Types of Punishment under IPC | Criminal Law - CLAT PG PDF Download

Introduction

• Punishment, as sanctioned by law, serves as a means of retribution against offenders for the harm they inflict on individuals or property. It acts as a deterrent to prevent future offenses against persons, property, and the government.
• Various types of punishments include deterent, rehabilitative, restorative, and retributive measures.

Sentencing Policy

• Sentencing policy under the Indian Penal Code is based on factors such as the gravity of the violation, the seriousness of the crime, and its impact on public tranquillity.
• There is a correlation between punishment and guilt, leading to standardized sentencing policies for specific offences.

Malimath Committee Recommendations

• In March 2003, the Malimath Committee was established by the Ministry of Home Affairs to recommend sentencing guidelines for the Indian Judiciary.
• The committee emphasized the need for uniform sentencing guidelines to reduce uncertainty in sentencing.
• It noted that many offences only specify maximum punishments, leading to wide discretionary powers for judges and inconsistency in sentencing.

Madhava Menon Committee Support

• In 2008, the Madhava Menon Committee also supported the need for statutory sentencing guidelines to ensure consistency in sentencing practices.

British Parliament White Paper

• The British Parliament's white paper highlighted that the aim of sentencing policy should be deterrence and protection of society.
• Lack of a sentencing policy could harm both the judicial system and society at large.

Fundamental Principles for Imposition of Different Types of Punishments

According to the United States Institute of Peace, the principle of imposing punishment can be based on the necessity for criminal justice compulsion and the proportionality of punishment considering the nature and degree of danger against fundamental freedoms, human rights, social values, and rights protected under the Constitution or international law.

Key Principles in Soman v. Kerala

• The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Soman v. Kerala, highlighted principles such as proportionality,deterrence, and rehabilitation when exercising discretionary powers in sentencing.
• Proportionality involves considering aggravating and mitigating factors related to the crime and the criminal.

Challenges in Criminal Justice Delivery

• In paragraph 12 of the Soman case, the Supreme Court emphasized that punishment is central to criminal justice delivery but remains the weakest part of the system in India.
• The Court noted the lack of legislative or judicial guidelines to assist trial courts in determining just punishments for convicted individuals.

Need for Sentencing Guidelines

• The Court acknowledged the absence of legal principles regarding sentencing in the Indian judicial system.
• It highlighted the need for a sentencing policy, considering recommendations from the Madhava Menon Committee and Malimath Committee.

Scope of Section 53

Types of Punishments in Indian Penal Code

• Section 53 of the Indian Penal Code, 1803, outlines different types of punishments that can be imposed by Criminal Courts.
• The recognized punishments under Section 53 include:
• Death
• Imprisonment for life
• Imprisonment:
  • Rigorous Imprisonment
  • Simple Imprisonment
• Forfeiture of property
• Fine

Judicial Discretion in Sentencing

• Court follow prescribed procedures and provisions under other laws when imposing punishments.
• The Code sets maximum punishments, leaving minimum punishments to the Judge's discretion.
• Judges can determine sentences that serve the ends of justice in specific cases.
• For serious offenses, the Code prescribes both maximum and minimum durations of punishment.

Awarding Appropriate Sentence is the Discretion of the Trial Court

In the case of Sibbu Munnilal vs State Of Madhya Pradesh, the three-judge bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court observed the scheme of punishment as follows:

Classification of Offences and Punishments

• Classification of offences is based on the maximum punishment the offender may receive.
• In cases where both the death penalty and imprisonment for life are potential punishments,imprisonment for life is considered an alternative to the death penalty. The death penalty should only be applied in the 'rarest of rare cases.'
• When deciding on the death penalty,judges must carefully consider the facts and circumstances of the case.
• Imprisonment is divided into two types:simple and rigorous.
• Imprisonment for life typically involves rigorous imprisonment for twenty years.
• The key difference between imprisonment for life and imprisonment is that the former can be rigorous and lasts until death, while the latter can vary in duration from 24 hours to 14 years.
• Offences punishable by fine only are those where the maximum penalty is a fine.

