Types of Punishments under the Indian Penal Code, 1860

Types of Punishments under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 written by Garvit Daga student of NALSAR University of Law

INTRODUCTION

The final stage in the system of criminal jurisprudence is the stage of punishment. Once the court, after having evaluated the evidence presented before it, arrives at a conclusion that the accused has been proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, it has to decide over the quantum of punishment that should be awarded to the convict. The broad principles used to determine the quantum of punishment has been dealt with under Chapter 3 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The sentencing policy across the country isn’t uniform and the sentences reflect the individual philosophy of the judges. The considerations affecting the sentencing policy were pointed out by Justice Krishna Iyer in Rajendra Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh – “Law must be honest to itself. Is it not true that some judges count the number of fatal wounds, some the nature of the weapons used, others count the corpses or the degree of horror and yet others look into the age or sex of the offender and even the lapse of time between the trial court’s award of death sentence and the final disposal of the appeal? With some judges, motives, provocations, primary or constructive guilt, mental disturbance and old feuds, the savagery of the murderous moment or the plan which has preceded the killing, the social milieu, the sublimated class complex, and other odd factors enter the sentencing calculus.” The prime focus of punishments in our criminal jurisprudence was considered in State of Gujarat v. Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in which the Supreme Court observed that – “Reformation should hence be the dominant objective of punishment and during incarceration, every effort should be made to recreate the good man out of a convicted prisoner…. reformation and rehabilitation of a prisoner are of great public policy. Hence they serve a public purpose.”

KINDS OF PUNISHMENTS

The different types of punishments that a convict can be awarded have been listed out u/s 53 IPC. This provision itself is indicative of the restricted discretion of the judge in ascertaining the type of penalty as it provides only for a select few punishments. The IPC doesn’t even allow the courts the discretion to impose even the latest forms of punishments like community service and open-air prisons on a person convicted of any offense under the IPC. The IPC has for some offenses itself provided for a minimum sentence whereas, in most other crimes, the trial court has got a wide discretion in the ascertainment of the period of sentences and the choice amongst the aforementioned kinds of punishments, given the nature and gravity of the crime, manner in which it was committed, the conduct of the accused before and after the commission of the crime and other mitigating and aggravating factors.

The various types of punishments that a convict can be sentenced to are –

Death penalty –

It is the harshest of all punishments provided under the IPC. It involves killing the convict as a punishment for his crime. Numerous arguments have been raised both for and against the imposition of capital punishment. One side argues it to be a deterrent while the other raises the question of whether the state has a right to take an individual’s life, something which it cannot restore in case of an erroneous judgment. The IPC provides the death penalty only as an uppermost limit to which a convict can be sentenced and has nowhere made it compulsory for the courts to award a death sentence. The IPC provides capital punishment for Treason (S.121), Abetment of mutiny (S.132), Perjury (S.194), Murder (S.302), Abetment of suicide by minor/insane/intoxicated person (S.305), Attempt to murder by life convict, causing hurt (S.307) and Dacoity with murder (S.396)
The question over the constitutional validity of capital penalty was answered and laid to rest by the Supreme Court in Bachan Singh v. the State of Punjab, where the 5-judge bench, with a 4:1 majority, upheld the constitutional validity of the death penalty. It went on to observe that life imprisonment is the rule and the death penalty an exception and that the judge must state in detail the special reasons for his awarding capital punishment. The court further went on to hold that a convict should not be sentenced to capital punishment “except in rarest of the rare cases when the alternative option is unquestionably closed”
The courts have from time to time come up with principles explaining the rarest of the rare cases doctrine. The Supreme Court in Machhi Singh v. the State of Punjab, Lehna v. the State of Haryana, and Brajendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh laid down various guidelines to be considered while granting capital punishment. They include –

• The death penalty cannot be inflicted except in gravest cases of extreme culpability;
• The circumstances of the offender, circumstances in which the crime was committed and the method and manner of commission of the crime need to be considered;
• Balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating circumstances should be drawn up and mitigating circumstances should be accorded full weightage to draw a just balance between the aggravating and mitigating circumstances;
• Death penalty may be awarded when the crime committed is extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical, revolting, and dastardly (or) is committed for a motive which evinces total depravity and meanness (or) for the betrayal of the motherland (or) where a member of Scheduled Caste or an innocent child or a helpless woman or old or infirm person has been murdered (or) where the imposition of any punishment other than the death penalty is completely inadequate.

In a case where the judge is of the opinion that the accused is, in fact, guilty and should be awarded capital punishment, he must give a chance to the accused as per section 235 CrPC to put before the judge the facts and circumstances which in the accused’s opinion would allow the judge to mitigate his sentence. Non-compliance with this sentencing procedure vitiates the sentence.

