“Law Master’s Publication”
“Punishment”
Prof. Santosh D. Bhosale
36
TYPES OF PUNISHMENT
(..7..)
PUNISHMENT
QUESTION BANK
Q.1“Abolition of capital punishment would be a grave danger to the security
of the society” Do you agree?
Q.2 Describe the different kinds of punishments.
Q.3 Explain the theories of Punishments.
Q.4 What is the object of punishment? State various kinds of punishments
under the BNS.
Q.5. Discuss fully the different types of punishments provided under BNS.
Q.6 What are the types of punishment? Explain social relevance of capital
punishment.
Q.7 What are the types of punishment? Explain with special reference to
capital punishment.
SHORT NOTES
1. Imprisonment
2. Fine
3. Reformative theory
4. Solitary confinement
SYNOPSIS
I] Punishment; Aims and objects
“Law Master’s Publication”
“Punishment”
Prof. Santosh D. Bhosale
37
II] Theories of punishment
1)
2)
3)
4)
Deterrent Theory
Preventive Theory
Retributive Theory
Reformative Theory
III] Kind of punishment under BNS.
A)
Death sentence (Capital punishment)
1)
2)
3)
Introduction
Death (capital) punishment under BNS.
Arguments in favour of capital
punishment
a) Deterrence
b) Elimination of dangerous
criminals
c) Reduce the expenditure of the state
d)
e)
f)
Justice to victim
Sense of protection
Constitutionally valid
Pardon or commutation
-Commutation of Death Sentence:-
g)
-Appropriate Government-
-Pardon,
Reprieve,
and
Respite,
Suspension
Remission,
(Constitutional Powers)
-
h)
‘Rarest of Rare case’:-
4)
Arguments against capital punishment
a) Cruel and inhuman
b) No reformation
c)
d)
Misuse
Cold-Blooded Legal Murder:-
e) According to Metaphysics: -
Imprisonment for life
B)
C)
Calculation of Term (S. 6):
Offences Punishable with Life Imprisonment:
Imprisonment.
1)
Rigorous
“Law Master’s Publication”
“Punishment”
Simple
Solitary
Prof. Santosh D. Bhosale
38
2)
3)
Limits on Execution (How it is Served) (S. 12)-
i. Maximum Duration at One Time (The
14 Day rule)-
ii. Monthly Limit for Longer Sentences
(The 7-Day Rule)-
D)
E)
Forfeiture of property
Fine
-Imprisonment in default of fine
1. Limit based on the Maximum Sentence for the
Offence.
2. Absolute Limit based on the Fine Amount.
Proportional Termination:
Nature of Imprisonment:
Offences Punishable with Fine/Community
Service Only:
I]
PUNISHMENT; AIMS AND OBJECTS:-
According to R. C. Nigam, “Punishment is the suffering in the person
(physical) or property, inflicted by the society on the offender who has been
adjudged guilty of a crime under the law”. The suffering in property may be
forfeiture or a fine.
Punishment aims to protect society from mischievous elements by
deterring potential offenders and preventing actual offenders from committing
further offences. It also eradicates evils, reforms criminals, and turns them into
law-abiding citizens.
However, the amount of punishment is not uniform in all cases. It
changes from time to time and from place to place. It depends upon the value that
society preserves. Therefore, adultery is an offence in India, which is not so in
England. The punishment for any offence in India is not as severe as in Arabic
countries. Punishments also vary according to the nature of the offence, intention,
age, mental condition, etc., of the offender, and the circumstances in which the
offence is committed. For instance, a boy of ten years will be treated differently
from a grown-up man for committing the same offence. Likewise, a person of
unsound mind would be treated differently from a man of sound mind for the
commission of murder. Similarly, for habitual offenders, professional offenders
“Law Master’s Publication”
will be punished more severely than a first-time offenders.
