Punishment
Punishment is the imposition of a penalty in response to an offence. Some writers consider that the object of civil proceedings is to enforce rights while the object of criminal proceedings is to punish the wrongdoers. Punishment is more a feature of criminal proceedings than a civil proceeding. However, punishment is not always present in criminal proceedings and not always absent in civil proceedings. The principal object of punishment is the prevention of offence, and a national penal policy of the state should aim to protect the society and reclaim the criminal by evolving measures to prevent people from committing crimes.
Chapter III of The Penal Code, 1860 describes the theories of punishment. Section 53 to section 75 describes various provisions of punishment. Like, section 53 states about Punishment. According to this section, the punishments to which offenders are liable under the provisions of this code are-
• Firstly – Death;
• Secondly – Imprisonment for life;
• Thirdly – [omitted by The Criminal Law (Extinction of Discriminatory Privileges) Act,1949]
• Fourthly – Imprisonment, which is of two descriptions, namely - Rigorous, that is with hard labour; Simple;
• Fifthly – Forfeiture of property;
• Sixthly – Fine.
In the punishment for imprisonment for life, the imprisonment shall be rigorous.
So, according to this section, there are five different theories of punishment, viz., (1) Deterrent, (2) Preventive, (3) Retributive, (4) Reformative and (5) Compensation.
(1) Deterrent theory:
The object of criminal justice in awarding punishment, according to this theory is to deter people from committing a crime. According to Locke, “the commission of every offence should be made a bad bargain for the offender”. As per this theory an exemplary punishment should be given to the criminal, so that the others may learn a lesson from him. But there is a lot of criticism of the deterrent theory of punishment in modern times. Deterrent punishment is likely to harden the criminal instead of creating in him the fear of law. Hardened criminals are not afraid of punishment. Thus, punishment loses its honour once the criminal is punished.
(2) Preventive theory:
Another object of punishment is preventing or disabling. It aims to prevent a repetition to the offence by the offender by such penalties as imprisonment, death and exile. This form of punishment also fails to achieve the desired end. Persons who visit the jail once are habituated to it.
(3) Retributive theory:
In primitive society, punishment was mainly retributive. The person wronged was allowed to have his revenge against the wrongdoer. The principle of “an eye for an eye”, “a tooth for a tooth” was recognised and followed. It is a barbarous form of punishment and betrays an utter ignorance of the causes that lead to crime.
(4) Reformative theory:
According to this theory, the object of punishment should be the reform of the criminal. The object should be to bring about the moral reform of the offender. He must be educated and taught some art or industry during the period of his imprisonment so that he may be able to start his life again after his release from jail. The advocates of the reformative theory contented that by a sympathetic, tactful, and loving treatment of the offenders, a revolutionary change may be brought about in their characters. The progress of the modern liberal trend of reform in the field of penology was observed in “Rattan Lal v. State of Punjab” case.
(5) Theory of compensation:
According to this theory, the object of punishment must not merely to prevent further crimes but also to compensate the victim of the crime.
Section 53A: Construction of reference to transportation:
Section 53A was inserted by section 3 of The Penal code (Amendment) Ordinance, 1985. The section deals with matter of “Transportation”. Here, it is said that, any reference to “transportation for life” in any other law time being in force shall be considered as a reference to “imprisonment for life”.
Again, it is said that, if there is any provision of transportation for a term or of transportation for a shorter term (by whatever named called) in any other law for the time being in force, shall be considered as omitted.
However, after inserting that provision by The Penal code (Amendment) Ordinance, 1985, transportation as a sentence has been done away as a punishment.
Section 54: Commutation of sentence of death:
Section 54 declares the power of Government regarding commutation of sentence of death. Through this section, Government may commute the punishment of death sentence for any other punishment provided by the Penal Code without consent of the offender.
Section 55: Commutation of sentence of imprisonment for life:
As like as Section 54, Section 55 also declares the power of Government of commutation of punishment. But the punishments are different. Section 55 declares the power of the government regarding commutation of imprisonment for life. According to this section, Government may commute the punishment of life imprisonment for imprisonment of either description (rigorous or not) for a term not exceeding twenty years without the consent of the offender. Under this section, it is not within the power of the Court to direct that the convict shall not be released from jail unless he has undergone a minimum period of 25 years imprisonment. Such direction is illegal as it impinges on the powers of the appropriate Government.