Discretion of Trial Court in Sentencing

• In a 2017 case State Of H.P vs Nirmala Devi, the Supreme Court affirmed that the trial court has the discretion to impose punishments according to the scheme outlined in the code.

Principles for Sentencing

• Excessiveness/Parsimony: Punishments should not be overly severe unless necessary.
• Proportionality: Sentences should match the overall seriousness of the crime.
• Parity: Punishments for similar offences should be comparable, taking into account similar circumstances.
• Totality: When imposing multiple sentences on an offender, the overall punishment should be fair and proportionate to the offending behavior.
• Purpose: Sentencing should serve its intended purpose, such as deterrence, rehabilitation, or public protection.
• Simplicity and Predictability: Sentencing should be based on clear guidelines, not on the biases or personalities of individual judges.
• Truthfulness: Sentences should accurately reflect the time to be served in prison, leaving no room for ambiguity.

Aggravating Circumstances

Aggravating circumstances are factors that can increase the severity of a sentence when a person is convicted of a crime. Judges consider various aspects related to the crime, the criminal, and the impact of the offense. Here are the key points:

Factors Considered in Aggravating Circumstances

• Surroundings of the Crime: The context and environment in which the crime took place.
• Criminal's Background: Information about the criminal's history and background.
• Criminal's Conduct: Details about how the criminal acted during and after the crime.
• Future Dangerousness: Assessment of the criminal's potential to commit further crimes in the future.

Other Aggravating Factors

• Professionalism and Premeditation: Whether the crime was carried out in a professional manner and planned in advance.
• Prevalence of Offense: How common or widespread the particular offense is.
• Group Offenses: Crimes committed as part of a group.
• Breach of Trust: Situations where the criminal violated a position of trust.

In the case of Sangeet & Anr. v. State of Haryana, the court highlighted that the approach from the Bachan Singh case was not fully followed by subsequent courts. It is important to consider and balance both mitigating and aggravating factors when determining the appropriate punishment for an accused individual.

Types of Punishments

Death Sentence

The death sentence, also known as capital punishment, is a legally sanctioned punishment where a person is put to death by the government for committing a serious crime. The act of carrying out the death sentence is called execution.

Global Overview

• According to an Amnesty International survey in July 2018, 56 countries still retain capital punishment, while 106 countries have abolished it for all crimes.

Methods of Execution

• In India, the death penalty is carried out by hanging.
• Other methods of execution used worldwide include:
• Stoning
• Sawing
• Firing squad
• Lethal injection
• Electrocution

Controversy and Legal Framework in India

The death sentence is a controversial topic, often debated in the context of the Constitution and fundamental rights. In India, capital punishment is rarely imposed by the courts.

Legal Precedents

• Bachan Singh vs State Of Punjab: The Supreme Court ruled that capital punishment should be applied in the "rarest of the rare" cases. However, the criteria for what constitutes such cases were not clearly defined.
• Jagmohan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh: The Supreme Court emphasized a balanced approach, considering both mitigating and aggravating factors when deciding on capital punishment.
• Sangeet & Anr. v. State of Haryana: The court observed that the approach from Bachan Singh was not fully adopted, and courts often focused more on the crime than on the circumstances of the criminal.

Provisions under the Indian Penal Code (IPC)

• Section 115: Abetment of an offence punishable with death or life imprisonment (if the offence is not committed).
• Section 118: Concealing design to commit an offence punishable with death or life imprisonment.
• Section 121: Waging, abetting, or attempting to wage war against the government.
• Section 132: Uprising or supporting the formation of a mutinous group in the armed forces.
• Section 194: Intentional framing of an innocent person to secure a death sentence.
• Section 302: Murder of another person.
• Section 305: Abetting suicide of an insane or minor person.
• Section 303: Murder by a life convict.
• Section 396: Dacoity with murder.
• Section 364A: Kidnapping.
• Section 376A (under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013): Rape.

