THE BASIS OF PUNISHMENT AND PENAL MATRIXES

By:

Chandra Lekha Pasupuleti

18LLB 020

4th Semester

5 year (B.A., LL.B.)

Name of Faculty member: Prof. (Dr.) Bhavani Prasad Panda Sir

Date of Submission: 11-12-2020

DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

NAYAPRASTHA, “SABBAVARAM,

VISAKHAPATNAM- 531035, ANDHRA PRADESH

i
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I am highly indebted to my Respected Professor Prof. (Dr.) Bhavani Prasad Panda Sir,
Dr. P. Vara Lakshmi Madam, Vijaya Lakshmi Madam and Dr. Bhagyalakshmi Madam for
giving me a wonderful opportunity to work on this topic and it is because of their excellent
knowledge, experience and guidance, this project is made with great interest and effort. I would
also like to thank Radhakrishna Sir and my seniors who have guided my knowledge of doing
research on such significant topic. I would always also take this as an opportunity to thank my
parents for their support. I have no words to express my gratitude to each and every person from
my family and friends who has guided and suggested me while conducting my research work.

ii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT...............................................................................................................ii
TABLE OF CASES.........................................................................................................................v
1. SYNOPSIS..................................................................................................................................1
TITLE OF THE RESEARCH PAPER:.......................................................................................1
MAJOR PREMISE:.....................................................................................................................1
MINOR PREMISE:.....................................................................................................................1
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:................................................................................................1
SOURCES:...................................................................................................................................1
1. PRIMARY:..............................................................................................................................1
2. SECONDARY:........................................................................................................................1
OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY:..................................................................................................1
SCOPE OF THE STUDY:...........................................................................................................2
RESEARCH QUESTIONS:........................................................................................................2
LITERATURE REVIEW:...........................................................................................................2
CHAPTERISATION (TENTATIVE)..........................................................................................2
2. INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................3
3. ANCIENT INDIA AND PENAL PRACTICES.........................................................................3
3.1. HINDU LAW........................................................................................................................4
4. MEDIEVAL INDIA AND PENAL PRACTICES......................................................................5
4.1. MUSLIM LAW.....................................................................................................................6
4.1.1.KISAS.............................................................................................................................6
4.1.2. DIYUT............................................................................................................................6
4.1.3. HADD............................................................................................................................6
4.1.4. SIYASA AND TAZIR..................................................................................................7
5. HISTORY OF PRISON...............................................................................................................8
5.1. RETRIBUTIVE....................................................................................................................9
5.2. REFORMATIVE..................................................................................................................9
5.3. UTILITARIAN.....................................................................................................................9

iii
 5.4. PREVENTIVE……………………………………………………………………………10
5.5. EXPIATION.......................................................................................................................10
5.6. DENUNCIATION..............................................................................................................10
6. DEVELOPMENT OF PUNISHMENT BEFORE AND AFTER PRISONS WERE BUILT...10
7. CAPITAL PUNISHMENT........................................................................................................11
7.1. IMPRISONMENT..............................................................................................................11
7.2.MUTILATION………………………………………………………………...…………..11
7.3. BANISHMENT..................................................................................................................12
7.4. WAGING WAR AGAINST THE RULER........................................................................13
7.5. LEVYING OF PENALTY..................................................................................................13
7.6. FORFEITURE OF PROPERTY.........................................................................................13
8. TYPES OF PUNISHMENTS IN THE CURRENT TIMES.....................................................14
8.1. DEATH SENTENCE..........................................................................................................14
8.1.1. THE PROVISIONS UNDER WHICH THE DEATH PENALTY IS GIVEN AS
PUNISHMENT UNDER IPC ARE AS FOLLOWS:……………………………………15
8.1.2. SOME OTHER ACTS UNDER WHICH THE DEATH PENALTY COVERED
AS PUNISHMENT ARE……………………………………………………………...16
8.1.3. PROCEDURE WHEN DEATH PENALTY IS IMPOSED………………………16
8.1.4. CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF DEATH PENALTY……………………...17
8.1.5. EVOLVING PARAMETERS FOR IMPOSITION OF DEATH SENTENCE…..20
8.1.6. CASE LAWS ON DEATH SENTENCE (WHEN THE DEATH SENTENCE IS
CONFIRMED)…………………………………………………………………………...20
8.1.7. CASES LAWS ON DEATH SENTENCE (WHEN DEATH SENTENCE HAS
BEEN COMMUTED TO LIFE IMPRISONMENT) ……………………………………23

9. CONCLUSION..........................................................................................................................26
10. BIBLIOGRAPHY....................................................................................................................27
10.1. BOOKS AND STATUTES..............................................................................................27
10.2. ARTICLES........................................................................................................................27
10.3. ONLINE DATABASES...................................................................................................27

iv
 TABLE OF CASES

1. Ashok Kumar v. State, [1980] 2 SCC 20

2. Bachan Singh v. State Of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 898.
3. Jagmohan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1973 SC 947.
4. Sangeet & Anr. v. State of Haryana, (2013) 2 SCC 452.
5. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978 AIR 597.
6. Rajendra Prasad v. State of U.P, (1973) 1 SCC 20.
7. Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, (1983) 3 SCC 470.
8. of Sher Singh v. State of Punjab,  AIR 1960 SC 866.
9. Triveniben v. State of Gujarat,  1990 CriLJ 273.
10. of Mithu v. State of Punjab, AIR 1983 SC 473.
11. Channu Lal Verma v. State of Chattisgarh, 2018 SCC 2570.
12. State of Tamil Nadu v. Nalini, 1999.
13. Jai Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1999.
14. Suresh Chandra Banhri v. State of Bihar, 1986 CriLJ 1394.
15. Dhananjoy chatterjee alias dhana v. State of West Bengal, (1994) 2 SCC 220.
16. Sushil murmu v. State of Jharkhand, 2003 (2) BLJR 1406.
17. Holiram bardokti v. State of Assam, Appeal (crl.) 1063 of 2004
18. Om prakash v. State of Haryana, AIR 1999 SC 1332.
19. Rajendra rai v. State of Bihar, (2011) 1 PLJR 1129.
20. Kishori v. State of Delhi, [1999] 1 SCC 148.
21. State v. Paltan mallah & ORS, 2005(3) SCC 169.
22. Sambhal singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2004 CriLJ 1533.
23. Swamy shraddananda @ murali manohar mishra v. State of Karnataka , (2008) 13 SCC
767.

v
 1. SYNOPSIS

TITLE OF THE RESEARCH PAPER: THE BASIS OF PUNISHMENT AND PENAL

MATRIXES.

