considered to ensure fairness and proportionality:

1. Nature and Gravity of the Offence

 Heinousness of the crime, the manner of its commission, and its impact on society.
 Example: Murder, rape, terrorism attract harsher punishments.
 Case: Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) – death penalty should be awarded only in the “rarest
of rare” cases considering the nature of the offence.

2. Motive and Intent of the Offender

 Whether the act was premeditated, accidental, or committed under provocation.
 Case: K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (1962) – sudden provocation reduced the sentence
from murder to culpable homicide.

3. Circumstances of the Commission of the Offence

 Factors such as cruelty, brutality, or influence of drugs/alcohol.
 Presence of conspiracy or organized intent.

4. Character, Age, and Background of the Offender

 First-time offenders, young age, or persons with social/economic disadvantage may be treated
leniently.
  Case: Mohd. Giasuddin v. State of A.P. (1977) – SC emphasized reformative punishment
considering the background and potential for reformation.

5. Previous Criminal Record (Antecedents)

 Habitual offenders or repeat offenders receive stricter sentences.
 First-time offenders may be granted probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

6. Impact on Victim and Society

 The degree of harm caused to the victim and society.
 Victim-centric justice demands adequate punishment and compensation.
 Case: Delhi Domestic Working Women’s Forum v. Union of India (1995) – directed establishment of
compensation schemes for victims.

7. Reformative Possibility
 Courts assess whether the offender shows remorse or potential for rehabilitation.
 Reformative sentencing aligns with Article 21 (Right to Life and Human Dignity).
 State of Gujarat v. High Court of Gujarat (1998) – emphasized reformation as the goal of
punishment.

8. Socio-Economic Conditions
 Poverty, illiteracy, or lack of opportunity may be mitigating factors.
 Example: Petty theft by a poor person may attract lesser punishment than organized crime.

9. Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances

 Aggravating: premeditation, brutality, organized crime, lack of remorse.
 Mitigating: age, cooperation, remorse, family dependence, provocation, or mental illness.

V. Sentencing Discretion and Judicial Guidelines

Indian criminal law provides wide discretion to judges, but no uniform sentencing policy exists — leading
to inconsistency.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly called for structured sentencing guidelines.
Important Cases:
1. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980):
Introduced the “rarest of rare” doctrine and stressed balancing aggravating and mitigating factors.
2. Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983):
Laid down categories for assessing the rarest of rare principle.
3. Sangeet v. State of Haryana (2013):
Criticized the lack of coherent sentencing policy and called for judicial guidelines.
4. State of Punjab v. Prem Sagar (2008):
Observed that the Indian judiciary needs a consistent and rational sentencing framework.

VI. Conclusion
The sentencing process is a critical stage in criminal justice aimed at achieving proportionate, just, and
humane punishment.
While discretion allows flexibility, absence of uniform guidelines often leads to disparity.
Hence, India must move towards a codified sentencing policy, ensuring consistency, fairness, and
alignment with constitutional values under Article 14 (Equality) and Article 21 (Dignity and Justice).
✅ Summary Table (Quick Revision)
Factor Explanation Key Case
Nature of offence Gravity & social impact Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab
Motive & intent Premeditated or provoked K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra
Age & character Reform potential Mohd. Giasuddin v. State of A.P.
Antecedents Previous record Probation of Offenders Act, 1958
Impact on victim Harm & compensation Delhi Domestic Working Women’s Forum v. UOI
Aggravating/Mitigating Circumstances of case Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab

Short Note: Euthanasia

(5 Marks)
Meaning
Euthanasia is derived from the Greek words ‘eu’ (good) and ‘thanatos’ (death), meaning “good or
peaceful death.”
It refers to the intentional termination of a person’s life by another person, to relieve intractable pain and
suffering.

Types of Euthanasia
Type Meaning
Active Euthanasia Direct act of killing (e.g., administering lethal injection).
Passive Euthanasia Withdrawal of life-support system to allow natural death.
Voluntary Euthanasia With the patient’s consent.
Non-voluntary Euthanasia Without the patient’s consent (e.g., coma, vegetative state).

Legal Position in India

 Active euthanasia is illegal and considered an offence under Section 302 or 304 IPC (culpable
homicide/murder).
 Passive euthanasia has been legally permitted under strict conditions by the Supreme Court.

Landmark Case Laws

1. Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India (2011):
o The Supreme Court recognized passive euthanasia (withdrawal of life support) under strict
medical and judicial supervision.
o Laid guidelines until legislation is enacted.
2. Common Cause v. Union of India (2018):
o Constitution Bench recognized the right to die with dignity as part of Article 21 (Right to
Life).
o Legalized passive euthanasia and living wills (advance medical directives).