Other Relevant Acts

• Prevention of Sati Act: Abetting or aiding an act of sati.
• Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act: Drug trafficking in cases of repeat offences.

Exceptions to Death Penalty

• The death penalty is not applicable to certain individuals, such as:
• Intellectually disabled persons
• Pregnant women
• Minors

Procedure When Death Penalty is Imposed

Modes of Execution in India

• Hanging by the neck till death (primarily ordered by the courts).
• Being shot to death.

Execution Process

• Detailed methods for execution are outlined in jail manuals of various Indian states.
• According to Section 354(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act, 1950, hanging by the neck till death is the standard method of execution.
• After a death sentence is pronounced by the court, the convict has the right to appeal. Once all legal remedies are exhausted and the order is confirmed, the execution proceeds as per the procedure outlined in Section 354(5) of Cr.P.C.
• The execution process for defense personnel is specified under the Air Force Act, 1950, the Army Act, 1950, and the Navy Act, 1957.

State Jail Manuals

• State prison manuals provide specific guidelines for carrying out death sentences.
• Examples of these details include:
• Prisoner Care: Convicted prisoners are given proper diet and are examined twice daily to prevent suicide attempts.
• Rope Specifications: Description and testing of the rope used for hanging.
• Drop Regulation: Adjustment of the drop distance during hanging.
• Execution Timing: Specific times set for carrying out executions.

Constitutional Validity of Death Penalty

Debate on Death Penalty

• The death penalty has been a topic of discussion and debate for a long time, with no clear consensus on whether to abolish or retain it.
• India, like some other countries, has retained the death penalty, allowing it only in special cases or the 'rarest of rare' situations.

Article 21 and Due Process

• Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to life and liberty, including the right to live with dignity.
• However, there are legal exceptions where the state can restrict these rights for law and public order purposes.
• In the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, the Supreme Court introduced the principle of “due process,” which allows the state to limit citizens' rights under certain conditions.

Due Process in Death Penalty Cases

• For the imposition of the death penalty, the following due process steps are typically observed:
• Rarest of Rare Cases: The death penalty should be applied only in the most exceptional circumstances.
• Right to Be Heard: The accused must be given an opportunity to present their case.
• High Court Confirmation: The death penalty must be confirmed by the High Court as per Article 136.
• Supreme Court Appeal: The accused has the right to appeal to the Supreme Court under Section 379 of the Cr.P.C.
• Commutation or Forgiveness: The accused may seek commutation or forgiveness of the sentence under Sections 433 and 434 of the Cr.P.C.

Challenges to Constitutional Validity

• The constitutional validity of the death penalty has been challenged in various cases.
• In Jagmohan Singh v. State of U.P., the Supreme Court rejected arguments that the death penalty violated Articles 14 (Right to Equality), 19 (Right to Freedom), and 21 (Right to Life).
• The Court upheld that the death sentence is a decision made by the court following legal procedures and is based on the specifics of each case.

Conditions for Death Penalty

• In Rajendra Prasad v. State of U.P, Justice Krishna Iyer argued that the death penalty violates Articles 14, 19, and 21. He outlined two conditions for imposing the death penalty:
• Special reasons must be recorded by the court.
• The death penalty should be reserved for extraordinary cases.

Bachan Singh Case

• In Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court (4:1) overruled Rajendra Prasad's decision.
• The Court declared that the death penalty does not violate Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.
• It stated that the death penalty can be imposed in the "rarest of rare" cases where the community's collective conscience is shocked.
• Justice Bhagwati, in his dissent, argued that the death penalty violates Articles 14 and 21 and is undesirable for various reasons.

Guidelines for Death Penalty

• In Machhi Singh vs. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court outlined circumstances for imposing the death penalty:
• Manner of Murder: How the murder was committed.
• Motive: Reasons behind the murder.
• Magnitude of Crime: Severity and scale of the crime.
• Anti-social Nature: Societal impact and nature of the crime.
• Victim's Personality: Characteristics of the victim.