MAJOR PREMISE: to understand the meaning and the basis of punishment and its
development throughout the years so far.

MINOR PREMISE: to understand the basis on which punishments are being given these days
and the deeper aspects of it.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:

The contents of this research paper are being written through a thorough analysis of the
concepts involved and describing them in dept for better understanding of the topics. In other
words, the research methodologies involved are- Analytical and Descriptive.

SOURCES:

1. PRIMARY:

1. INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860.

2. SECONDARY:

1. Heinonline.
2. WestLaw.
3. Manupatra.

OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY:

The objective of this paper is to understand the origin of the punishment and the penal
matrixes from Ancient India to the current times and also with special reference to practices by
various religions.

1
SCOPE OF THE STUDY:

The study ranges from knowing the meaning of the basic terms used in the sections to
clearly understanding how the sections work using some examples and case laws.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS:

1. WHETHE OR NOT THE PUNISHMENTS USED IN THE ANCIENT INDIA ARE SAME
AS TODAY?

2. WHETHER OR NOT THERE ARE ANY DIFFERENCES IN THE PUNISHMENTS GIVEN

BY DIFFERENT RELIGIONS?

LITERATURE REVIEW:

Various Bare Acts, Statutes and laws of the current times along with the ones used few decades
ago were referred to in order to understand the meaning and to form an unbiased opinion to write
this paper. It is evidently present that for any crime the punishments are different from the
changing times, the amendments made to Indian Penal Code, 1860 is one such example.

Edwards, Jonathan (1824). "The salvation of all men strictly examined: and the endless
punishment of those who die impenitent : argued and defended against the objections and
reasonings of the late Rev. Doctor Chauncy, of Boston ; in his book entitled "The Salvation of all
Men," &c". C. Ewer and T. Bedlington, 1824: 157.

CHAPTERISATION (TENTATIVE)

1. INTRODUCTION

2. ANCIENT INDIA

3. MEDIVAL INDIA

4. HINDU PUNISHMENTS

5. PUNISHMENTS IN MUSLIM LAW

6. TYPES OF PUNISHMENTS

7. DEATH PENALTY

8. CASE LAWS

9. CONCLUSION

2
 2. INTRODUCTION

The origin of the idea of punishment, it has been observed, coincides with the origin of
the social life of an individual. But this is unverifiable for we can’t go that far in the origin or
can’t with any exceptional certainty, claim its truth. The idea of ‘punishment’ itself is huddled
with many definitions, but, so insistently has its relation with crime been asserted that we tend to
disregard that the authority of society in granting such suffering plays a major role. This is to say
that a society may diminish certain actions to call them a crime, but those actions may not be
categorized as crime in every society, similarly, the punishments inflicted by a society have their
own nature and history.

In this paper, keeping in mind this point, we shall explore the evolution of punishment
before and after the imprisonment, only in the context of India. Thus, the article first provides an
account of penal practices before British Raj, and then after British Raj. It is important to note
here that the modern conception of imprisonment was brought by Britishers in India, and after
that it saw a significant change and became the most common kind of punishment, not only in
India, but throughout the world. But still, even the basis of granting punishment varies in
different societies, let us discuss the development of punishments in India.

3. ANCIENT INDIA AND PENAL PRACTICES

According to ancient Indian thought, the ‘danda’ (a staff or scepter) was a symbol of the
ability to inflict harm. It was associated with the power of the king, justified by its use for the
practice of justice and governance. This is usually translated as ‘punishment’. Within
Dharmashastra, danda was the ultimate worldly means of enforcing the norms of Dharma. The
king was hailed as the ultimate bearer of justice and was vested with the complete authority to
punish the offender. Interestingly, the law-givers of the time spoke in favor of just punishment.
For instance, Kamandaka, one of the early ancient scholars, repeated the idea of Manu and
Kautilya when he said that Danda should neither be too serious nor too mild but should be just
in accordance with the kind of offence committed. Narada remarked that the nature of the crime,
3
its time and place should be carefully considered and the ability and motive of the offender
should be thoroughly examined before inflicting the punishment.

However, various law-givers classified punishments differently. Manu, Yajnavalkya, and

Brahaspati referred to four types of punishments, like:

1. Gentle admonition
2. Harsh reproof
3. Fine 
4. Corporal punishment. 

On the other hand, Kamandaka divided punishment into three kinds, namely 

1. Execution (vadha) 
2. Fine and 
3. Corporal punishments

Let us briefly discuss the specific punishments generally prescribed for particular times. 

3.1. HINDU LAW

Dharma Sastras were the primary source to run both the criminal and civil administration under
the ancient Hindu kings.

Law as a subject in Hindu law was envisaged to be discussed under eighteen categories and
those are – bailment, gift, defamation, sales, breaches of contract, damage to goods, non-
payment of debt, the trespass of cattle, bodily injuries, assault, partition and dispute between
partners. Furthermore, Manu’s code also gives cognisance to violence to body, assault, robbery,
adultery, defamation and theft as criminal offences. The practice of giving monetary
compensation was prevalent in ancient India.

4
 During the 1770s, Warren Hastings, who was the then Governor-General of India instructed
the development of “Gentoo code” which is a compilation by the pundits of Banaras. This code
awarded death sentence for the offence of murder.