Constitutional Aspect
 Article 21 guarantees the Right to Life, which includes the Right to Live with Dignity.
 Common Cause Case (2018) extended this to include the Right to Die with Dignity.

Conclusion Euthanasia in India remains a sensitive issue balancing human dignity and ethical
considerations. While passive euthanasia is recognized under constitutional protection of dignity, active
euthanasia continues to be prohibited under criminal law.
Short Note: Pardoning Power of the President
(Article 72, Constitution of India)
Meaning
The Pardoning Power of the President allows him to grant mercy or remission to persons convicted of
offences, as an act of justice and compassion.
It serves as a check on judicial fallibility and ensures humanitarian justice.

Constitutional Provision
Article 72:
The President shall have the power to grant pardons, reprieves, respites, or remissions of punishment, or
to suspend, remit, or commute sentences in cases where:
1. The punishment is by a court-martial;
2. The offence is against any law relating to a matter under the Union’s executive power; or
3. The sentence is a death sentence.

Forms of Clemency
Term Meaning
Pardon Completely absolves the offender and removes all punishment.
Reprieve Temporary suspension of punishment, especially death sentence.
Respite Lesser punishment on special grounds (age, pregnancy, illness).
Remission Reduction of sentence without changing its character.
Commutation Substitution of one punishment for a lighter form (e.g., death → life imprisonment).

Judicial Review
 Though the President’s decision is not subject to judicial review on merits, courts can intervene if
the power is exercised arbitrarily, mala fide, or in violation of constitutional principles.
 Case Laws:
1. Maru Ram v. Union of India (1981): Pardoning power is subject to advice of the Council of
Ministers.
2. Kehar Singh v. Union of India (1989): President can re-examine evidence while
considering mercy petitions.
3. Epuru Sudhakar v. Government of A.P. (2006): Judicial review permitted if the power is
exercised in bad faith or irrelevant considerations.

Conclusion
The Pardoning Power of the President under Article 72 is a vital component of India’s justice system.
It acts as a safeguard against judicial errors, ensures mercy in deserving cases, and upholds the principle
of humanity in criminal justice.

Q. What is the “Rarest of Rare Case”? Explain with Decided Cases.

I. Introduction
The “Rarest of Rare Doctrine” is a judicial principle developed by the Supreme Court of India to decide
when the death penalty may be imposed instead of life imprisonment.
It seeks to balance two conflicting interests —
1. The State’s duty to punish heinous crimes, and
2. The constitutional mandate to protect life under Article 21.
The doctrine ensures that the death sentence is imposed only in exceptional cases, where life
imprisonment is unquestionably inadequate.

II. Origin of the Doctrine

The doctrine was laid down in the landmark case of
➡️Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) AIR 898, (1980) 2 SCC 684
Facts:
 Bachan Singh was convicted of murdering three persons and sentenced to death.
 He challenged the constitutionality of the death penalty under Section 302 of the IPC and Section
354(3) of CrPC, claiming it violated Article 21.
Judgment:
 The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the death penalty.
 However, it restricted its application to “rarest of rare cases”, where the alternative of life
imprisonment is unquestionably inadequate.

III. Principle Laid Down (Bachan Singh Case)

The Court held that:
“A real and abiding concern for the dignity of human life postulates resistance to taking a life through law’s
instrumentality.
That ought not to be done save in the rarest of rare cases when the alternative option is unquestionably
foreclosed.”

IV. Guidelines for Applying the Doctrine

In Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983) AIR 957, the Supreme Court elaborated the categories and
principles to identify a “rarest of rare case.”
The Court laid down five categories of cases:
1. Manner of Commission of Murder:
o When the act is extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical, or revolting (e.g., burning victims
alive, dismembering body parts).
o Example: Multiple murders with extreme cruelty.
2. Motive for the Crime:
o When the motive reveals depravity and meanness (e.g., killing for monetary gain, revenge, or
perversion).
3. Anti-Social or Socially Abhorrent Nature of the Crime:
o Crimes against women, children, the elderly, or the weak — shocking collective conscience
of society.
4. Magnitude of the Crime:
o Crimes involving multiple murders or mass killings.
5. Personality of Victim and Offender:
o When the victim is a public servant or innocent child, and the offender shows no remorse or
possibility of reformation.

