PC Class 1 & 2 - Of Punishment -01_ Lecture materials

Of Punishment-01 Reading contents_ Introductory: • Each society has its own way of social control for which it frames certain laws and also mentions the sanctions with them. These sanctions are nothing but the punishments. This chapter deals with following topics: • Punishment: Sec-53 to 70 and 73 to 74 • Rules for Assessment of Punishment: Sec 71 to 72 • Enhanced Punishment for a subsequent offence. S-75 • Punishment means a penalty or sanction given for any crime or offence. Punishment must be for an offence. It must be an evil, an unpleasantness to the victim. • Crime is behavior or action that is punishable by criminal law. A crimes is a public, as opposed to a moral, wrong; it is an offence committed against and hence punishable by the State or the Community at large. Many crimes are immoral, but not all actions considered immoral are illegal. • (1) This section enumerates the punishments to which offenders are liable under the provisions of the Code. The section is not exhaustive of the kinds of punishment that can be inflicted on the offender under the criminal law. • AIR 1933 Rang 329. • (2) The section is only applicable to the Penal Code and does not cover the punishments to which an offender under any other law may be sentenced. Thus the suspension of the licence of a taxi driver under the Motor Vehicles Act. 1939 was held to be a punishment. • AIR 1936 Rang 329. • (1) Section 53 enumerates the different kinds of punishments which can be awarded to an accused person and forfeiture of property and fine are mentioned as two distinct kinds of punishments under clauses fifthly and sixthly. The effect of conviction of a person on his dependents is not matter for consideration by the Courts. • 1966 Cr LJ 834. • Law is good but justice is better. Sentence should be reasonable. • AIR 1969 Cal 32. • (2) Under the Criminal Procedure Code, S. 367 when there is a conviction a sentence must follow the conviction as a matter of law in each and every case. In other words when a Court finds an accused guilty, it is its bounden duty under the law to pass some sentence on the accused. • AIR 1956 SC 146. • (3) The Court to specify the nature of the punishment in the judgment. • (1971)73 BomLR 215. • (4) An omission to specify the nature of the punishment cannot be rectified by the trial Court by a subsequent order. • (1971) 73 BomLR 215. • (5) The object of punishment is to make the offender suffer either in person or in purse or in both so that he may not follow his errant way in future and at the same time to make others understand that they will be similarly dealt with if they commit any offence against society. • AIR 1951 Orissa 259. • (6) The objects of punishment are fourfold : • (i) to serve as a deterrent to other persons, • (ii) to be preventive, • (iii) to be reformative, and • (iv) to be retributive. • AIR 1960 All 190. • (7) The sentence should neither be too lenient nor disproportionately severe. The former losses its deterrent effect and the latter has a tendency to tempt the offenders to commit a more serious offence. The object of punishment for crimes being to impress on the guilty party and other like-minded persons that the life of crime does not pay, the Court has a duty to guard itself against the aforesaid two tendencies and to draw a proper balance between them. In order to do so, the Court has to consider the nature and gravity of the offence and duly take into account all the relevant circumstances leading to its commission. • (1969) SCO 1091. • (8) Although the punishment for each offence under the Code is prescribed by the Code itself, the actual sentence is passed under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. • AIR 1933 Pesh 90. • (1) The quantum of punishment to be awarded in each case is a matter within the discretion of the Court. • 1969 SCD 1091. • (2) In awarding punishment, the Court must bear in mind the objects for which the law provides for punishment. The Court must pass such sentence as fits the crime in each case. • AIR 1944 Pat 16. • (3) There must be a proper proportion between the gravity of the offence and the punishment imposed. • AIR 1979 SC 1820. • (4) Where an accused (a Reader holding M.Sc. and Ph.D. degrees) was convicted for offences of attempting to issue counterfeit University Degrees the award of sentence by the Sessions Court till the rising of the Court was too lenient. Award of sentence by the High Court for three years was just and proper. • AIR 1978 SC 1548. • (5) In fixing the punishment for any particular crime the Court should take into consideration the nature of the offence, the circumstances in which it was committed, the degree of deliberation shown by the offender, the provocation, if any, which he had received, (if the crime is one of violence), the antecedents of the offender, his age and character and so on. All these factors must be established by the evidence and not by mere impressions formed on the spur of the moment. • AIR 1976 SC 392. • (6) It is the duty of the Court in every case to award a proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence, the manner in which it was committed and to all attendant. • AIR 1983 SC 172. • (7) The quantum of punishment should not exceed the interests of justice. • AIR 1969 Cal 132. • (8) In case of fine where a maximum amount is fixed by the section, the Court ought not to impose the maximum amount as fine unless the offence is of a very serious character. • AIR 1929 All 919. • (9) The punishment to be awarded must be the least that will achieve the double object of deterring the accused from repeating his offence and other persons from committing a similar offence. • AIR 1958 All 198. • (10) The real object of punishment being prevention of crime, the measure of punishment naturally varies according to the prevalence of a particular form of offence at the given time. Hence, the degree of severity that may be appropriate at one time may be uncalled for at another time. • AIR 1950 Pesu 9. • (11) Justice should be even-handed. Other things being equal the same offence should receive the same punishment. • AIR 1952 Sind 143. • (1) The mere fact that the accused is a man of position and status is no ground for awarding to him a lighter sentence than would be justified in the case of an ordinary person. • AIR 1928 All 150. • (2) The loss of reputation which the accused would suffer his old age and such other factors may be taken into consideration while awarding a sentence. • AIR 1927 Oudh 319. • (1) Ordinarily