Aditionally, the code was similar to the Roman law on account of providing different
punishments for concealed theft and open theft. For instance, the former was awarded corporeal
punishment and the latter was reprimanded with just fine, both on the discretion of the judge.
The death penalty was awarded for the offenders of robbery and housebreaking. Another
peculiarity with respect to the imposition of punishments is that the women and Brahman were
exempted from capital punishments.

The Travancore State Penal Code contained the aforementioned provision. There were three
broad principles followed until the development of the Indian Penal Code:

o Tazeer – discretionary punishment

o Hadd – penalties
o Diyut–bloodmoney

4. MEDIEVAL INDIA AND PENAL PRACTICES

Medieval India witnessed the prominence of Muslim law which had a significant impact
on the penal practices of the time. However, from the slave dynasty to Mughal dynasty, every
ruler was confronted with a challenge to rule a large mass of non-Muslim populace. From the
rule of Sher Shah, we witnessed a significant change in the attitudes of rulers as they recognized
the issue and allowed religious liberty to Hindus for following their own laws. In any matter,
civil or criminal, the village panchayat presided over the proceedings and executed the judgment,
but the parties were free to appeal in front of the Qazi court. Qazi was a judicial officer who was
supposed to try and decide the cases, among many other duties. 

5
4.1. MUSLIM LAW

According to the Mohammedan Penal Code, punishment can be divided into four principles:

4.1.1.KISAS

Basically this principle follows the idea of retaliation i.e. a life for a life and a limb for a
limb. Generally, this punishment was awarded for the crimes against a person or otherwise called
‘Jinayat’. It was confined to crimes such as wounding, wilful homicide and maiming.

4.1.2. DIYUT

This referred to blood money for the compensation for blood in cases of offences like
homicide and was usually given as an alternative to Kisas. Furthermore, in cases of involuntary
homicide and erroneous homicide, the punishment awarded to the offenders was the penalty of
expiation and revocation of inheritance.

4.1.3. HADD

These are certain penalties fixed with reference to meet the ends of justice and maintain
law and order in the society. Under Hadd, the quality and quantity of punishment awarded
remained fixed and could not be changed. So, the Qadi could not exercise their discretion in case
of sentencing an accused and had to award the punishment as prescribed under Hadd.

Generally, Hadd was imposed for crimes such as illicit sexual intercourse or adultery,
false accusation, high way robbery and theft. Additionally, the punishment prescribed for both
the men and women was the same when situated in the same circumstances. However, due to
illness and pregnancy execution of a sentence was ordered to be suspended or postponed until
she recovers from labour.

6
4.1.4. SIYASA AND TAZIR

Both of them refer to exemplary punishment or discretionary punishment respectively.

The judge had the discretion to decide the amount and kind of punishment to be awarded. Under
the category of Tazir the punishment could vary from banishment to imprisonment.

Discretionary punishment has been elaborated in the preamble to regulation 53, 1803, as
follows: “The Mohammedan law vests in the sovereign and his delegates, the power of
sentencing criminals to suffer discretionary punishment1 in three cases.

 First, in the cases of offences for which no specific penalty of Hadd or kisas has
been provided by the law;
 Secondly, for crimes within the specific provisions of Hadd and Kisas, when the
proof of the commission of such crimes may not be such as the law requires for a
judgment of the specific penalties.
 Thirdly, for heinous crimes in high degree injury to society and particularly for
repeated offences of this description, which, for the ends of public justice may
appear to require exemplary punishment beyond the prescribed penalties; with
respect to crimes of this description an unlimited discretion extending to capital
punishment is admitted to have been left by the Mohammedan law to the sovereign
authority of every country in which that law prevails as well as to its judicial
delegates.”

Punishment has been defined by Sutherland as a retributive action which must constitute of two
essential ideas and those are:

 A group of individuals in their corporate capacity can inflict it

 This retributive action must result in pain or suffering and must be justified at the end

According to Walter C Reckless, “punishment can be said to be a means of social control.

Therefore, by such a means of social control a group endeavours to redress the violation of the
law, an injury, breach of custom, an offence or a wrong. An erring individual is induced to
conform to the rules of society by applying sanctions.”

7
According to Grunhut, punishment should be reasonable and for that three components must be
present:

 “Expeditious investigation in order to render a fair punishment

 After the completion of punishment, the offender must be transformed and capable
enough to start afresh
 State which imposes the punishment must foster superior values”

“no lasting advantage is to be hoped for from political morality if it is not founded upon the
ineradicable feelings of mankind. Any law that deviates from these will inevitably encounter a
resistance that is certain to prevail over it in the end. In the same way that any force, however
small, if continuously applied, is bound to overcome the most violent motion that can be
imparted to a body.” He meant that in order to safeguard the society from the occurrence of
upheaval human parted a share of their personal liberty.1

5. HISTORY OF PRISON

As we saw earlier, imprisonment was found in the ancient as well as medieval centuries
too, however, it was significantly different from the conception of imprisonment. The differences
include, firstly, that there was no sophisticated grounds on or duration for which the punishment
of imprisonment was given to the convict, rather it was mostly based on the discretion of the
judge to grant this imprisonment. Secondly, in the ancient Hindu law, the deterrence being the
main rationale, the conception of prison in front of the eyes of society was given, which is indeed
distinct from the solitary confinements that are granted nowadays. Moreover, and significantly,
punishments were decided upon the characteristics of the person such as caste, gender, status
etc., however, this was all to go under change with the advent of British rule. 

The concept of punishment is based on the principle of lex talionis which means “the law
of retaliation, whereby a punishment resembles the offence committed in kind and degree”.

1
, “On crimes and punishment”,Written by Cesare Beccaria.
8
 An opportunity was provided to the victim or their family members to retaliate against
the person(s) who have committed the offence and at times this was more like a responsibility
than a right. This was the inception of the early legal system which gave rise to the common law
that was useful in deriving the American criminal law.

Primarily there exist the following theories to contribute to the awarding of punishment
to preserve an orderly society and those are provided hereunder:

5.1. RETRIBUTIVE

The sole purpose behind punishing a person is to recompense from him the wrong he has
committed or in other words because he deserves to be admonished. Retribution is revenge for an
injury.