Life Imprisonment –

It means rigorous imprisonment running throughout the remaining period of a convict’s natural life. Imprisonment for life is not equivalent to imprisonment for 14 years or 20 years. Section 57 of the IPC makes life imprisonment equivalent to imprisonment for 20 years only for the purpose of calculating fractions of terms of punishment. The Supreme Court in Gopal Vinayak Godse v. State of Maharashtra clarified that no provision of the law states that life imprisonment is for a period of 20 years. Furthermore, section 55 of the IPC r/w Ss.432-433 CrPC state that an appropriate government may suspend or remit the life sentence of a convict. The condition attached to it is that the convict must have served at least 14 years in prison. However, if the President or the Governor (by exercising their powers under article 72 and 161 respectively) of the Indian constitution decide to remit or commute the life sentence of the convict, the convict shall be released immediately even if he hasn’t served the statutory requirement of 14 years in prison. This is because Section 433A of CrPC, being a statutory provision, cannot override the constitutional power conferred upon the President and the Governor under articles 72 and 161.
NOTE: Commutation under section 55 IPC means that the punishment is altered to a different type than the one originally proposed whereas Remission refers to the act of reducing the amount of punishment without changing its character.

Imprisonment –

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

Forfeiture of Property –

This form of punishment involves depriving a person of his property as a penalty for the offense committed. It can be imposed under the IPC only when the crimes committed are those under S.126 (committing or making preparations to commit depredations on territories of power in Alliance or at peace with Government of India), 127 (a receipt of the property taken in the commission of War or depredation), 169 (unlawful buying or bidding for property in own name by a public servant) and to some extent S.263A (Prohibition of fictitious stamps). The Supreme Court in Shobha Suresh Jumani v. Appellate Tribunal, Forfeited Property recognized the rampant corruption prevailing in the society and recommended the reintroduction of S. 61 and 62 of the IPC on forfeiture of property which was repealed by the Indian Penal Code (Amendment) Act, 1921.

Fine –

It means forfeiting money as a form of penalty. This form of punishment has been considered valid on the ground of its universality; however, the fine imposed should be proportionate to the offense committed because it not only affects the convict but also his dependents. Under IPC, a fine can be imposed as the sole punishment or an alternative punishment or for a limited amount or unlimited amount. Judges have broad discretion while quantifying the fine to be imposed, especially where the provision makes no stipulation as to the amount of fine. Courts being the administrators of justice, it is expected of them that the fines imposed should be fair, just, reasonable, and not excessive. The fine imposed should be within the convict’s capacity to pay but he must feel the pinch in paying it. The imposition of a sentence of fine should be on an individual basis and not collectively. Various cases of non-payment of fine and its various forms have been dealt with under Ss. 64-69 IPC.
The IPC, under Ss. 73 and 74, also provides an award of Solitary confinement only as a part of a sentence of rigorous imprisonment if the court deems fit. It refers to the separation and keeping the prisoners in complete isolation in a cell where he cannot have any direct interaction with or sight of any human being and is without employment or instruction. Solitary Confinement is one of the harshest punishments, the court has held that it shouldn’t be awarded unless the crime committed was extremely brutal or accompanied by unparalleled atrocity. Under no circumstances can solitary confinement be imposed for a period of more than 14 days at a time and not more than 7 days in any month of the whole imprisonment. Solitary confinement cannot be awarded for more than: a. 1 month, where imprisonment doesn’t exceed 6 months; b. 2 months, where imprisonment exceeds 6 months but is less than 1 year; c. 3 months, where imprisonment exceeds 1 year. In cases where a person has been held guilty for various offenses but it’s doubtful as to which of these is the person guilty, he shall be sentenced for the offenses with the lowest punishment.

PROPOSALS FOR REFORMS

The Law Commission, in its 156th Report, recommended few changes to the punishments under IPC:

 The amounts to be imposed as fine be increased at least by 20 times with a corresponding change in the powers of First Class Magistrates to impose such fines;
 The open-air prison system, according to the commission, would be more effective than Community service among the punishments because the latter involves various enforcement issues.
 A punishment of “Public Censure” was sought to be included in S.53 IPC for the offenses in Chapters XII-XIII, Ss. 272-276, 383-389, 403-409, 415-420 and offenses proposed under new S. 420A and 462A, IPC (Amendment) Bill, 1978. These are offenses where persons entrusted with some public duties commit offenses. Such a punishment is likely to act as a greater deterrent due to the fear of infamy resulting from publicity.
 The death Penalty should be retained but awarded as per the guidelines of the Supreme Court.