II] THEORIES OF PUNISHMENT:-
The object of punishment is to protect society from antisocial behaviour
“Punishment”
Prof. Santosh D. Bhosale
39
and reduce the crime rate. This object or purpose can be achieved by deterrence,
prevention, retribution, and criminal reformation. These are also called the
justifications for punishment. Among these objects, the deterrent is regarded as
the main function of punishment, and others are merely secondary.
1)
Deterrent Theory:-
According to this theory, the object of punishment is not only to prevent
the wrongdoer from doing wrong again but also to make him an example to other
persons with criminal tendencies so that the others would also deter him from
committing a crime in the future. Therefore, a general (i.e., to the other potential
criminals in the society) and particular (i.e., particular criminal) deterrence is the
object behind the deterrent theory.
The instances or kinds of such punishments may be death, hanging in
public, stoning till death, whipping in public, maiming, etc.
According to Justice Brunet- “thief is not punished for having stolen a
horse but so that others horses may not be stolen”.
However, this theory has been criticised on several grounds, such as the
theory is ineffective in reducing crimes, excessive harshness of punishment
creates sympathy in the minds of the public about criminals, it is likely to harden
the criminal instead of creating in his mind the fear of law, etc.
2)
Preventive Theory:-
Another object of punishment is preventing or disabling. Punishments like
death, exile, jail imprisonment, etc., disable offenders from repeating the crime.
Preventive punishment has been criticized for having the undesirable effect of
hardening first-time offenders or juvenile offenders by making them associated
with hardened criminals.
3)
Retributive Theory:-
In primitive society, the punishment was mainly retributive. The victim
was allowed to take revenge (retribution) against a wrongdoer. The principle of
‘an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth’ was the basis of the criminal justice
system.
According to this theory, a criminal deserves to suffer punishment. In
modern times, the satisfaction of an individual victim’s revenge is made by the
state inflicting punishment on the offender. Thus, the theory gratifies the instinct
“Law Master’s Publication”
“Punishment”
Prof. Santosh D. Bhosale
40
of revenge, which exists not merely in the individual wronged but also in society
at large.
However, this theory has been criticized because punishment is not a
remedy for a wrong. It merely aggravates the mischief. Punishment in itself is evil
and cannot be justified if it does not yield better results.
4)
Reformative Theory:-
According to this theory, the object of punishment is to reform the
criminal. This object can be achieved by convincing the futility of crime (i.e.,
crime doesn’t pay) and by breaking the habit that the criminal has formed of
continuing crime. Reformation may be defined as "The effort to restore an
offender in a society as a better and wiser man and a good citizen.”
According to this theory, the criminal is treated as a patient, and his
tendency to commit a crime is a disease that the well-designed administration can
cure with medicine or punishment. It treats punishment as medicine to reform the
criminal. For this purpose, leniency to severe punishments is taken into
consideration. This theory suggests giving some vocational training in art, craft,
or industry in jail so the criminal can lead a good life and become a respectable
citizen after release.
The judge should consider the character and age of the offender, his early
breeding, family background, education, and environment, the circumstances
under which he committed a crime, and the motive that prompted him to indulge
in criminal activities, etc., while awarding the punishment. This is to acquaint the
judge with the offender's nature and administer a suitable punishment to achieve
the ends of justice.
In Sunil Batra V/s Delhi Administration
Facts: - A prisoner sent a letter to the Supreme Court for brutal assault by a Head
Warden of the jail on another prisoner. The court treated the letter as a writ of
Habeas Corpus.
Justice Krishna Iyer observed: -
The object of the punishment is to correct the wrongdoer and not wreak
vengeance on him. Punishment is no longer regarded as ‘retributive’ or
‘deterrent,’ but it is regarded as reformative or ‘rehabilitative.’
Mahatma Gandhi states, “Hate the sin, but not the sinner”. The offender is
treated as a patient, and punishment is to be administered to cure his disease.”