Hewgal says: “Punishment is only the manifestation of crime, the second half of
which is necessarily presupposed in the first, retribution is the turning back of crime
against itself. Philosophers from Socrates to Hobbes have questioned whether the
infliction of evil upon anyone can ever be is itself good.”

5.2. REFORMATIVE

This theory contemplates to bring about a reformation in the accused either while serving
the punishment or by the punishment itself.

Salmond observes that “The purely reformative theory admits only such forms of
punishment as being subservient to the education and discipline of the criminal, and
rejects all those which are profitable only as a deterrent or disabling. Death is in this
view no fitting penalty; we must cure our criminals, not kill them.”

5.3. UTILITARIAN
This theory envisages that awarding punishment would be helpful in discouraging or
deterring any prospective offence. This theory conceptualizes a harmonious society where the
legal system is installed to administer punishment to ensure that any such offence can be
prevented. It contemplates a society which awards punishment that is commensurate to the

9
offender’s criminal actions and no more than that.

5.4 PREVENTIVE

Restraining the criminals from continuing or pursuing their criminal activities is necessary and
that is why the need for physical restraint becomes very important. It seeks to prevent the
offenders to commit a repetitive offence by imposing graver punishments.

5.5. EXPIATION

The convicted person is made to atone for the crime he has committed by inflicting suffering.

5.6. DENUNCIATION

Societal condemnation acts as a deterrent for every delinquent. According to Lord

Denning, “the ultimate justification of any punishment is not that it is a deterrent but there is the
emphatic denunciation by the community of a crime. The truth is that some crimes are so
outrageous that society consists of adequate punishment because the wrong-doers deserve it.”

6. DEVELOPMENT OF PUNISHMENT BEFORE AND AFTER PRISONS WERE

BUILT

The construction of a prison for the confinement of an accused was an important step
since prior to that the majority of the criminals were either levied with fines, public humiliation,
execution or banished to another community. Therefore the idea of prison was envisaged as an
institution which could transform the offenders by the help of isolation, discipline and hard
labour. Primarily this new reform was viewed as a humane alternative to t he infliction of
brutality and pain to ensure compliance with the law.

After the development of prisons became prevalent, the ancient period of India saw
various kinds of punishment being awarded to the offenders. Out of all the punishments being
awarded to the offenders. Out of all the punishments the death sentence was imposed on
offenders who committed the most brutal crimes.

10
 It was only during the British era when the punishment of transportation arose.
Nevertheless, during the time of Kautilya, the author of Arthasastra, different types of
punishments were developed by him to be imposed in accordance with religion, caste and status
in society.

7. CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

It is the punishment wherein the accused is executed to death after he has been found to
be guilty of a criminal offence in accordance with the appropriate legal process. The imposition
of the death penalty is a debatable topic and is agitated in a lot of nations currently. However,
U.K has retained it in its legal system to redress the following cases:

 High treason2
 Murder during or of – shooting or causing explosion, a public servant on duty, theft,
while resisting lawful arrest, a party to murder.
 Setting ablaze her majesty’s stores, ships, etc3
 Committing piracy with violence4

In contemporary India, death sentences are only reserved for the rarest of rare case.
However, there is no guideline or structure to define these “rarest of rare” cases. Further, the
35th Law Commission report said, 

“having regard, however, to the conditions in India, to the variety of the social upbringing of
its inhabitants, to the disparity in the level of morality and education in the country, to the
vastness of its area, to the diversity of its population, and to the paramount need for maintaining
law and order in the country at the present juncture, India cannot risk the experiment of
abolition of capital punishment5

7.1. IMPRISONMENT
2
Treason Act, 1814, S.1 and S.2
3
Dockyards Protection Act, 1772
4
Piracy Act, 1837, Sec.2
5
Law Commission, The Death Penalty, (Law Com No 35, 2015)
https://www.legalbites.in/history-of-punishment/

11
 This is a punishment wherein the accused is confined in a penitentiary. Hawk said that,
“It seems clear that any place, whatsoever, wherein a person under a lawful arrest for a supposed
crime is restrained of his liberty, whether stocks at the street, or in the common goal, or in the
house of a constable or private person, or the prison of the ordinary is properly a prison within
the statute; for imprisonment is nothing else but a restraint of liberty.”6

Imprisonment was barely known during the primitive age and became a major part of the
legal system only in the 19th century and 20th century. The framers of the India Penal Code even
envisaged two kinds of imprisonment i.e.-

 Rigorous
 Simple
Lord Cornwallis had envisioned the removal of mutilation as a punishment which was
finally abolished by the Govt in the year 1791. Thereafter, convicts who were sentenced to lose
two limbs were sentenced for 14 years in prison and concurrently those who had to lose one were
sentenced for 7 years in prison.

7.2. MUTILATION

It was only after the invasion by the British in India that ‘mutilation’ as a punishment was
introduced in the Indian legal system. However, if we see the setbacks of this punishment in an
effort to serve justice it diminishes the utility of the accused for the State. Furthermore, this
punishment does not provide the accused with an opportunity to reform themselves and therefore
could cost a person’s entire life if wrongfully convicted. This was the major reason why the
English rulers themselves abolished this punishment.

7.3. BANISHMENT

Exile or banishment were the prevalent forms of punishments sanctioned during the
ancient and medieval India to administer justice and law. It also found a place in the Indian Penal
Code before being removed and was primarily imposed for the commission of following kinds of
crimes:
6
Hawk, P.C. 18, S. 4

12
7.4. WAGING WAR AGAINST THE RULER

 Sedition
 Unauthorised residence in British India

Another similar punishment was transportation for life which meant transportation beyond
seas. Commonly the prisoners in India were sent to the islands of Andaman. But, the English
legal system removed ‘transportation’ as punishment long back in 1854 and in India, it was
abolished in 1955.