But, In Naib Singh v. State of Punjab, 1983, it is held that, a life convict cannot be released even after expiry of 14 years, for a sentence of life imprisonment means rigorous imprisonment for the rest of convict’s life.
Here, it is clear that, life imprisonment means rigorous imprisonment for the rest of convict’s life. If the Government shall not decrease the punishment term, the offender shall be in jail until his death.
Here, there is an amendment in this section. Previously, the term was “not exceeding 14 years”, but through the section 4 of The Penal code (Amendment) Ordinance, 1985, the word “twenty” was substituted for the word “fourteen”.
Section 55A: Saving for President’s Prerogative:
Section 55A was inserted by government of India (Adaptation of Indian Laws) Order, 1937. This section saves the President’s Prerogatives. Here, it is declared that, nothing in section 54 and 55 shall derogate from the rights of the President to grant pardons, reprieves, respites and remission of punishment. This section represents the Article 49 of the Bangladesh Constitution. Article 49 declares that, The President shall have power to grant pardons, reprieves and respites and to remit, suspend or commute any sentence passed by any court, tribunal or other authority. That means, Section 54 and Section 55 do not effect Article 49 of Bangladesh Constitution.
Section 57: Fractions of terms of punishment
In calculating fraction of terms punishment [imprisonment] for life shall be reckoned as equivalent to imprisonment for 30 years:
Life Imprisonment:
Life imprisonment means imprisonment for whole natural life of a convict. It does not mean only for 14 or 20 years. And, it will be rigorous imprisonment. A convict undergoing in imprisonment for life is not entitled to claim release from the prison after he has served the sentence for 20 years. That means a convict cannot claim release after 20 years as his right. If government wants to release him before his death, only the government can decide the fraction of imprisonment. The government can release him any time after 20 years of his imprisonment. If the government rejects the appeal of reducing the punishment, the court will not entertain also. Because this power is only in the hands of the government.
“Lakkhi And Etc. VS State Of Rajasthan And Anr. 1996 CriLJ 2965”
Life imprisonment means imprisonment for life till the convict breathes his last unless sentence is commuted under various provisions of acts and rules.
“Shri Bhagwan v. State of Rajasthan”
There was robbery and murder of five members of a family in a house.
Series of injury were caused to deceased persons by using different household articles as weapons.
Supreme court held that, the case was not rarest of rare kind and awarded imprisonment for life with the direction that since the offences were heinous and barbaric, in no case the 20 years old accused be released before completing 20 years in prison.
Fractions of sentence:
Here, section 57 comes into play only when fractions of terms of punishment are to be calculated.
There are several sections in Penal Code where fractions of imprisonment are necessary to calculate the reducing imprisonment time.
These sections deal with the fractions of punishment for those people who have attempted or intended to commit an offence which is punishable under the penal code. But, did not accomplish the offence yet.
Though life imprisonment doesn't have specific time frame, for the sake of calculating fractions of punishment it is assumed to be of 30 years.
And for any other type of offence, the punishment for such offender is to be calculated from the maximum limit of punishment for committing the actual offence.
The objects and purpose of section 57 in this code becomes clear by referring to sections 65, 116, 119, 120, 511.
Example:
In case of section 116, if that offence be not committed in consequence of the abatement be punished with an imprisonment which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term provided for that offence. Here, one-fourth is the fraction.
Case:
“Swamy Shraddananda & Murali Manohar vs. State of Karnataka”
In this case both the trial court and high court sentenced the death penalty to the appellant. When appealed in the Supreme Court the conviction was upheld but the judges did not agree with the punishment. One judge believed that life imprisonment is sufficient, because this is not the rarest case, while other judges believed that life imprisonment here is not sufficient as a sentence.
The court held that it has the power to provide the death penalty in some cases, but life imprisonment will mean that the offender will not be released for the rest of his natural life. This particular category will meet the rarest of the rare case because life imprisonment by conventional understanding alone is not sufficient to impose the death penalty on a person. Strictly enforce judgments of the death penalty.