Death Penalty and Constitutional Rights

• In Sher Singh v. State of Punjab and Triveniben vs. State of Gujarat, the Supreme Court affirmed that the death penalty does not violate constitutional rights.

Mithu v. State of Punjab

• The Supreme Court ruled that the mandatory death penalty is unconstitutional.
• However, Indian courts continued to apply the mandatory death penalty for specific crimes, such as drug and criminal offenses.

Recent Developments

• In Channu Lal Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh, the three-judge bench upheld the Bachan Singh decision on the death penalty.
• Justice Kurian Joseph expressed doubts about the death penalty's effectiveness as a crime deterrent.

Evolving Parameters for Imposition of Death Sentence

• The death sentence should not demean human dignity.
• The state must not impose severe punishments arbitrarily.
• Such punishments should be acceptable in contemporary society.
• Severe punishments must not be unnecessary.

Sentencing Procedure: Mandatory Provision of Section 235(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1973

• In the '41st report of Law Commission', it recommended for the insertion of new provision which made a significant contribution in acknowledging the cardinal feature of procedural fairness and natural justice.
• Under the old code, there was no statutory opportunity given to the accused to explain the mitigating factor which is relevant to decide the nature of the punishment.
• However, after the recommendation of the Commission introduction of Section 235(2) and Section 248(2) of the Cr.P.C. was made.
• The new provisions provided an opportunity for the convict to place necessary information to the court to determine the mitigating factors and decide the case accordingly.
• Therefore, the choice of sentence shall be made after following the procedure under section 235(2) duly followed by the court.
• In the cases of death sentence the importance of “right of hearing” has been overemphasized.

Scope of Section 235(2)

• In 1976, in the case of Santa Singh v. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court explained the nature and scope of Section 235(2).
• The Bench remarked that “The provision is an acknowledgement of the fact that sentencing is an important stage in the criminal justice administration as the adjudication of guilt.
• And in no case, it should be consigned to a subsidiary position.
• It seeks to personalize the punishment so that the reformist component remains as much operative as the deterrent element.
• It is, for this reason, the facts of social and personal nature, maybe irrelevant for guilt determination, should be brought to the notice of the court at the time of actual determination of sentence”.

Meaning of 'Hearing'

• Further, the court also opined about the meaning of the word ‘hearing’.
• The hearing is not only limited to the oral submissions but it is wider than that.
• It gives both parties the right to put facts and materials which can be essential for the questions of sentencing.
• The Court stressed on the point that it is mandatory for the lower courts to comply with this provision.
• Not complying with Section 235(2) will not only be considered as mere irregularity, but that shall vitiate the sentence.

Purpose of Section 235(2)

• In the case of Allauddin Mian v. State of Bihar, Justice Ahmadi emphasized the purpose of Section 235(2):
• It gives the accused an opportunity of being heard, which satisfies the rule of natural justice.
• To determine the sentence of the award it assists the court.

Case Laws on Death Sentence Confirmation

1. State of Tamil Nadu v Nalini

• Appeal against the High Court's judgment in Rajiv Gandhi's assassination case.
• Accused under various acts, including the Indian Penal Code and TADA.
• Four accused, including members of the LTTE, sentenced to death.
• Recent plea for mercy killing by some accused due to delayed response to mercy petitions.

2. Jai Kumar v State of Madhya Pradesh

• Appeal against Madhya Pradesh High Court's decision.
• Accused brutally murdered sister-in-law and 7-year-old niece.
• Supreme Court upheld the lower court's verdict.

3. Suresh Chandra Bahri v State of Bihar

• Appeal from Patna High Court.
• Three appellants convicted for death penalty under IPC.
• Dispute over property led to the murder of Urshia Bahri and her children.
• Supreme Court confirmed Suresh Bahri's death penalty, commuted others' sentences.

4. Dhananjoy Chatterjee alias Dhana v State of West Bengal

• Historic case of lawful execution for non-terrorism-related crime.
• Accused raped and murdered an 18-year-old girl.
• Death penalty confirmed by trial court and High Court.
• Supreme Court categorized case as "rarest of the rare."