V. Important Case Laws

1. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980)
 Doctrine established.
 Death penalty to be used only when life imprisonment is insufficient.
2. Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983)
 Doctrine elaborated.
 Court categorized “rarest of rare” situations and emphasized weighing aggravating vs. mitigating
circumstances.
3. Dhananjoy Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal (1994)
 Facts: A security guard raped and murdered a schoolgirl.
 Held: The Court awarded the death sentence, stating that “the punishment must fit the crime” and
that extreme brutality shocks the collective conscience of society.
4. Mukesh & Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2017) – Nirbhaya Case
 Facts: Brutal gang rape and murder in a moving bus in Delhi (2012).
 Held: Confirmed death penalty for the accused. The Court said the crime was barbaric, inhuman,
and shook the nation’s conscience — fitting the “rarest of rare” category.
5. Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India (2014)
 Held: Even in rarest of rare cases, delay in execution of death sentence or mental illness of the
convict can be grounds for commuting death penalty to life imprisonment.
6. Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra (2009)
 The Court cautioned against arbitrary use of the doctrine and emphasized individualized sentencing
after considering mitigating factors.

VI. Aggravating vs. Mitigating Factors

Aggravating Factors Mitigating Factors
Premeditated, brutal, or heinous act Young age, first-time offender
No provocation Possibility of reformation
Multiple murders Socio-economic stress, emotional instability
Victim is a child, woman, or public servant No previous criminal record

VII. Constitutional & Human Rights Aspect

 The doctrine upholds Article 21 (Right to Life) by ensuring that death penalty is an exception, not
the rule.
 Reinforced by Section 354(3) CrPC, which requires “special reasons” to be recorded for awarding
death sentence.

VIII. Conclusion
The “Rarest of Rare” doctrine is a judicial safeguard against arbitrary and excessive use of the death
penalty.
It ensures that capital punishment is reserved only for cases where:
 The crime is extraordinarily grave,
 The offender shows no scope for reform, and
 The collective conscience of society demands nothing less.
Thus, the Indian judiciary follows a balanced approach, respecting both justice for the victim and the
constitutional sanctity of human life.

✅ Quick Case Reference Table

Case Year Principle
Doctrine established; death penalty valid only in rarest of rare
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab 1980
cases
Five guiding categories; balancing aggravating & mitigating
Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab 1983
factors
Dhananjoy Chatterjee v. State of W.B. 1994 Death for brutal rape & murder; deterrence justified
Mukesh v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2017 Nirbhaya case; extreme brutality justified death penalty
Santosh Bariyar v. State of
2009 Emphasized individualized sentencing
Maharashtra
Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of
2014 Delay in execution may commute death to life imprisonment
India

Kinds of Punishments under the Indian Penal Code and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
I. Introduction
Punishment is the legal consequence imposed by the State on a person convicted of a criminal offence.
The object of punishment is to maintain social order, deter offenders, and reform wrongdoers.
The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) lays down five kinds of punishments under Section 53, whereas the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) retains the same structure with slight modifications under Section
4.

II. Kinds of Punishments under the Indian Penal Code (IPC, 1860)
📘 Section 53 – IPC: “Punishments”
The punishments to which offenders are liable under the provisions of this Code are —
1. Death
2. Imprisonment for Life
3. Imprisonment — Rigorous or Simple
4. Forfeiture of Property
5. Fine

1. Death Penalty
 Meaning: Capital punishment — offender is executed by the State.
 Applicable Offences:
o Waging war against the Government of India – Section 121
o Murder – Section 302
o Dacoity with murder – Section 396
o Kidnapping for ransom – Section 364A
o Abetment of suicide of a minor or insane person – Section 305
 Case Law:
o Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) – Death penalty constitutional; to be used only in
“rarest of rare cases.”
o Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983) – Elaborated on “rarest of rare” guidelines.

2. Imprisonment for Life

 Meaning: The offender remains in prison for the remainder of his natural life (subject to remission
powers).
 Relevant Sections: Sections 53, 55, 57 IPC.
  Case Law: Gopal Vinayak Godse v. State of Maharashtra (1961) – Life imprisonment means
imprisonment for the entire natural life of the convict unless remitted by the Government.

3. Imprisonment (Rigorous or Simple)

 Meaning:
o Rigorous Imprisonment: Offender required to do hard labour.
o Simple Imprisonment: No hard labour; confinement only.
 Examples:
o Rigorous – Section 392 (Robbery)
o Simple – Section 341 (Wrongful restraint)
 Duration: Determined by the Court depending on offence and mitigating factors.

4. Forfeiture of Property
 Meaning: Confiscation of property belonging to the offender by the State.
 Applicable Sections:
o Section 126 – Committing depredation on territories of power at peace with India.
o Section 127 – Receiving property taken in war or depredation.
 Note: Rarely imposed; mostly used in offences against the State.