Criticisms on the following grounds are levelled against this theory, viz-
Firstly, Reformists are concerned solely with the criminal, but they
“Law Master’s Publication”
“Punishment”
Prof. Santosh D. Bhosale
41
do not consider the plight of the victim. Thus, if a young girl is raped, they will
follow the rapist and take care of him to cause reformation in him, but what about
the suffering of raped girl and her family? In short, a reformist shows sympathy
for criminals but not the victim.
Secondly, the deterrent theory's importance cannot be forgotten.
Reformation is an important object of punishment, but it is not the sole end in
itself.
Thirdly, Reformative treatment is more likely to succeed in an educated
and orderly society than in uneducated and underdeveloped communities.
Fourthly, the Reformation costs more to the state funds.
Fifthly, the success of reformative treatment is doubtful.
In conclusion, only one theory of punishment will not cause proper effect
unless administered with any other or the rest of the theories.
III]
Kinds of Punishments under BNS: -
Chap. II of the BNS from Ss. 4 to 8 deal with the general provisions relating
to punishments. The Code has provided a graded punishment system to suit
different crime categories. S. 4 provides for six types of punishments that can be
awarded to a man convicted of an offence under BNS. The sixth one newly
introduced in BNS, is community services, which did not exist in I.P.C. As per S.
4 of the BNS, the punishments envisaged under the BNS are-
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Death
Imprisonment for life
Imprisonment with or without hard work
Forfeiture of property
Fine
Community Service
Out of these five kinds of punishments, the first three and the last one are
related to the body of the offender, whereas the fourth and fifth are concerned
with his wealth or property. A wide discretionary power is given to the courts
to award any punishment within the maximum limits prescribed for an offence by
the BNS. The Code BNS generally does not provide a minimum limit of
punishment to be imposed but lays down the maximum limit beyond which the
court cannot award punishment. Therefore, the Code provides the sentence “shall
be punished with imprisonment which may extend to…. years” or “with fine
which may extend to … Rupees.”
While exercising its discretion, in awarding punishment, the court shall
“Law Master’s Publication”
“Punishment”
Prof. Santosh D. Bhosale
42
take into consideration the nature of the offence, the circumstance in which it was
committed, the degree of deliberation, the age, sex, character, and antecedent of
the offender, i.e., whether he is first-time offender, or a habitual or a professional
offender, etc.
In State of U P V/s M.K. Author
Facts: - The accused killed his ailing wife as he could not provide the money
for her operation. He also killed his two children, as there would be no one to care
for them after their mother. However, the offence was committed out of poverty
and not for lust, vengeance, or gain.
The Supreme Court held that life imprisonment and not capital
punishment were the appropriate sentences
.
A)
1)
Death Sentence (Capital Punishment):-
Introduction: -
Various forms of punishment have evolved and been applied throughout
the ages. Torture, sadistic forms of executing death sentences, and all sorts of
cruelties in prison were the distinguishing features of the penal philosophy all
over the world until recent times.
Capital punishment or the death penalty is the most debated of the above
punishments, even since the time of Lord Buddha, when principles of Ahinsa were
prevalent. There are arguments for and against the retention of capital
punishment. There are merits as well as demerits to the retention of capital (death
penalty).
2)
Death (Capital) Punishment under BNS: -
The sentence of death is the most extreme punishment provided under the
Code. This punishment occupies the topmost position among the grades of
punishments. It is imposed in extreme and grave cases.
The BNS not only retains the offenses that attracted the death penalty under
the IPC but has also introduced the death penalty as an option for several new
categories of crimes, often dealing with organized violence and specific severe
sexual offenses. Following are the key offences in the BNS where death is a
prescribed punishment (either mandatory or alternative to life imprisonment):
1. Punishment for murder (often awarded in the 'rarest of rare' cases) (S. 103 (1).
2. Murder by Mob Lynching (S. 103 (2)). When a group of five or more persons,
acting in concert, commits murder on grounds of race, caste, community, sex,
place of birth, language, personal belief, or any other ground.