5. Sushil Murmu v State of Jharkhand

• Accused sentenced to death for sacrificing a 9-year-old child to Goddess Kali.
• Liable under IPC sections for murder and destruction of evidence.
• Jharkhand High Court upheld death penalty.
• Supreme Court affirmed lower court's decision, deeming it a rare case.

6. Holiram Bardokti v State of Assam

• Seventeen accused, with appellant sentenced to death under IPC.
• Conviction for two murders, including a 6-year-old child.
• Supreme Court noted lack of compassion in the crime.
• Upholding lower courts' decisions, found no mitigating factors.

Cases Laws on Commutation of Death Sentence to Life Imprisonment

1. Om Prakash v State of Haryana

• Om Prakash was convicted of seven murders under Section 302 of the IPC by the Sessions court, a decision upheld by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.
• Two other co-accused received life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000 each.
• Upon appeal to the Supreme Court, it was determined that the case did not meet the criteria for the "rarest of rare" cases.
• The court considered mitigating factors, including that the murders were a response to constant harassment of the accused's family.
• The Supreme Court noted that the murders were not motivated by lust, greed, or anti-social activities like kidnapping or drug trafficking.
• Om Prakash, a BSF employee with no prior criminal record, had acted out of provocation.
• As a result, the death penalty was commuted to life imprisonment by the Apex Court.

2. Rajendra Rai v. State of Bihar

• The accused in this case were convicted for the murders of Krishnandan and Sir Bahadur, a father and son, due to a land dispute between the parties.
• The Trial court sentenced the accused to death, a decision that was upheld by the High Court.
• However, the Supreme Court found that the case did not qualify as one of the "rarest of rare" cases.
• Consequently, the death penalty was converted to life imprisonment by the Apex Court.

3. Kishori v State of Delhi

• The case involved a mob attack against the Sikh community following the assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi.
• The accused was part of the mob and was convicted of multiple murders during this period of communal violence.
• The Sessions court initially sentenced the accused to death, a decision affirmed by the Delhi High Court.
• However, the Supreme Court took a different stance, viewing the acts of the accused as part of a larger group activity rather than individual systematic violence.
• The Court considered the actions as a result of temporary frenzy rather than organized crime.
• As a result, the death sentence was reduced to life imprisonment by the Apex Court.

4. State v Paltan Mallah & Ors

• The case involved the murder of Shankar Guha Yogi, a prominent trade union leader, who was killed due to his efforts to protect the welfare of labourers.
• The deceased was targeted by industrialists who wanted him out of the way because of his activism.
• Despite the initial acquittal of the accused by the Sessions and High Court due to lack of evidence, the Supreme Court revisited the case.
• The Apex Court found sufficient grounds to overturn the lower court's decision and convicted the accused.
• Due to the significant time lapse between the acquittal and the Supreme Court's decision, the accused was sentenced to life imprisonment.

5. Sambhal Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh

• The case involved four accused—Sambhal Singh, Jag Mohan Singh, Krishna Mohan Singh, and Hari Mohan Singh—who were convicted for murdering the three children of Munshi Mall due to a family land dispute.
• The Sessions court found the accused guilty and sentenced them to death, a decision that was upheld by the High Court.
• However, the Supreme Court took into account the ages of the accused, which had not been considered by the lower court.
• Sambhal Singh was older, while the other three were younger, which influenced the Court's decision.
• As a result, the death penalty was commuted to life imprisonment by the Apex Court.

6. Swamy Shraddananda @ Murali Manohar Mishra v State of Karnataka

• The case involved the murder of Shakereh, the second wife of the accused, who came from a wealthy and respected family. The accused planned and executed the murder to gain control over property owned by the deceased.
• The Sessions Court sentenced the accused to death, a decision upheld by the High Court of Karnataka.
• However, the Supreme Court altered the sentence from death penalty to life imprisonment.
• This case is significant in terms of sentencing and the distinction between life imprisonment and ordinary life imprisonment.
• The Apex Court clarified that life imprisonment as a substitute for the death penalty means the accused will remain in prison until death, and remission does not apply in such cases.