7.5. LEVYING OF PENALTY

The imposition of fine or penalty has been prevalent since the inception of the tribal
system in the civilisation. In the case of Ashok Kumar vs. State,7 the Apex court had opined
that

“payment of fine brings home the sense of responsibility in a surer fashion than even short terms
of imprisonment in some case.” The Indian Penal Code and several other Indian statutes have
affixed levying of fine as an alternative as well to the main punishment.
The Law Commission has nonetheless provided a caveat to the judges to impose a proportionate
penalty since it affects the dependants of the accused along with him. Therefore the Apex court
in the current times has to take cognisance of the pecuniary status of the offender with respect to
the brutality and character of the offence c ommitted by him. Additionally, it must be noted that
forfeiture of money is allied to sentencing a person by fining him. 8

7.6. FORFEITURE OF PROPERTY

Forfeiture of the property has been provided by the Indian Penal Code and it was even
prevalent in ancient India. However, the Indian Penal Code (Amendment) Act, 1921 repealed
Section 61 and 62 which imposed the punishment awarding for forfeiture of property. Yet, there

7
[1980] 2 SCC 20.
8
Supra note.7

13
exist certain provisions in the current IPC which provide for forfeiture of property as a
punishment:

 Section 126 – Committing depredation on territories of Power at peace with the Govt of
India
 Section 127 – Receiving property taken by war or depredation mentioned in Sec.125 and
126 of I.P.C.
 Section 169 – Public servant unlawfully buying or bidding for a property

Post-independence, the Constitution of India with its Fundamental Rights and Directive
Principles of State Policy provided a new direction to law reforms and alongside geared to the
needs of democratic legal order in a plural society. The major kinds of punishments that can be
awarded by the Indian Penal Code are:

 Rigorous imprisonment
 Simple imprisonment
 Death penalty
 Fine
 Forfeiture of property

8. TYPES OF PUNISHMENTS IN THE CURRENT TIMES

8.1. DEATH SENTENCE

  The death sentence is a punishment which is sanctioned by the government and ordered
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a by the court where a person is put to death for a crime acted by him. It is also referred to as
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a ‘Capital Punishment’. The act of carrying out such practice is called execution. As per the
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a Amnesty International survey, the report on as of July 2018 is 56 countries retain capital
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a punishment and 106 countries have completely abolished capital punishment for all crimes. In
a a a a a a a a a a a a

a India, the death penalty is given by the method of hanging. The other ways through which death
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a sentences executed at world scenarios are stoning, sawing, blowing from a gun, lethal injection,
a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a electrocution, etc. a

14
 The subject of death sentence always has been a matter of controversy. While considering
the Constitution as the supreme, the validity of death sentence v/s fundamental rights constantly
came forward for the debates. However, the death sentences are rarely given in the Indian
criminal courts. In the case of Bachan Singh vs State Of Punjab,9 the Supreme Court held that
capital punishment shall be given in the “rarest of the rare” case. However, what constitutes the
“rarest of the rare cases” is not prescribed by the Supreme Court or by the legislature.

In the case of Jagmohan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh,10 the SC ruled that the approach towards
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a imposing capital punishment shall be balanced on mitigating and aggravating factors of the
a a a a a a a a a a a a

a crime. However, in the case of Bachan Singh, for the first time, this approach was called into
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a question due to the amendments in the Cr.P.C. As per the amendment in the Cr.P.C. in the
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a offence of murder the offender shall be punished with the sentence of life imprisonment. After
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a taking due consideration of the amendment, the Court stated that capital punishment shall be
a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a given in special cases only. However, in the case of Sangeet & Anr. v. State of Haryana,11 the
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a court noted that the approach laid down in Bachan Singh’s case is not fully adopted. The courts
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a still give primacy to the crime and not to the circumstances of the criminal. The balance of the
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a mitigating and aggravating factors have taken a bit of a back seat in ordering punishment.
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

8.1.1. THE PROVISIONS UNDER WHICH THE DEATH PENALTY IS GIVEN AS

PUNISHMENT UNDER IPC ARE AS FOLLOWS:

 Section 115– Abetment for an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for
life (if offence not committed);
 Section 118– Concealing design to commit an offence punishable with death or
imprisonment for life.
 Section 121– When armed rebellion (i.e. waging, abetting to waging of war or
attempting to wage war) is made against the constitutionally and legally
established government;
 Section 132– Uprising, supporting and encouraging the formation of the mutinous
group of people in the nations armed forces;
9
AIR 1980 SC 898.
10
AIR 1973 SC 947.
a a a a

11
(2013) 2 SCC 452.
a a a a

15
  Section 194- With the intent to obtain a death sentence to an innocent by
presenting concocted vexatious proof;
 Section 302– Causing murder of another;
 Section 305– Abetting suicide to an insane or minor person;
 Section 303– When a life convict person murders another person;
 Section 396– Causing dacoity with murder;
 Section 364A– Kidnapping;
 Section 376A (as per the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013)- Rape

8.1.2. SOME OTHER ACTS UNDER WHICH THE DEATH PENALTY COVERED AS
PUNISHMENT ARE: 

1. Section 4, part II of the Prevention of Sati Act- Abetting or aiding an act of sati.
2. Section 31A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act- Drug trafficking
in cases of repeat offences.

However, the death penalty as a punishment is an exception to certain persons like intellectually
disabled, pregnant women and minors.

8.1.3. PROCEDURE WHEN DEATH PENALTY IS IMPOSED 

The death sentence is executed by two modes in India:

1. Hanging by the neck till death (this is mostly ordered by the Courts);
2. Being shot to death.
3. The various states of India have jail manuals that provide a method for the execution of
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a death sentences. In accordance with Section 354(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure
a a a a a a a a a a a a

a Act, 1950 hanging by neck till death is the mode of the execution. After the death
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a sentence is awarded by the court, the accused have the right to appeal the order. After
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a exhausting all remedies and confirmation of the order, the execution is made as per
a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a procedure under Section 354(5) of Cr.P.C. The process of execution is provided

a a a a a a a a a a a

a separately under the Air Force Act, 1950, the Army Act, 1950 and the Navy Act, 1957.
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

16
 a However, the procedure under the above-mentioned defence acts is applicable to defence
a a a a a a a a a a a

a officers only. a

The Prison manual of different states of India gives detailed instructions about the
execution particulars. Some are as follows:

1. The prisoner who is convicted for death sentence shall be given a proper diet,
examined twice a day. The officers shall satisfy that the prisoner has no article by
which he can attempt for suicide.
2. The description of the rope and testing of rope.
3. Regulation of the drop while executing the hanging.
4. Time of executions.