5. Fine
 Meaning: Monetary penalty imposed either alone or in addition to imprisonment.
 Applicable: For petty and certain compoundable offences (e.g., defamation – Section 500, public
nuisance – Section 290).
 Provision: Sections 63 to 70 IPC detail the rules regarding imposition and recovery of fine.

III. Kinds of Punishments under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS)
📙 Section 4 – BNS, 2023: “Punishments”
The BNS retains the same five kinds of punishments, with modernized language and additional provisions
on community service.
IPC, 1860 BNS, 2023 (Section 4) Remarks / Change
1. Death 1. Death Retained; governed by “rarest of rare” doctrine.
Same meaning; continues to mean for the remainder
2. Imprisonment for life 2. Imprisonment for life
of natural life.
3. Imprisonment 3. Imprisonment (Rigorous
Same; rigorous involves hard labour.
(Rigorous or Simple) or Simple)
4. Forfeiture of property 4. Forfeiture of property Retained for offences against the State.
5. Fine 5. Fine Retained.
6. Community Service ✅ New in BNS — introduced as an alternative,
—
(New Addition) reformative punishment for minor offences.

IV. Community Service (New Feature under BNS)

 Introduced to promote reformative and restorative justice.
 May be ordered by courts for petty offences or first-time offenders.
 Aims at rehabilitation, reducing prison overcrowding, and enabling offenders to contribute
positively to society.
Example: Offences like public nuisance, minor thefts, or defamation may attract community service instead
of imprisonment.
V. Objective of Punishments
1. Retribution – To make the offender suffer proportionately.
2. Deterrence – To discourage crime through fear of punishment.
3. Prevention – To disable offenders from repeating offences.
4. Reformation – To reform and rehabilitate offenders.
5. Restoration – To compensate victims and restore social harmony.

VI. Case Laws on Sentencing and Punishment

Case Principle Laid Down
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) Death penalty valid only in “rarest of rare” cases.
Gopal Vinayak Godse v. State of Maharashtra (1961) Life imprisonment = remainder of natural life.
Mohd. Giasuddin v. State of A.P. (1977) Emphasized reformation of offenders.
State of Punjab v. Prem Sagar (2008) Called for uniform sentencing policy.
Delhi Domestic Working Women’s Forum v. Union of Introduced victim compensation as restorative
India (1995) measure.

VII. Conclusion
Both the IPC and the BNS provide a graded structure of punishments ensuring that the punishment fits
both the crime and the criminal.
While IPC emphasized deterrence and retribution, the BNS (2023) adds a reformative and restorative
dimension through community service, marking a progressive step towards humane and modern criminal
jurisprudence in India.

✅ Quick Revision Table

Kind of Punishment Section (IPC) Section (BNS) Example / Remark
Sec. 53, 121, 302
Death Sec. 4(1), 103 BNS “Rarest of rare” cases
IPC
Imprisonment for life Sec. 53, 55 IPC Sec. 4(2) BNS Natural life imprisonment
Rigorous/Simple Hard labour or simple
Sec. 53, 60 IPC Sec. 4(3) BNS
Imprisonment confinement
Sec. 53, 126, 127 Rarely used; offences against
Forfeiture of Property Sec. 4(4) BNS
IPC State
Sec. 4(5), 68–75
Fine Sec. 53, 63–70 IPC Monetary penalty
BNS
Community Service — Sec. 4(6) ⚖️New in BNS – Reformative

A) Definition of Punishment
Meaning:
Punishment is the legal consequence or penalty imposed by the State on a person who has been found
guilty of committing a crime.
It is meant to maintain law, order, and justice, and to deter, reform, or prevent future crimes.
Simple Definitions
 Black’s Law Dictionary:
“Punishment is any fine, penalty, or confinement inflicted upon a person by the authority of law and
the judgment of a court for some crime or offence committed.”
  Jeremy Bentham:
“Punishment is an evil inflicted by public authority on an offender for the offence he has
committed.”
 Salmond:
“Punishment is the legal consequence of a crime, imposed by a competent authority as retribution
and deterrence.”
 In simple terms:
👉 Punishment means the suffering or penalty given to a person by law for doing something wrong.

Objectives of Punishment
1. Retribution – to make the offender suffer for the wrong.
2. Deterrence – to create fear and prevent future crimes.
3. Reformation – to reform and rehabilitate offenders.
4. Prevention – to protect society from offenders.
5. Restoration – to compensate victims and restore balance.