Section 60:
This section states that Sentence may be (in certain cases of imprisonment, wholly or partly rigorous or simple. According to this section, in every case in which an offender is punishable with imprisonment which may be of either description, it shall be competent to the Court which sentences such offender to direct in the sentence that such imprisonment shall be wholly rigorous, or that such imprisonment shall be wholly simple, or that part of such imprisonment shall be rigorous and the rest simple.
So, as per this section, the Court has the power to direct and illustrate the type of punishment, whether it is rigorous or simple imprisonment.
There are some cases related to this section. Like, in 73 Bom LR 215(1971), it was stated that, under this section the Court can direct that the imprisonment shall be rigorous or simple for whole term of the sentence or for any specified portion of such term.
Again, every judgement of cases are the perfect example of this section.
Like as section 60, section 63 states about the amount of fine. According to this section, where no sum is expressed to which a fine may extend, the amount of fine to which the offender is liable is unlimited, but shall not be excessive.
So, as per this section, the economic status of the offender is also considerable for making a decision. There are some highlighted cases related to this section. Such as,
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 to which he may have been sentenced., AIR 1957 All 764.
Again, in AIR 1953 Mys 75, it is stated that, though the fine must not be excessive it must be sufficiently heavy to make the accused feel that it is a punishment.
In another case, AIR 1924 Lah 81, we can see that, 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.
SECTION 64- "SENTENCE FOR NON-PAYMENT OF THE FINE"
In every case, if the offence is punishable the offender is imprisoned as well with the fine. The offender is fine whether with the imprisonment or not. In cases where the offender is punishable of the imprisonment or fine or with only fine it is competent to the court, which sentences such offender to command by the sentence that, in failure of payment of the fine, the offender shall suffer imprisonment for a particular term, which imprisonment shall be in balance of any other imprisonment to which he may have been sentenced or to which he may be liable under a commutation of a sentence.
Explanation:
• In every case of an offence punishable with imprisonment as well as fine, in which the offender is sentenced to a fine, whether with or without imprisonment, and
• In every case of an offence punishable with imprisonment or fine, or with fine only, in which the offender is sentenced to a fine.
• In default of payment of the fine,
• The offender shall suffer imprisonment for a certain term,
• Which imprisonment shall be in excess of any other imprisonment to which he may have been sentenced or to which he may be liable under a commutation of a sentence.
Situation –
a) Imprisonment + Fine
b) Imprisonment or Fine
c) Only Fine
The section makes provisions for imprisonment in default of payment of the fine. If the first para is read carefully, it is clear that use of the words ‘as well as’ indicates that the section applies where an offence is punishable with imprisonment and also to such cases where it is punishable with fine. The second para makes it clear that the section also applies to cases where an offence is punishable with imprisonment or fine, or with fine only.
The third para states that, in all of the above mentioned cases, the Court is empowered, while sentencing an offender to a fine, to direct that in default of payment of the fine the offender has to undergo an additional term of imprisonment. The use of the word ‘competent’ in the third paragraph shows that the Court is empowered to impose an additional term of imprisonment; the Court is not obliged to do it in all cases.
The court can order imprisonment, but only after a means enquiry hearing which an accused must attend. A person cannot be sent to prison without at least one hearing where he has the chance to explain his financial circumstances. To avoid a prison sentence the accused must convince the court that he has a genuine reason for not paying.
In P.R. Anjanappa v. M/s. Yurej Agencies Private Limited, the Karnataka High Court observed that if we look into sections 64 and 70 of the Indian Penal Code it is clear that the property of the accused is liable for the payment of fine even if he has undergone imprisonment in default of fine and as such even on death of the offender does not discharge any property which would after his death be legally liable for his debts due from him (including liability) to discharge the fine.
Section 65- "LIMIT TO IMPRISONMENT FOR NON-PAYMENT OF FINE, WHEN IMPRISONMENT AND FINE AWARDABLE "
The term for which the Court directs the offender to be imprisoned in default of payment of a fine shall not exceed one-fourth of the term of imprisonment which is the maximum fixed for the offence, if the offence be punishable with imprisonment as well as fine.