Commutation of Death Sentence by State or Central Government

Commutation of the death sentence by the State and Central government is governed by specific provisions in the Constitution.

Article 72

• Grants pardoning power to the President of India.
• Includes the power to commute death sentences awarded by a Court Martial.

Article 161

• Gives pardoning power to the Governor of a State.
• Does not cover death sentences awarded by a Court Martial.

Differences between Article 72 and Article 161

• Scope: Article 161 is narrower in scope compared to Article 72.
• Court Martial Cases: Article 72 includes punishments given by a Court Martial, while Article 161 does not.
• Death Sentences: Article 72 covers all death sentences, whereas Article 161 does not include death sentences.

Imprisonment for Life

• Life imprisonment, as outlined in Section 53 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), is a severe form of punishment reserved for serious crimes. It signifies that the convicted individual will remain in prison until their death.
• Historically, this punishment was referred to as "transportation for life." The key aspect of life imprisonment is that it reflects the gravity of the offense and the intent to keep the offender incarcerated for the entirety of their natural life.

Scope of Section 57

• Section 57 of the IPC is applicable when dealing with fractions of terms of punishment. However, it is crucial to note that this section does not grant prisoners the right to reduce their life imprisonment to a 20-year sentence.
• In certain sections such as Section 116, 119, 120, and 511 of the Code, prisoners may seek relief under Section 57.

Is Life Sentence does Period of 14 Years?

In the case of Duryodhan Rout vs State Of Orissa (2014), the Supreme Court clarified that life imprisonment is not limited to 14 years. It emphasized that only the appropriate government has the authority to commute life imprisonment.

The government can reduce life imprisonment to a term not exceeding 14 years. If a prisoner has served more than 14 years, they may be eligible for release.

In the 1961 case of Gopal Vinayak Godse vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors., the Supreme Court addressed whether life imprisonment without formal remission could be automatically treated as a definite period. The court referenced the judicial committee's observation that transportation for life is deemed to be for 20 years but clarified that this does not apply universally.

The court emphasized that life imprisonment or transportation for life should be considered as such until the prisoner's natural death. The distinction between ‘Commutation’ under Section 55 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) is subtle but significant.

• Section 55 of the IPC deals with the commutation of life imprisonment to a term not exceeding 14 years.
• Section 433 of the Cr.P.C. encompasses broader powers of commutation, including the death sentence to any other punishment recognized under the IPC, life imprisonment to a term not exceeding 14 years or fine, and other types of sentences.
• Both provisions empower the appropriate government to commute sentences without the offender's consent. The appropriate government can be either the State or Central Government, depending on the jurisdiction.
• In cases exclusively covered by the union list, the Central Government is considered the appropriate authority; otherwise, the State Government has the power to commute sentences.
• In the case of Harishankar, Gayaprasad Jaiswal vs State Of Gujarat, the Gujarat High Court noted that Section 55 of the IPC operates independently of Section 433 (b) of the Cr.P.C.

Introduction to Imprisonment

Imprisonment generally refers to the act of confining someone within a jail or prison. Within the framework of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), imprisonment is categorized into two distinct types: simple and rigorous, as outlined in Section 53.

Types of Imprisonment

• Simple Imprisonment: This type involves confinement without hard labor. It is generally considered less severe and is often used for less serious offenses.
• Rigorous Imprisonment: In this form, the prisoner is subjected to hard labor along with confinement. It is typically imposed for more serious offenses where the offender is required to work as part of their punishment.