8.1.4. CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF DEATH PENALTY

The issue of the death penalty is not a recent issue. It has been discussed, studied and
debated for a prolonged time. However, till today no conclusion is drawn about the abolition or
retention of the provision. The death penalty has been the mode of punishment from the British
era. Various countries have abolished this practice. However, in Arab countries the principle of
retributive punishment i.e. “an eye for an eye” is practised. In the list of retention countries as
mentioned above, India is one of them which have retained to give death penalty unless some
‘special reasons’ or ‘rarest of rare case’ condition arise. 

Under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the right to life and liberty is guaranteed, including
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a the right to live with human dignity. There are certain exceptions that are recognized by the law
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a wherein in the name of law and public order the state can restrict the rights. In Maneka Gandhi v.
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a Union of India,12 the SC laid down the principle of “due process” through which a state can
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a restrict the citizens from enjoying their rights. In the case of the death penalty the due process can
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a be as follows:
a a

 Death penalty to be given in ‘rarest of the rare’ cases;

12
a 1978 AIR 597.a a

17
  The accused shall be given the ‘right to heard’;
 As per Article 136, the death penalty shall be confirmed by the High Court;
 Under Section 379 of the Cr.P.C., the accused have the right to appeal in the Supreme
Court;
 Under Section 433 and 434 Cr.P.C., the accused may pray for commutation,
forgiveness, etc. of the sentence.

In various cases, the constitutional validity of the death penalty was challenged. In the
case of Jagmohan Singh v. State of U.P,13 the argument was that the death penalty is in violation
of Article 14 (Right to Equality), Article 19 (Right to Freedom) and “right to life” i.e. Article 21,
which has been unanimously rejected by the five-judge bench of the Supreme Court. Further, it
was contended that as per Cr.P.C. the procedure is confined to findings of guilt and not awarding
death sentence. However, the Supreme Court held that the death sentence is a choice by the court
made according to the procedure established by law and the choice between capital sentence or
imprisonment of life is based on the circumstances, nature and facts of the case brought during
the trial.

In the case of Rajendra Prasad v. State of U.P,14 Justice Krishna Iyer had empathetically
stressed that the death penalty is violative of articles 14, 19 and 21. With this the Justice Iyer said
two conditions under which the death penalty can be given:

 While giving the death penalty the court shall record special reasons.
 Only in extraordinary cases the death penalty to be imposed.

However, in the case of Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab,15 within one year the five-judge bench
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a (4:1- Bhagwati J. dissenting) overruled the decision of Rajendra Prasad’s case. The judgment
a a a a a a a a a a a a

a expressed that the death penalty is not violative of Article 14,19 and 21 of the Constitution of
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a India and pronounced that in the “rare of the rarest case” i.e. those cases in which the collective
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a conscience of the community is so shocked that it will expect the judiciary to deliver the death
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

13
Supra Note. 10.
14
(1973) 1 SCC 20.
15
Supra Note. 9.
a a a a

18
a penalty on the accused the death penalty can be ordered. Although, Justice Bhagwati in his
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a dissenting judgment stated that the death penalty is not only being violative to Article 14 and 21
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a but also undesirable because of several other reasons.

a a a a a a a

Further, in the case of Machhi Singh vs. State of Punjab,16 the Supreme Court laid down the
broad outlines of the circumstances under which the death sentence can be imposed. The court
pointed out that under five categories of cases the extreme penalty can be given. Those points are
as follows:

1. Manner of commission of murder;

2. Motive;
3. The magnitude of the crime;
4. Anti-social abhorrent nature of the crime;
5. The personality of the victim of murder.

Similarly, in the case of Sher Singh v. State of Punjab17 and Triveniben vs. State of

Gujarat,18 the Apex court asserted affirmatively that the death penalty does not invalidate the
rights enriched under the Constitution of India.

In the case of Mithu v. State of Punjab,19 the Supreme Court held that the mandatory death
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a penalty is invalid and unconstitutional in nature. However, no comments were made on the
a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a consequent legislation for drug and criminal offences wherein the death penalty is considered
a a a a a a a a a a a a

a mandatory. But at the same time, Indian courts actually applied the mandatory death penalty for
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a these crimes.
a a

However, recently in the case of Channu Lal Verma v. State of Chattisgarh,20 the question
of the constitutional validity of the death penalty came to the three-judge bench. The Bench
Constituted of Justice Kurian Joseph, Justice Deepak Gupta, and Justice Hemant Gupta. The

16
(1983) 3 SCC 470.
17
 AIR 1960 SC 866.
18
 1990 CriLJ 273.
19
AIR 1983 SC 473.
a a a a

20
2018 SCC 2570.

19
bench upheld the decision of the Bachan Singh case. However, Justice Kurian Joseph had a
different view, he said that “there is no substantial proof for the death penalty as a deterrent to
crime”.

8.1.5. EVOLVING PARAMETERS FOR IMPOSITION OF DEATH SENTENCE

The basic evolving parameters for the imposition of Death Sentence are: 

1. The punishment shall not be so severe, so as to degrade the dignity of humans;

2. The state shall not arbitrarily inflict a severe punishment;
3. In a contemporary society such severe punishment shall not be unacceptable;
4. Such severe punishment must not be unnecessary.

However, there are other two questions which can be pondered by the Court while imposing the
death penalty as punishment:

1. There is something uncommon in the crime which calls for the imposition of the death
penalty and renders the sentence of imprisonment for life as inadequate.
2. Even after giving maximum weightage to the mitigating factors which are in favour of
the offender there is no other alternative other than imposing the death sentence.