Explanation:
• Imprisonment in default of payment of a fine
• Shall not exceed one-fourth (1/4) of the term of imprisonment which is the maximum fixed for the offence,
According to this section if the offender is awarded with imprisonment and fine both then this section states that court cannot award additional imprisonment in excess of one-fourth of the term of maximum imprisonment fixed in the offence in default of payment of fine
The words in this section ‘imprisonment as well as fine’ indicates that the section is applicable to an offence where accused is punishable with imprisonment and fine and also where the offence is punishable with imprisonment or fine, but not both.
The section does not apply to such cases which are covered under section 67 of the Code where the only punishment of offence is fine.
The section makes it clear that in such cases the imprisonment in default of payment of fine can in no case exceed one-fourth of the term which is the maximum provided for the offence.
For instance, if the maximum term of imprisonment provided for an offence is one year, the term of imprisonment in default of payment of fine can never exceed three months which is the one-fourth of one year.
The Supreme Court has held in Ram Jas v. State that the order of the High Court of imprisonment for three years in default of payment of fine with respect to an offence under section 419 read with section 109, Indian Penal Code was illegal because the maximum term of imprisonment provided under that section is of three years and, therefore, the imprisonment in default of payment of fine could not exceed one-fourth of three years, that is, nine months.
The period of imprisonment ordered by the competent court for any offence called substantive sentence. After substantive sentence is over then the Default sentence will start. Default Sentence means period of imprisonment for non-payment of fine. It starts after the end of Substantive sentence. Both cannot run concurrently.
Example-
• S. 379 – Punishment of theft –Whoever commits theft shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years or with fine, or with both.
So, let’s assume if a convict was awarded a sentence of 3 years of imprisonment and fine under section 379 for committing theft and if he defaults to pay that fine then he can get additional imprisonment in default of payment of fine for not more than 274 days of imprisonment as in this case. Section 379 provides that maximum imprisonment of 3 years for theft it is one-fourth term will be 247 days as the maximum as per sec 65 which can be awarded on default of payment of fine.[3]
Section 380 – Theft in dwelling house- Whoever commits theft in any building, tent or vessel, which building, tent or vessel is used as a human dwelling , or used for the custody of property , shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years ,and shall also be liable to fine.
So, let’s assume if a convict was awarded a sentence of 7 years of imprisonment and fine under section 380 for committing theft and if he defaults to pay that fine then he can get additional imprisonment in default of payment of fine for more not than 639 days of imprisonment as in this case. Section 380 provides that maximum imprisonment of 7 years for theft it is one-fourth term will be 639 days as the maximum as per sec 65 which can be awarded on default of payment of fine.
SECTION 66- "DESCRIPTION OF IMPRISONMENT FOR NON-PAYMENT OF FINE. "
The imprisonment which the Court imposes in default of payment of a fine may be of any description to which the offender might have been sentenced for the offence.
Explanation:
The imprisonment in default of payment of a fine may be rigorous as well as simple. Whether it could be rigorous or simple depends on the nature of the offence for which the offender is sentenced. If the offence committed by him could be punished with rigorous imprisonment, the imprisonment in default of payment of the fine could be rigorous. On the other hand, if the offence committed by him could be punished with simple imprisonment, the imprisonment in default of payment of the fine could be simple only.
Cases and Scope of the Section:
Where the substantive sentence for the offence can only be a sentence of rigorous imprisonment, the imprisonment is default of the payment of fine must also be rigorous. (1967) 7 Suth WR (Cri) (2) (31) (DB)
If the substantive sentence of imprisonment for the offence can only be a simple imprisonment, then the sentence of imprisonment for default in payment of fine can only be simple imprisonment. (1868-69) Bom HCR (Crown) 43(43) (DB)
When an offence is punishable with imprisonment of either description, the imprisonment in default of payment of fine may be of either description. 1872-1892 Low Bur Run 434 (435).
Imprisonment in default of payment of fine- May be of the description prescribed for the offence-Simple imprisonment prescribed for offence- R.I. cannot be ordered for default. Shafiq Ahmed Vs. State 1959 PLD (WP) (Lah) 851
Section 67: 'Imprisonment for non-payment of fine, when offence is punishable with fine only.'
This section applies to such cases alone where the offence committed is punishable with fine only.
The section also deals with 2 factors. These are:
1. The offender must be punished with fine only. If the offender is unable to pay the amount, he'll get the sentence of imprisonment which is simple in nature.