Discretion in Sentencing

As per Section 60 of the IPC, the court has the authority to decide the nature of the imprisonment. The court can choose from various combinations, including:

• Wholly or partly rigorous
• Wholly or partly simple
• Any term to be rigorous with the rest simple

Minimum Wages for Prisoners

• Prisoners engaged in work within jails receive wages based on their skills, which can be classified into skilled,semi-skilled, and unskilled categories. The work may be voluntary or part of their punishment.
• The Kerala High Court was the first to implement minimum wages for prisoners. The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), following the recommendations of the Mulla Committee, proposed the Indian Prisons Bill 1996. This bill emphasized fair, adequate, and equitable wage rates for prisoners, considering the prevalent wage rates in each State and Union Territory.
• Wages are deducted for food and clothing costs, with the remaining amount paid to the prisoners. The primary purpose of these wages is to compensate the victim or their relatives from a fund created by the prisoners' earnings.

Variations in Wages

According to the Prison Statistics India 2015 report by the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), the highest wages for prisoners were recorded in Puducherry, followed by Delhi’s Tihar Jail and Rajasthan. The wage ranges for different skill levels in these top-performing states were as follows:

• Skilled: Rs. 180 - Rs. 150
• Semi-skilled: Rs. 160 - Rs. 112
• Unskilled: Rs. 150 - Rs. 103

Forfeiture of Property

Forfeiture refers to the loss of property without compensation, typically due to a breach of contract or illegal actions.

Key Points:

• Forfeiture involves the loss of property without any compensation in return.
• It usually occurs due to a breach of contractual obligations or illegal conduct.

Provisions Abolishing Forfeiture

• Section 126: Forfeiture is abolished for committing depredation on territories in peace with the Government of India.
• Section 127: Forfeiture is abolished for receiving property taken during war or depredation as mentioned in sections 126 and 127 of the IPC.

Fine as a Punishment in IPC

The court can impose a fine instead of imprisonment or in addition to it. Sections 63 to 69 of the IPC deal with various fines. If someone fails to pay the fine, the court may order imprisonment under Section 64.

Excessive Fines

• According to Section 63, if the fine is not specified in the Code, it can be unlimited but should not be excessive.
• In the case of Palaniappa Gounder v. State of Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court emphasized that the sentence, including fines, should be proportionate to the offence and not unduly excessive.

• Imprisonment for Non-payment of Fine

• Section 64 of the IPC covers situations where fines and imprisonment are involved. The court can specify the term of imprisonment. In H.M. Treasury (1957), it was ruled that if a convict dies, the fine can be recovered from their property.

Section 65: Limiting Imprisonment for Non-payment of Fine

• When a court sentences an offender to both imprisonment and fine due to non-payment of the fine, Section 65 of the IPC comes into play.
• This section stipulates that the term of imprisonment should not exceed one-fourth of the maximum period prescribed for the specific offence.

Section 67: Applicability and Imprisonment Terms

• Section 67 of the IPC applies to offences punishable by fine only.
• Imprisonment under this section is simple and subject to the following limits:
• If the fine does not exceed Rs. 50, the imprisonment term shall not exceed two months.
• If the fine does not exceed Rs. 100, the term shall not exceed four months.
• If the fine exceeds Rs. 100, the term shall not exceed six months.

Recovery of Fine under Cr.P.C.

• Section 421 of the Cr.P.C. outlines the court's authority to recover fines post-sentence.
• Recovery can be done by:
• Issuing a warrant to attach and sell the offender's movable property.
• Issuing a warrant to the district collector to recover from movable or immovable property.
• These actions are not permissible if the offender has served imprisonment for fine default.
• If ordered after imprisonment, the court must provide special reasons.
• In Raju Tiwari v. State of Chhattisgarh, the court emphasized the need for special reasons in recovery orders post-imprisonment.

Conviction for Doubtful Offences

• According to Section 72 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), when there is uncertainty about which specific offence has been committed and obtaining evidence for the offences is challenging, the court has the authority to impose the lowest punishment applicable if the same punishment is prescribed for all the offences in question.

Solitary Confinement

Section 73

• Section 73 of the IPC addresses solitary confinement. It outlines the guidelines for courts when imposing this type of punishment.

Duration of Solitary Confinement

• The total duration of solitary confinement should not exceed three months.