3. Murder by a Life Convict (S. 104) (Punishment for murder committed by a
“Law Master’s Publication”
“Punishment”
Prof. Santosh D. Bhosale
43
person undergoing life imprisonment)
4. Waging or Attempting to Wage War against the Government of India (S. 147).
5. Abetment of Mutiny (S. 160). Abetting mutiny, if mutiny is actually committed
in consequence of that abetment.
6. Rape Resulting in Death or Persistent Vegetative State (PVS) (S. 66). Rape
where the victim is left in a persistent vegetative state, or where the rape
results in the death of the victim.
7. Gang Rape of a Victim Under Eighteen Years of Age (S. 70 (2)).
8. Organized Crime Resulting in Death (S. 111). Committing an act of organised
crime that results in the death of any person.
9. Terrorist Act Resulting in Death (S. 113). Committing an act of terrorism that
results in the death of any person.
The BNS specifically introduced the death penalty as an option for three
major new or significantly amended categories i.e. Mob lynching (S. 103 (2),
Organized crime (S. 111), terrorist acts (S. 113), gang rape etc (S. 70 (2).
In Mohd. Arif, Sunder, etc. v. State, etc. (Laws (SC) 2014-9-9)
The Supreme Court observed that- an extinguishment of the life of a subject by
the State as a punishment for an offence is still sanctioned by law in the country.
Art. 21 itself recognizes the authority of the state to deprive a person of his life.
No doubt, many constitutional limits circumscribe such authority.
However, there has been great controversy for ages among judges,
lawyers, administrators, and social reformists. They question the utility of death
punishment. In most developed countries, death punishment has been abolished
from the penal statutes. We will discuss some of the arguments for and against
the retention of capital punishment.
3)
Arguments in favour of Capital Punishment: -
The supporters of capital punishment base their claim on the following
arguments.
a)
Deterrence: -
Prima facie, the penalty of death has a deterrent effect on prospective
offenders than any other kind of punishment.
Elimination of dangerous criminals: -
b)
Death is the only punishment to eliminate dangerous and habitual
criminals from society forever.
c)
Reduce the expenditure of the State: -
Capital punishment reduces the unwanted increase in the number of people
“Law Master’s Publication”
in jail and increases the state's expenditures at the cost of citizens.
d) Justice to Victim: -
“Punishment”
Prof. Santosh D. Bhosale
44
Capital punishment by eliminating offenders assuages the victim’s
family’s vengeance, thereby rendering them full justice. The recently constituted
Malimath Committee on ‘Reforms of Criminal Justice System’ has also
suggested the need to make the criminal justice system more victim-oriented by
providing participation to them in the proceeding and giving compensation to
the victim.
e)
Sense of protection: -
Elimination of offenders provides a sense of protection and justice in
society
f)
Constitutionally valid:-
Capital punishment is held constitutionally valid by the Supreme Court in
Bachan Singh V/s State of Punjab
g)
Pardon or Commutation:-
S.5 of the BNS empowers the appropriate government, i.e., either Central
or State, to commute the sentence of death to any other punishment in accordance
with S. 474 of the BNSS. S. 474 of BNSS deals specifically with the power to commute
sentences.
Commutation of Death Sentence: - A significant change is that the BNSS restricts the
commutation of a Death Sentence to a sentence of Life Imprisonment alone. This is a
departure from the previous law (CrPC), which allowed commutation of death sentence
to any other punishment.
Appropriate Government": In cases where the sentence is a sentence of death or is for
an offence against a matter to which the executive power of the Union extends, the
Central Government is the appropriate government. In other cases concerning state
matters, it is the State Government.
Pardon, Reprieve, Respite, Remission, and Suspension (Constitutional Powers)
-
Moreover, the constitution of India invested the Presidents of India and the
Governors of the states under Art. 72 and 161, respectively, with the power to
grant pardon (absolute or conditional), reprieve (temporary suspension of
punishment), respite (postpone punishment to a future date), remission (to
reduce the amount of punishment), or suspend, remit or commute the sentence
of any person convicted of any offence. These powers are purely executive in
nature, and the judiciary has nothing to do with it. However, the Governor can
not grant a complete pardon to a death sentence.