2. The time limitations of simple imprisonment for non-payment of the fined amount will be as following:
a) Maximum simple imprisonment for 2 months where the fine is not more than 50 tk.
b) Maximum simple imprisonment for 4 months where the fine is not more than 100 tk.
c) Maximum simple imprisonment for 6 months where the fine is more than 100 tk.
Example:
If 'D' is fined 90tk, 'D' will be given maximum 4months imprisonment by the court for nonpayment of fine.
In (1967) 7 South WR (Cri) 31, was held that where the substantive sentence for the offence can only be a sentence of rigorous imprisonment. The imprisonment in default of the payment must also be rigorous.
In (1868-69) 5 BOM HCR (Crown Case) was held that, if the substantive sentence of imprisonment for the offence can only be sentence of simple imprisonment, then the imprisonment in default of the payment can also be simple imprisonment.
Section 68: "imprisonment to terminate on payment of fine."
This section is described as following:
When the fine is paid or levied by the offender, the imprisonment which is imposed by the court for non-payment will be terminated immediately. Which means by paying the amount, the accused is free to go.
Example:
'A' is imposed 1 month of simple imprisonment by the court for not paying tk 30.
If 'A' pays the fined amount, 'A' will be set free from the imprisonment as soon as he paid the amount.
In AIR 1969 All 116, it was held that where the amount of the fine is paid by the offender while undergoing imprisonment in default of the imprisonment shall terminate.
Section 69: termination of imprisonment on payment of proportional part of fine
This section describes us that proportionate payment is also valid by the Penal Code. Proportionate payment means if a person is imprisoned for failing to pay the fine, the amount of the fine will be reduced by everyday he passes in the jail.
If a person is imprisoned for 4 months for non-payment and passed one month in the jail, this means that he has passed his 1/4th of penalty.
By passing his 1/4th part of penalty, his 1/4th fined amount has been also been deducted. As soon as he pays rest of the fined amount, he will be set free immediately.
Example:
'A' is sentenced to a fine of 100tk and to four months' imprisonment in default of payment. Here, if 50tk of the fine be paid or levied before the expiration of 2 month of the imprisonment, 'A' will be discharged as soon as the 2nd month has expired. If 50tk be paid or levied at the time of the expiration of the 2nd month, or at any later time while 'A' continues in imprisonment, 'A' will be immediately discharged.
If 25tk of the fine be paid or levied before the expiration of 3 months of the imprisonment. 'A' will be discharged as soon as the 3 months are completed.
In AIR 1963 BOM 21, the term levied under section 69 means realized. In other words, unless the proportion of the fine referred to in this section is realized the accused will not be entitled to release from the imprisonment. This meaning is in contrast to the meaning of the word 'levy' which is used in section 70.
Under that section the word 'levy' refers the talking of legal proceedings for the recovery of the fine and not the actual realization thereof.
Section-70 “deals with limitation of levy of fine”
If the fine remains unpaid may be levied at any time within six years after passing of the sentence. If, under the sentence the offender be liable to imprisonment for a longer period than six years then the fine may be levied at any time previous to the expiration of that period.
And the death does not discharge from the liability.
Here in section 70, the term used ‘levied and leviable’ follows a legal procedure.in this case there is no need of realization. For this reason, this section is also applicable for a deceased offender. on the other hand, same term ‘levied’ used in section 69 does not follow any kind of legal procedure. According to this section realization is very important thing and for this reason this section is not applicable after death of an offender.
There are some cases related to section-70 of Penal Code, 1860.
If the offender sentenced to imprisonment longer than six years then the fine will be recovered within the sentenced period. This provision is stated in the case AIR 1943 pesh 56.
7577 Bom Un Cri c 40 in this case payment of portion of fine defined.it is said that where the accused pays a portion of fine while he is serving a sentence of imprisonment for default in the payment of fine, he will be released if, the period of imprisonment already suffered by him not less than proportional to the part of the fine remaining unpaid.
If the offender dies before payment of the fine, which he has been sentenced, it doesn’t extinguish with his death. After his death the fine can be levied from the property which would be legally liable for his best AIR 1953 Tarv-co.233(234).
Section -71 States that limit of punishment of offence made up of several offence. According to this section where anything which is an offence made up of parts,any of which parts is itself an offence the offender shall not be punished with the punishment of more than one of such of his offence, unless it be so expressly provide.