Scale of Solitary Confinement

• For sentences not exceeding six months: Solitary confinement should not exceed one month.
• For sentences exceeding six months but not exceeding one year: Solitary confinement should not exceed two months.
• For sentences exceeding one year: Solitary confinement should not exceed three months.

Limit of Solitary Confinement

• According to Section 74 of the IPC, the execution of solitary confinement should not exceed fourteen days.
• If solitary confinement exceeds three months, the duration should not exceed seven days in one month.

Scope of Solitary Confinement

• In the case of Sunil Batra Etc vs Delhi Administration And Ors, the court emphasized that solitary confinement should only be imposed when deemed necessary based on the severity of the offence. It should be reserved for cases of extreme violence or brutal commission of the offence. The court acknowledged the inhumane and horrendous nature of solitary confinement.
• Similarly, in the case of Smt. Triveniben & Ors vs State Of Gujarat & Ors, the court ruled that under Section 30 (2) of the Prisons Act, jail authorities do not have the right to impose solitary confinement on a prisoner sentenced to death.

Enhanced Punishment

Scope of Section 75

• Section 75 of the Code deals with enhanced punishment for repeat offenders.When a person is convicted for the second time for an offence under Chapter XII (Offences Relating to Coin and Government Stamps) or Chapter XVII (Offences Against Property), and if the sentence exceeds three years imprisonment, they are subject to significantly increased punishment.
• Even if it appears that the magistrate has the authority to impose a sentence under Section 348 of the Cr.P.C., the magistrate cannot do so due to the amendment in Section 30 of the Cr.P.C., which grants the Session Judge the power to handle such cases.
• Section 75 allows for enhanced punishment in certain cases, but it is not mandatory for the court to impose it during sentencing. This provision is often used to create a deterrent effect.
• Previous convictions for attempts to commit an offence not covered by this section do not fall under its scope.

Compensation to Victims of Crime

• The criminal justice system aims to protect individual rights and punish offenders. While the accused is caught and punished, the rights and losses of the victim are often overlooked. Compensation serves as a means to provide justice to the victim and address their losses.
• Historically, the losses of the victim were not given due consideration. Compensation has emerged as a crucial method to ensure justice for victims, recognizing their suffering and losses due to the crime.

Compensation to Victims of Crime from Fine

• The IPC includes various provisions where fine is imposed as a form of punishment. However, there are instances where the fine may not adequately reflect the actual loss suffered by the victim.
• The amounts prescribed under the IPC for fines are often minimal and may need to be amended to align with current requirements and the severity of the crime.

Compensation to Victims of Crime from Victim Compensation Scheme

• In 2009, the Central Government mandated states to formulate a Victim Compensation Scheme. The primary objective of this scheme is to provide support and compensation to the dependents of victims who have suffered loss or injury due to criminal offences.
• The scheme aims to facilitate the rehabilitation of victims and their families, ensuring that they receive the necessary assistance and support in the aftermath of a crime.

Compensation to Victims of Crime from Wages of Prisoners

• Under this provision, a percentage of money is deducted from the wages of prisoners, and the saved amount is used to create a fund for the welfare of victims of crime.
• Recently, a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed in the Delhi High Court, challenging the deduction of prisoners' wages as arbitrary and seeking the repeal of such provisions.
• In 2006, around Rs. 15 crore was collected through this method, but only Rs. 14 crore remains unutilized.
• The Delhi High Court ruled that the deduction from prisoners' wages is not wrong if allowed by law.

Proposals for Reform in Sentencing

• Reclassification of Criminal Offences: With the growing variety of offences, it is essential to classify them into different categories or codes. This will enhance the clarity and understanding of the Code. Each code can also detail the specific procedures and trial nature associated with those offences.
• Sentencing Policy: The Indian Judiciary needs a clear sentencing policy to ensure that punishments are deterrent yet not excessively severe. This will help eliminate ambiguity and bias in sentencing, reducing the number of appeals for punishment adjustments and easing the burden on the judiciary.
• Victim Compensation Fund: A dedicated victim compensation fund could be established under the Code. This fund could include assets confiscated from organized crime, providing financial support for victims.