“Law Master’s Publication”
h) ‘Rarest of Rare case’:-
In India, capital punishment is not awarded in all offences wherein capital
punishment is provided as an alternative punishment, but only in the ‘rarest of
rare cases
“Punishment”
Prof. Santosh D. Bhosale
45
.
The rarest of the rare case doctrine evolved from the Supreme Court in
Bachan Singh’s case. Therefore, in every murder case, the death penalty is not
awarded. Still, only in rarest and rare cases, e.g., Aanjana Gavit’s case decided
in Kolhapur, wherein the accused woman with her two daughters, having
themselves women, used several children for committing pickpocketing and
eventually killed them. High Court of Mumbai has recently confirmed the
punishment of death for the other two female accused (Anjanabai has already
died). In the recent ‘Dhananjai Chaterji’ case, capital punishment was executed
on the accused, Dhananjai, who raped and killed mercilessly a teenage girl.
Therefore, awarding capital punishment is not a general trend but an exception.
In my view, this doctrine rather prohibits the execution of capital punishment in
general cases, even though capital punishment is provided therein.
Facts: - The accused committed brutal rape on the innocent girl of ten years. Eight
serious injuries on the private part of the victim girl show extreme brutality and depravity.
After such a brutal rape, the accused again, in a cruel manner, using a rope to throttle,
extinguished the life of a small girl.
Held: - that it is a fit case for enhancement of life imprisonment into the death
penalty
4)
Arguments against Capital Punishment: -
Following are some of the arguments levelled against the retention of
capital punishment, viz.
a) Cruel and Inhuman: -
Capital punishment is an inhuman type of punishment. It is the punishment
by which a person's life is put to an end through the legal process. In short, capital
punishment is cold-blooded legal murder. According to Baccaria, the State has no
right to take life since it cannot put life.
b)
No Reformation: -
Reformists stress the need to reform criminals more than to eliminate them.
Capital punishment does not provide any chance of improvement for criminals.
1 2008 All MR (Cri.) 899
“Law Master’s Publication”
c) Misuse: -
Justice Douglas says ‘mostly poor persons get capital punishment than
richer’.
“Punishment”
Prof. Santosh D. Bhosale
46
d) Cold-Blooded Legal Murder:-
According to some, capital punishment is cold-blooded legal murder.
e)
According to Metaphysics:-
According to metaphysics, life in all creatures is put by God alone, and
God alone has to take it out. Life cannot be taken away by any other person or
body (State, etc.) other than God.
B)
Imprisonment for Life: -
S. 4 of The BNS explicitly states "Imprisonment for life" as a punishment.
‘Imprisonment of life” means "imprisonment for the remainder of a person's natural life."
This clarifies and reinforces the judicial interpretation of "imprisonment for life" under the
previous law, establishing it as a whole-life sentence unless commuted or remitted by the
appropriate government. In various sections of serious offences, the meaning of
‘imprisonment for life’ is meant imprisonment for the remainder of a person’s natural life,
like certain types of gang rape or murder by a life-convict.
However, the appropriate government may commute a sentence of imprisonment
for life to imprisonment for a term not less than seven years [S. 475(b) of BNSS].
Imprisonment for life is rigorous and not simple.
Calculation of Term (S. 6):
For the purpose of calculating fractions of terms of punishment, the BNS provision
(similar to the old IPC) states that imprisonment for life shall be reckoned as equivalent to
imprisonment for twenty years unless otherwise provided. This is primarily for limited
purposes, such as calculating sentences in default of fine or for aggregate sentences, and
does not affect the "remainder of natural life" definition for the main sentence.