8.1.6. CASE LAWS ON DEATH SENTENCE (WHEN THE DEATH SENTENCE IS

CONFIRMED)

STATE OF TAMIL NADU V NALINI21

In the case of State of Tamil Nadu v Nalini, the case was filed as an appeal against the
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a judgment of the High Court of Tamil Nadu. This case is popularly known as Rajiv Gandhi’s
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a assassination case. The offenders were accused under Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian
a a a a a a a a a a a

a Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933, The Foreigners Act, 1946, Passports Act, 1967, Arms Act, 1959,
a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a Explosive Substances Act, 1908, Indian Penal Code, 1908 (IPC), TADA Rules, The Terrorist
a a a a a a a a a a a a

a And Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987. In the case, there were 26 accused out of
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

21
1999.

20
a which four accused were punished death penalty by the Apex Court. The accused were from the
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

LTTE (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam) group and were seeking revenge for the Indian
government’s decision for sending army troops in Srilanka. However, as per recent update Nalini
Sriharan, V Sriharan, and Murghan have applied plea for mercy killing as there is no response to
their mercy petition till date.

JAI KUMAR V STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH22

In Jai Kumar v State of Madhya Pradesh case, an appeal by the grant of special leave against
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a the order of the Division bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh was made. In this case, the
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a accused brutally murdered sister-in-law and 7-year-old niece. The Court considered the factual
a a a a a a

matrix of the case and observed that the act of murder was not done in the rage and the accused
himself under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C admitted the murder. Thereby, the Supreme Court
upheld the verdict of the Sessions Court and the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.

SURESH CHANDRA BAHRI V STATE OF BIHAR23

The case of Suresh Chandra Bahri v State of Bihar was filed as an appeal from the High
Court of Patna. The Sessions Court convicted the three appellants named Suresh Bahri,
Gurbachan Singh and Raj Pal Sharma for the death penalty under Section 302 and Section 120
B of the IPC. The High Court of Patna dismissed the appeal affirming the sentence awarded by
a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a the trial court. In this case, the accused killed Urshia Bahri and her two children because of some
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a dispute in the property. The Supreme Court confirmed the death penalty of Suresh Bahri,
a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a whereas the death penalty of the Gurbachan Singh and Raj Pal Sharma was commuted to a life
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a sentence.

DHANANJOY CHATTERJEE ALIAS DHANA V STATE OF WEST BENGAL24 

In the 21st century, the case of Dhananjoy Chatterjee alias Dhana v State of West Bengal can
be called as a historic case as the accused was the first person who was lawfully executed for a

22
1999.
23
1986 CriLJ 1394.
24
(1994) 2 SCC 220.
21
crime not related to terrorism. The accused was working as a watchman in the building of the a a a a a a a a a a a a

a deceased. He had raped and murdered an 18-year-old girl at her own home. The trial court
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a ordered the death penalty under Section 302 of the IPC. The same has been confirmed by the
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a High Court of West Bengal. While the appeal in the Supreme Court, the court held that case will
a a a a

be considered under “the rarest of the rare” case, thereby there will be no commutation of the
punishment.

SUSHIL MURMU V STATE OF JHARKHAND25

In the case of Sushil Murmu v State of Jharkhand, the accused was punished with the death
penalty for the sacrifice before Goddess Kali of a 9-year-old child. The accused made the
sacrifice for his own prosperity. The trial court held the accused liable under Section 302 and 201 a a a a a a a a a a a a

a of the IPC, 1860 and the Jharkhand High Court confirmed the death penalty. The Appeal was
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a made to the Supreme Court, however, the Apex court upheld the order of the lower court and
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a affirmed that this is an exemplary case which can be treated as the rarest of rare case, therefore
a a a a a a a

there is no exception to be given to this case.

HOLIRAM BARDOKTI V STATE OF ASSAM26

In the case of Holiram Bardokti v State of Assam, there were 17 accused. The appellant is one of
the accused who has been awarded the death penalty under Section 302 read with Section 149 of
the IPC by the Sessions Judge. The same has been confirmed by the High Court of Assam. The a a a a a a a a a a a a

a accused was being held for two murders i.e. of Narayan Bordoloi, Padam Bordoloi and
a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a Nayanmoni (6-year-old child). The Supreme Court observed that the appellant had no spark of
a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a kindness or compassion while burning the bodies and cutting the body into pieces, the whole
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a accident shocked the collective conscience of the community. Therefore, the Apex Court upheld
a a a a a a a

the order of the lower courts and observed that the court is not able to find any mitigating factors
to refrain from the death penalty.

25
 2003 (2) BLJR 1406.
26
Appeal (crl.) 1063 of 2004.

22
8.1.7. CASES LAWS ON DEATH SENTENCE (WHEN DEATH SENTENCE HAS BEEN
COMMUTED TO LIFE IMPRISONMENT)

OM PRAKASH V STATE OF HARYANA27

In the case of Om Prakash v State of Haryana, the accused named Om Prakash was guilty of
seven murders, thereby the Sessions court held him guilty under Section 302 of IPC, which was
upheld by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. There were two other accused but they were a a a a a a a a

a given life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2000. During the appeal to the Apex Court, the court
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a observed that mitigating factors of the case and considering other circumstances of the case, this
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a can not be counted under the rarest of rare cases. The court considering the background of the
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a case found that the murder was acted due to constant harassment of the family members
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a (deceased ones). a a

Further, the court observed that this is not the case which was committed to fulfil the lust for
women or wealth, neither it is for money, the act does not include any anti-social element like
kidnapping or trafficking, the act does not include any dealing in dangerous drugs, nor any act
committed for political or power ambitions. And further, the accused was working in BSF at the
age of 23 with no criminal antecedents. Thereby, the Apex Court converted the death penalty to a a a a a a a a a

a the sentence of imprisonment for life.

a a a a a

RAJENDRA RAI V. STATE OF BIHAR28

In the case of Rajendra Rai v. State of Bihar, the accused were held guilty of the murder of
Krishnandan (deceased 1) and Sir Bahadur (the son of deceased 1), as the accused and deceased
had a dispute over the land situated between their houses. The Trial court-ordered death penalty a a a a a

a and the High Court confirmed the order. However, the Apex Court was of the view that the case
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a cannot be regarded under the rarest of rare cases. Thereby the death penalty was reduced to life
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a imprisonment.