a sentence of imprisonment commences to run from the time that the sentence is passed. • ILR (1954) 4 Raj 438. • (2) It is illegal to sentence an offender for the period already undergone by him in the police custody, or for the period of his imprisonment as an under-trial prisoner. • ILR (1954) 4 Raj 438. • (3) The period during which the accused has been in detention as an under-trial prisoner should be taken into account in awarding the sentence and in fixing the period for which a sentence of imprisonment should be passed. • AIR 1923 Lah 104. • A Judge, when administering justice, is as much influenced by the tides and currents of human emotions and passions as other human beings, but yet he is enjoined by the law to restrain and control them, else he will not be qualified to try a criminal case, but at the same time he is not expected to act ostrich-like and close his eyes to deliberate disregard of defiance of the law of the land. Judicial detachment is a virtue, but not judicial passivity. • AIR 1970 Goa 56. • In proper cases an inordinate delay in the execution of the death sentence may be regarded as a ground for commuting it, but this was no rule of law and was a matter primarily for the consideration of the Government. If the Court has to exercise a discretion in such matter, the other facts of each case would have to be taken into consideration. • AIR 1954 SC 278. • (Supreme Court declined to order commutation of the death sentence, as there were no extenuating circumstances.) • (1) Sentence of imprisonment for life means rigorous imprisonment for life. In the absence of order of commutation under S. 55. PC or S. 402(1) of Cr.PC a convict cannot be released forthwith even after expiry of 14 years. • AIR 1983 SC 855. • (2) Where the accused was sentenced to imprisonment for life direction by court that he shall in no case be released unless he has undergone minimum 25 years imprisonment was bad in law. • 1982 CriLJ 1762. • (1) It is only for the purpose of calculating fractions of terms of punishment that a sentence of imprisonment for life is to be treated as one for 20 years. For other purpose such a sentence will not become one for 20 years by operation of this section. • AIR 1976 SC 1552. • (2) A sentence of imprisonment for life cannot be treated as being equivalent a sentence for 14 years unless it has been commuted by the Government under S. 55. • AIR 1961 SC 600. • (3) Under this section, for the purpose of calculating the fractions of the term of imprisonment for purpose of granting remissions on the ground of good conduct the sentence of imprisonment for life should be treated as one for 20 years. • AIR 1945 PC 64. • (1) Under this section the Court can direct that the imprisonment shall be rigorous or simple for the whole term of the sentence or for any specified portion of such term. • (1971) 73 Bom LR 215. • (2) The section has no application to cases in which the prescribed punishment is imprisonment for life. In such cases the imprisonment is always to be rigorous imprisonment and the Court has no power to direct that the imprisonment should be simple imprisonment. • AIR 1964 Orissa 149. • (1) Where the maximum amount of fine is not laid down by the Code, the Court has a discretion to impose any amount of fine that it considers fit according to the needs of justice in each case. But the fine must not be excessive and the accused must not be made to feel that he is being persecuted and not prosecuted. • AIR 1957 Assam 74. • (2) The amount of fine should among other things be commensurate with the financial circumstances of the accused and must not be beyond his means to pay so as to subject him to a further term of imprisonment as an inevitable consequence in addition to the substantive term of imprisonment to which he may have been sentenced. • AIR 1957 All 764. • (3) Though the fine must not be excessive it must be sufficiently heavy to make the accused feel that it is a punishment. • AIR 1953 Mys 75. • (4) Where the offence is of an aggravated type, the sentence of imprisonment is obviously more suitable than mere sentence of fine where the punishment section provides for both. • AIR 1924 Lah 81. • (5) Where an offender is convicted under two or more sections and is sentenced to fines of different amounts in regard to the different offences with sentences of imprisonment in case of default if he makes any payment towards the fines inflicted in him such payments should be first appropriated for the smaller amounts as otherwise the severity of the punishment may be increased. • AIR 1931 Sind 73. • (1) This section deals with the power of the Court to award sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of fine in cases in which a sentence of fine may have been passed. This power of passing a sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of fine imposed does not make it imperative on the Court to pass such a sentence of imprisonment in every case in which a sentence of fine may have been passed. • AIR 1953 Trav-Co 233. • (2) Under the Criminal Procedure Code also, it is not imperative that a sentence of imprisonment in default should necessarily be passed wherever a sentence of fine is passed. • 1878 Pun No. 30. p. 73. • (3) This section only applies to cases where a sentence of fine has been passed. An amount which is recoverable as if it were a fine is not fine. This section not to apply to such case. • AIR I960 Ker 86. • Where a long term of imprisonment has been awarded to the offender by way of substantive punishment and he also sentenced to a fine, the amount of which is beyond his means to pay the period of imprisonment in default of payment of fine to which he may be liable under his section may, when added to the substantive term of imprisonment which has been imposed on him, exceed the maximum limit of the substantive term of imprisonment permissible under the punishment section. Although technically speaking there is nothing illegal in this yet as far as possible the Court should exercise its discretion in the matter of imposing a sentence of fine and avoid such a contingency. • AIR 1941 All 310. • (1) Where the substantive sentence for the offence can only be a sentence of rigorous imprisonment, the imprisonment in default of the payment, of fine must also be rigorous. • (1967) 7 South WR (Cri) 31. • (2) If the substantive sentence of imprisonment for the offence can only be simple imprisonment, then the sentence of imprisonment for default in payment of fine can only be simple imprisonment. • (1868-69) 5 Bom HCR (Crown Case).