Offences Punishable with Life Imprisonment:
Life imprisonment is prescribed as a punishment for various serious offences like
offences against the state (S. 145), murder (S. 103), murder by a life convict (S. 104), and
culpable homicide (S. 105), rape (S. 64), gang rape (S. 70), repeated sexual offender (S.
71), organized crime, terrorism etc.
In number of offences and in multiple chapter under BNS, life imprisonment is
prescribed punishment either as the sole sentence or as an alternative to the death penalty.
C)
Imprisonment: -
S. 4 of the BNS lists the punishments to which offenders are liable. After the death
penalty and imprisonment for life, the next distinct punishment is "Imprisonment," which
“Law Master’s Publication”
“Punishment”
Prof. Santosh D. Bhosale
47
is of two descriptions:
1)
Rigorous:-
In this form of imprisonment, the offender is put to hard labour,
such as grinding, digging the earth, drawing water, etc.
Simple:-
2)
In simple imprisonment, the offender is given lighter work or not
given work at all.
As per S. 7, in cases where an offence is punishable with imprisonment of either
description, the Court has the power to direct that the imprisonment shall be wholly
rigorous, wholly simple, or partly rigorous and partly simple.
3)
Solitary Confinement (S. 11): -
It is an aggravated form of imprisonment wherein an offender is put in an
isolated cell. Thus, all his contacts with the other world are severed. It is given to
harsh and hardened convicts.
The court may order the person sentenced to rigorous imprisonment under
the BNS to be kept in solitary confinement for a portion of the imprisonment.
However, solitary confinement shall not exceed-
i)
One month, if the term of imprisonment does not exceed six months.
Two months, if the term exceeds six months but does not exceed one year.
ii)
iii) Three months, if the term exceeds one year. Thus, the solitary confinement
does not exceed three months in total.
Solitary imprisonment is awarded for offences committed under BNS
only, but not under other ‘special’ or ‘local laws’, if not provided. It cannot be
awarded where imprisonment is not part of the substantive sentence (i.e., where
imprisonment is awarded in default of a fine) or where the imprisonment awarded
is simple.
However, according to many criminologists, this kind of punishment is
inhuman and perverse. If used in excess, it might turn a man of sound mind into
a lunatic.
Limits on Execution (How it is Served) (S. 12)-
S. 12 provides the crucial rules for how the total solitary confinement (decided
under S. 11) must be carried out. These limits are mandatory and designed to
prevent continuous, unbroken isolation.
The limits are:
i. Maximum Duration at One Time (The 14 Day rule)-
Solitary confinement shall in no case exceed fourteen (14) days at a time.
“Law Master’s Publication”
“Punishment”
Prof. Santosh D. Bhosale
48
After a period of solitary confinement ends, there must be an interval before the
next period begins.
This interval must be at least as long as the period of confinement just served
(e.g., 14 days in solitary must be followed by at least 14 days out of solitary).
ii. Monthly Limit for Longer Sentences (The 7-Day Rule)-
This is a special rule that applies only when the total imprisonment awarded is
more than three (3) months.
In such cases, the solitary confinement shall not exceed seven (7) days in any
one month of the whole imprisonment awarded.
This 7-day period must also be followed by an interval of at least 7 days.
Example:
If a person is sentenced to one year of rigorous imprisonment, the court can
order a total of 3 months of solitary confinement (as per S. 11).
However, S. 12 dictates how this must be executed. The prison cannot simply
place the convict in solitary confinement for 3 months straight. Instead, it must be
broken up.
Because the sentence is more than 3 months, the 7-day-per-month rule
applies. The convict can be kept in solitary for a maximum of 7 days in any single
month of their one-year sentence, followed by an interval of at least 7 days.
D)
Forfeiture of Property: -
S. 4 of the BNS explicitly lists the six types of punishments an offender can be
liable for, and "Forfeiture of property" is one of them.