Where anything is an offence falling within two or more separate definition of any law in force for the time being by which offences are defined or punished, or where several acts, of which one or more than one would by itself or themselves constitute of an offence, when combined, a different offence, the offender shall not be punished with more severe punishment than the court which tries him could award for any one of such offence.
There is some illustration about this section is given below –
• A gives Z fifty strokes with sticks.here A may have committed voluntarily causing of hurt to Z by the whole beating. If A were liable for punishment for every blow,he might be imprisoned for fifty years,for one each blow. But he is liable only to one punishment for the whole beating.
There are some important cases relating to this section-
Receiving stolen property and concealing or assisting in concealing such property are not distinct offences. AIR 1928 Bom 145(1)
A bribe received partly on one day and partly on another day together constitutes only one offence. (1901) 5 Cal WN 332
Section-72:
This section states that punishment of person guilty of one of several offences, the judgement stating that it is doubtful of which. According to this section, in all cases in which judgement is given that a person is guilty of one of several offences specified in the judgement, but that is doubtful of which of these offences he is guilty, the offender shall be punished for the offence for which the lowest punishment is provided if the same punishment is not provided for all.
So as per this section, several offences are specified but it is doubtful which offences he is guilty the offender should be punished lowest punishment.
There are some case related to this section, Like A committed murder of B either by poison or by stabbing or by drowning him. But it is not finding that which several offence he is guilty and is not an alternative judgement for the purpose of this section (1904) Crili 390
Section 73: solitary confinement
Solitary confinement debarred a prisoner from any kind of inter-action with the other prisoner. Solitary confinement may be imposed for offences punishable with rigorous imprisonment. Court cannot impose solitary confinement for a whole term of a prisoner imprisonment. Solitary confinement can only be awarded as a substantive part of rigorous imprisonment.
Section 73 of penal code provides a scale for terms of solitary confinement. The scale is as follows;
• If the term of imprisonment not exceed six months than the term of solitary confinement will not be more than one month.
• If the term of imprisonment exceeds six months but not exceed one year than the term of solitary confinement will not be more than two months.
• If the term of imprisonment exceeds one year
• than the term of solitary confinement will not be more than three months.
It is clear from the above that a sentence inflicting solitary confinement for the whole term of imprisonment is illegal.
Section 74: Limit of solitary confinement:
This section further limits the scope of solitary confinement. This section says that the term of solitary confinement shall no case exceed fourteen days at a time with intervals between the periods of solitary confinement of not less duration than such period.
And when the imprisonment awarded exceed three months, the term of solitary confinement shall not exceed seven days in any one month of the whole imprisonment awarded with intervals between the periods of solitary confinement of not less duration than such periods.
Case Reference:
• Solitary confinement cannot be awarded for an offence not punishable under the penal code but punishable only under a special or local law. (AIR 1942 Lah 667)
• Solitary confinement should not be passed on a person convicted at one trial for more than one offence. (AIR 1923 Lah 104)
The last section of this chapter, section 75 describes Enhanced punishment for certain offences under Chapter XII or Chapter XVII after previous conviction. Here we know that Chapter XII deals with offences relating to coin and government stamps and Chapter XVII deals with offences against property.
However, according to section 75, whoever, having been convicted,
• By a Court in Bangladesh of an offence punishable under Chapter XII or Chapter XVII of this Code with imprisonment of either description for a term of three years or upwards;
• [ Omitted by section 3 and 2nd Schedule of the Bangladesh Laws (Revision And Declaration) Act, 1973 (Act No. VIII) of 1973.]
• Shall be guilty of any offence punishable under either of those Chapter with like imprisonment for the like term, shall be subject for every such subsequent offence to imprisonment for life, or to imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years.
So, these are all about different provisions of punishment system of Chapter III of The Penal Code, 1860. But a perfect system of criminal justice cannot be based on any one theory of punishment. Every theory has its own merits and every effort must be made to take the good points of all. Punishment must be in proportion to the gravity of the crime. It must be small for minor crimes and heavy for major crimes. Again, a criminal should be able to secure his release by showing improvement in his conduct in jail. The object of this concession is to convince the offender that normal and free life is better than life in jail.
No comments:
Post a Comment