CONCLUSION, SUGGESTIONS AND CRITICISMS

From the above study one can easily comprehend that human society is the nexus of
cooperative endeavor secured through means of coercion, whereby the recognized authority
is compelled to punish the individual who does not adheres to the rules and regulation
prescribed for the greater good. It is equally important to practice the punishment for
maintaining the social cohesion and that can be done only through law and order. Justice
can be administered only by imposing what is proper punishment for the crime so
committed. However one must also realize the fact that social sanction is an efficient
instrument only if it is associated with irresistible force of the community. And punishment
is nothing but a means of social control. It is the restorative justice which seeks to heal &
right the wrongs, focusing on the needs of the harmed & those responsible for the harm. It
encourages accountability, healing & closure for all.
Sentences must be framed in a manner which meets the individual offender, and typically
include aspects of rehabilitation such as community service, compulsory therapy or
counseling. This theory favors the humanitarian sentiments of the age. The one aspect is that
the punishment is imposed for the welfare of the criminal himself. As per the retributive
theory the transformation of the criminal minds can be done in a manner that the inmates of
the peno-correctional institutions can lead the life of a normal citizen.
The main aim is to rehabilitate and confirm to the norms of the society; into the law-abiding
member. This theory condemns all kinds of corporal punishments. It looks at the seclusion
of the criminals from society as an attempt to reform them and to prevent the person from
social ostracism. However one may advocate that this theory may not work with the
effectiveness. And apart from all given kinds of punishment in IPC crime still exists in
Indian Society. People dare to commit crime. The Law Commission of India in number of
times emphasized the need to enhance the punishment to different offences in the Code. The
important recommendations of the ILC are mentioned below. This is desirable, in view of
the greater importance of the offence under Section 304A as assumed since the section was
inserted due to the wide use of fast moving mechanically propelled vehicles and the
frequency in the commission of the offence, accompanied by callousness of the offender
towards the victim; often there are cases tried under this section which are very near to
culpable homicide and deserve a severe sentence. In the views expressed by various kinds of
people, organization and institution as to the quantum of punishment under the Code, there
has been a strong demand for increase in the punishment under this section. The suggestions
vary from three years to seven years. There is also a suggestion to increase the period to
seven years if more than one death has been caused. After taking into account of the
proposal of Law Commission to fix the maximum punishment for culpable homicide not
amounting to murder at ten years, these Commission recommend that the maximum
punishment for causing death by negligence may be half that period, namely five years."In
any society act of deviance will always exist. We cannot put it in a water tight container that
all this kind of punishment will be suffient to curb all kind of crimes. Hence we safely
conclude that the kinds of punishment which is given under IPC are not sufficient to curb all
kinds of Crime.   India neither the legislature nor the judiciary has issued structured
sentencing guidelines.  Several governmental committees have pointed to the need to adopt
such guidelines in order to minimize uncertainty in awarding sentences.  The higher courts,
recognizing the absence of such guidelines, have provided judicial guidance in the form of
principles and factors that courts must take into account while exercising discretion
in sentencing The Indian Penal Code prescribed offences and punishments for the same.  For
many offences only the maximum punishment is prescribed and for some offences the
minimum may be prescribed.  The Judge has wide discretion in awarding the sentence
within the statutory limits.  There is now no guidance to the Judge in regard to selecting the
most appropriate sentence given the circumstances of the case.  Therefore each Judge
exercises discretion accordingly to his own judgment.  There is therefore no uniformity.
Some Judges are lenient and some Judges are harsh. In 2008, the Supreme Court of India,
in State of Punjab v. PremSagar&Ors., also noted the absence of judiciary-driven guidelines
in India’s criminal justice system, stating, “in our judicial system, we have not been able to
develop legal principles as regards sentencing.  The superior courts except for making
observations with regard to the purport and object for which punishment is imposed upon an
offender, had not issued any guidelines.1”  The Court stated that the superior courts have
come across a large number of cases that “show anomalies as regards the policy of
sentencing,”adding, “whereas the quantum of punishment for commission of a similar type
of offence varies from minimum to maximum, even where the same sentence is imposed, the
principles applied are found to be different.  Similar discrepancies have been noticed in
regard to imposition of fines.  In 2013 the Supreme Court, in the case of Soman v. State of
Kerala, also observed the absence of structured guidelines:

1
State of Punjab v. PremSagar&Ors., (2008) 7 S.C.C. 550, para. 2(Accessed on 5th September 2019;5:15pm)
Giving punishment to the wrongdoer is at the heart of the criminal justice delivery, but in
our country, it is the weakest part of the administration of criminal justice.  There are no
legislative or judicially laid down guidelines to assist the trial court in meting out the just
punishment to the accused facing trial before it after he is held guilty of the charges.
However, in describing India’s sentencing approach the Court has also asserted that “the
impossibility of laying down standards is at the very core of the Criminal law as
administered in India, which invests the Judges with a very wide discretion in the matter of
fixing the degree of punishment.”2
Sentencing procedure is established under the Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides
broad discretionary sentencing powers to judges.  In a 2007 paper on the need for sentencing
policy in India, author R. Niruphama asserted that, in the absence of an adequate sentencing
policy or guidelines, it comes down to the judges to decide which factors to take into
account and which to ignore.  Moreover, he considered that broad discretion opens the
sentencing process to abuse and allows personal prejudices of the judges to influence
decisions. 3In the Supreme Court’s judgment in Soman v. Kerala, the Court cited a number
of principles that it has taken into account “while exercising discretion in sentencing,” such
as proportionality, deterrence, and rehabilitation.4 As part of the proportionality analysis,
mitigating and aggravating factors should also be considered, the Court noted.
In State of M.P. v. BabluNatt, the Supreme Court stated that “the principle governing
imposition of punishment would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.  An
offence which affects the morale of the society should be severely dealt with. 5”  Moreover,
in Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra, the Court held that
sentencing is an important task in the matters of crime.  One of the prime objectives of the
criminal law is imposition of an appropriate, adequate, just and proportionate sentence
commensurate with the nature and gravity of the crime and the manner in which the crime is
done.  There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused on proof of crime.  The
courts have evolved certain principles: the twin objective of the sentencing policy is
deterrence and correction.  What sentence would meet the ends of justice depends on the
facts and circumstances of each case and the court must keep in mind the gravity of the

2
Jagmohan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1973) 2 S.C.R. 541, para. 26(Accessed on 5th September
2019;6:45pm)
3
http://www.mcrg.ac.in/Spheres/Niruphama.doc. (Accessed on 5th September 2019;7:18pm)
4
Soman v. State of Kerala, (2013) 11 S.C.C.(Accessed on 5th September 2019;7:46pm)
5
State of M.P. v. BabluNatt, (2009) 2 S.C.C. 272, para. 13 (Accessed on 10 th September 2019;10:45pm)
crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all other attendant
circumstances.6From the above discussion we can negate our first assumption that under IPC
maximum punishment is given but not the least. Its totally depend upon discretion of judge.

The article in its conclusion suggests the following:

1. There is an urgent need of updating (or provide updated figures of fine after a fixed
interval) with respect to IPC as it is still suffering from the colonial hangover and outdated
amounts of fine.

2. Certain sentencing guidelines with respect to the application of fines should be drafted
where criteria such as calculable loss, restoration amount, wealth of the offender, and
administrative costs can be made the criteria for ascertaining the amount of fine (Malley,
2009).

3. The provisions where fine is provided as an alternative to imprisonment should be

amended at the earliest so that there is no gross violation of the principles of criminal justice
where imprisonment becomes essential. Even if this may be justified for petty offenses, then
the amendment should take place for grave crimes such as culpable homicide and death by
negligence.  

 The implementation of the sections of criminal law to specific new types of crimes
emerging from the technological advances and compatible social changes give rise to new
procedures for the adjudication of offences of criminally oriented accused persons. This
situation has raised the question of reforming the system of punishment. 
  Though punishment is a kind of power against a section of people exercised by multiple
institutions apart from the courts viz. Prisons, probation officers, governor’s office ( in
respect of remission) , The President of India’s office ( in respect of mercy petition) the
specific area envisaged in this proposal is the work belonging to the courts of law. The need
for reform of the law has arisen owing to new kinds of crimes about which the existing
6
Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 2 S.C.C. 648, para. 69(Accessed on 5th September
2019;11:48pm)
system of punishment is found to be inadequate and the rising trend of criminality about
which the existing system of prevention is found to be ineffective.
  There is demand for introducing various new punishments for certain crimes with a view to
improve the system of criminal justice and make the criminal law strong enough to deal with
the criminality. This is where the need arises of making a thorough study keeping in view
what was the system of punishment previously and what it is at present.  
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books:

1. Barnes and Teeters: New Horizons in Criminology (3rd Ed.)

2. SMAQadri: Criminology and Penology; Eastern Book Company (6th Ed.)
3. Prof NV Paranjape: Criminology, Penology and Victimology; Central Law
Publications (6th Ed.)
4.K.I.Vibhute, PSA Pillai’s Criminal Law, 11th Edition, Lexis
NexisButterworthsWadhwa
5.Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code,35th Edition, Lexis Nexis.
6. K.D.Guar, Indian Penal Code, Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd.

Refrences:
1. https://www.lawnotes.in/Kinds_of_Punishments
2. https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199673599.001.000
1/oxfordhb-9780199673599-e-41

3. https://thebusinessprofessor.com/knowledge-base/types-of-punishment-for-criminal-
activity/
4. https://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/127654/14/09_chapter%202.pdf
5. https://devgan.in/ipc/section/73/
6. http://www.shareyouressays.com/knowledge/solitary-confinement-in-india-
explained-sections-73-and-74-of-ipc/119778
7. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-19410108
8. https://www.indiatoday.in/mail-today/story/death-penalty-abolition-study-1104083-
2017-12-10