This punishment is applied in two primary ways:
i. As a direct punishment prescribed for specific offences. It is awarded as a part of the
sentence, in addition to imprisonment or a fine. For examples committing depredation on
territories of a foreign State at peace with India (S. 154), Receiving property taken by war
or depredation (S. 155), Public servant unlawfully buying or bidding for property (S. 203),
ii. As a consequence of possessing the "proceeds of crime," particularly in cases of
terrorism (S. 113) and organized crime (S. 111) etc.
"Forfeiture of property" is a listed punishment, it is typically applied for specific,
serious offences, often linked to organized crime or offenses where property is acquired
through illegal means.
Terrorism and Organized Crime: The BNS introduces specific provisions for offenses like
terrorism and organized crime. Forfeiture of property is a common feature in the penal
provisions for such high-level crimes, where the intent is to dismantle the economic base
of criminal operations. For example, the BNS includes provisions to punish those who
“Law Master’s Publication”
“Punishment”
Prof. Santosh D. Bhosale
49
knowingly possess or hold property derived from a terrorist act.
It is expected to be more robustly enforced, particularly in cases involving.
organized crime, Terror-related activities, Serious corruption. This measure is seen as a
key strategy to not only punish the offender but also to deprive them of the illicit gains of
their crime, thus acting as a major deterrent against financially motivated offenses.
E)
Fine:-
The fine is a forfeiture of money by way of penalty. The court may impose
a fine along with or without imprisonment. The BNS. provides fine as punishment
for several offences.
Where no maximum fine limit is laid, the fine amount in such a case is
unlimited. the BNS retains the principle that the fine amount is unlimited (though it should
not be excessive). The levying of a fine can involve the seizure and sale of the offender's
property if the fine is unpaid.
IMPRISONMENT IN DEFAULT OF FINE:-
The court can also award imprisonment in default of a fine (S. 8). In this
case, imprisonment is not in lieu of a fine but in default, i.e., it is the penalty for
non-payment of a fine and not a substitute punishment. Imprisonment in default
of payment of a fine does not liberate an accused from his liability to pay the fine
imposed upon him. Such imprisonment does not serve as a discharge of fine but
is imposed as a punishment for nonpayment. Fine awarded can be recovered
within six years from its award. Even his death does not discharge his liability for
a fine; it can be recovered from his property afterwards.
The BNS places two main limits on the term of imprisonment in default of fine:
1. Limit based on the Maximum Sentence for the Offence.
If the offence is punishable with Imprisonment as well as Fine, the default
imprisonment term cannot exceed one-fourth (1/4th) of the maximum term of
imprisonment prescribed for that offence.
2. Absolute Limit based on the Fine Amount.
This limit applies when the offence is punishable with Fine Only, or Imprisonment
or Fine, or when a general sentence of fine and imprisonment is given:
When the offence is punishable with a fine only, imprisonment in default
of the fine shall always be simple and-
i) It shall not exceed 2 months when the fine does not exceed Rs.5000, and
ii) Shall not exceed 4 months when the fine does not exceed Rs.10,000 and
iii) Shall not exceed one years in any other case.
But when the offender is imprisoned in default of a fine and pays the fine,
“Law Master’s Publication”
“Punishment”
Prof. Santosh D. Bhosale
50
his remaining imprisonment (in default of the fine) shall be terminated.
Proportional Termination:
If a proportionate part of the fine is paid, the imprisonment shall also terminate,
provided the time already served in jail is not less than the term proportional to the unpaid
part of the fine.
Nature of Imprisonment:
The imprisonment in default of fine may be of any description (Rigorous or Simple)
to which the offender might have been sentenced for the original offence.
Offences Punishable with Fine/Community Service Only:
Where an offence is punishable only with a fine or community service, the
imprisonment in default of payment of the fine shall be Simple.
The principles are designed to ensure the fine is not merely a formality but a mandatory
part of the punishment, while also ensuring that the default imprisonment is not
disproportionate to the original crime or the fine amount.
*****