27
AIR 1999 SC 1332.
28
(2011) 1 PLJR 1129.

23
 KISHORI V STATE OF DELHI29

In the case of Kishori v State of Delhi, the accused was in relation to the mob attack which
occurred against the Sikh community immediately after the assassination of Mrs. Indira Gandhi,
the then Prime Minister which broke out in several places including Delhi. The appellant was
held to be a part of the mob. The Sessions court was of the view that the accused deserves a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a death sentence, as he has been convicted for several murders and he killed innumerable Sikhs in
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a a brutal manner. The High Court of Delhi confirmed the order. However, the Apex Court had a
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a different opinion. The Court said that the acts conducted during the chain of events shall be
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a considered as one. Further, the act of the accused was not a personal action, was just a part of the
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a group activity which can not be called as a systematic or organized activity. Therefore, the Apex
a a a a a a a a a a a a

court felt that the act of the accused as a result of the temporary frenzy act, so the court reduced
the death penalty to life imprisonment.

STATE V PALTAN MALLAH & ORS30 

In the case of State Of M.P Through C.B.I., Etc vs Paltan Mallah, the deceased Shankar
Guha Yogi, who was a popular and powerful trade union leader was killed. As he had been
working for the welfare of the labour, the industrial unit at Bhillai and Durg wanted him to be
out of their way. The deceased was the leader of the labourer organization named a a a a a a a a a a

a “CHATTISGARH MUKTI MORCHA” (‘CMM’). The workers at Bhillai asked for help in the
a a a a a a a a a a a a

a protest. To help those labourers SG Yogi shifted to Bhilla with his servant Bhahal Ram. There
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a was a widespread movement, due to this, the leaders of the CMM were attacked by the
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a industrialists. The deceased apprehended that there is a serious threat to his life. On the midnight
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a of 27.09.1991, Bahul Ram heard a noise from the neighbouring room where the deceased was
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a sleeping. The servant found Niyogi lying on the bed in pain because of gunshot injuries.
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a However, the Supreme Court reviewed the matter and reversed the order of acquittal by the
lower court. As there was a long lapse of time from the lower court’s decision of acquittal to
appeal, the court sentenced him to undergo imprisonment of life.

29
[1999] 1 SCC 148.
30
2005(3) SCC 169.

24
SAMBHAL SINGH V STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH31

In the case of Sambhal Singh v. State of UP, wherein the four accused (Sambhal Singh, Jag
Mohan Singh, Krishna Mohan Singh, and Hari Mohan Singh) murdered the three children of the
Munshi Mall (deceased- the brother of the Sambhal Singh) because of a family land dispute. The a

a Sessions court found them guilty and the High Court confirmed the sentence. However, the Apex
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a Court observed that the age of the four accused was not considered by the lower court. Sambhal
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a Singh was old and the other three were young, therefore, the court reduced the punishment of
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a death penalty to life imprisonment.

a a a a a

SWAMY SHRADDANANDA @ MURALI MANOHAR MISHRA V STATE OF

KARNATAKA32 

In the case Swamy Shraddananda @ Murali Manohar Mishra v State of Karnataka, the

accused was the second husband of the deceased Shakereh. The deceased came from a highly
reputed and wealthy family. The accused murdered the deceased after a well-designed plan and a a a a a a a a a a

a executed it accordingly for attaining property which was on her name. The Session Court ordered
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a the death penalty and the same was confirmed by the High Court of Karnataka. However, the
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a Supreme Court converted the death penalty to life imprisonment. This is an important case from
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a the point of view of sentencing and remitting the sentence.The Apex Court clearly differentiated
a a a a a a a a a

the sentence of imprisonment for life from ordinary life imprisonment and held that the
remission is not applicable to the cases where the imprisonment of life is given as a substitute to
the death penalty, it means the accused will be in imprisonment till his last breath. 

31
2004 CriLJ 1533.
32
(2008) 13 SCC 767.

25
 9. CONCLUSION

The foregoing account of development of the penal system in Indian context reaffirms the
difficulty of defining ‘punishment’ as an objective concept. It is simply because throughout
Indian penal history, we have witnessed the alteration in the nature, characteristics, and even
substitution of the punishment. Moreover, the purpose of granting punishment which we
presently distinguish mostly in terms of rehabilitative, retributive, utilitarian, reformative, etc.
were also being used, however inconsistently. Nevertheless, the concept of ‘prison’ gained
significant popularity with the advent of colonisation by the European powers throughout the
world. But this did not dismiss the alternative to punishment in the form of penalty, capital
punishment or forfeiture of property.

26
 10. BIBLIOGRAPHY

10.1. BOOKS AND STATUTES

1. Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. Cesare Beccaria ,On crimes and punishment
3. Treason Act, 1814, S.1 and S.2
4. Dockyards Protection Act, 1772
5. Piracy Act, 1837, Sec.2
6. Hugo, Adam Bedau (February 19, 2010). "Theory of Punishment". Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

10.2. ARTICLES

1. Law Commission, The Death Penalty, (Law Com No 35, 2015)

2. https://www.legalbites.in/history-of-punishment/
3. https://www.loc.gov/law/help/sentencing-guidelines/india.php
4. https://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/MC1/MC1-Part1Section2.pdf
5. https://indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/2263?locale=en
6. https://www.iitk.ac.in/wc/data/IPC_186045.pdf
7. https://madhavuniversity.edu.in/constitutional-validity-of-capital-punishment.html

10.3. ONLINE DATABASES

1. www.manupatra.com
2. www.scconline.com
3. www.heinonline.org
4. www.westlawindia.com
5. www.lexisnexis.com

27