PAGE NO – 1

Name of the paper – Juris2

Date – 23/11/2020

Answer – 3
INTRODUCTION

In civilized societies, most of the relations between the individual and the state are governed
by rules made or recognised by the state, that is, law. Law lays down the rights and duties of
the individuals. In other words, it prescribes what one is to do and what one is not to do and
what one is entitled to get it done. A breach of these rules is called wrong. When a person has
committed a wrong, he is said to be liable.

Thus, liability is the condition of the person who has committed a wrong. Salmond defines
liability as, ˜the bond of necessity that exists between the wrongdoer and the remedy of the
wrong'. The task of law is not finished only by laying down rights and duties; it ensures their
protection, enforcement and redress also. Therefore, liability is a very important part of the
study of law. The kinds of liability, when one becomes liable or in other words, when liability
comes into existence and the measure of liability are the things that must be known in this
connection.

Kinds of Liability/types of liability

Liability are of different kinds:

1. Civil.

2. Criminal.

3. Penal

4. Remedial

5. Vicarious

6. Absolute and Strict

 PAGE NO – 2

1) Civil liability

Civil liability is the enforcement of the right of the plaintiff against the dependent in civil
proceedings. Civil liability gives rise to Civil Procedure whose purpose is to the enforcement
of certain rights claimed by the plaintiff against the defendant. Examples of civil proceedings
are an action for recovery of the Debt, Restoration of property, the specific performance of a
contract, recovery of damages, the issuing of an injunction against the threatened injury etc.

2) Criminal Liability

Criminal liability is the liability to be punished in a criminal proceeding. in criminal liability,

punishment is awarded to a wrongdoer. If the person is guilty of committing the offense with
criminal intension then he is liable for punishment. Criminal liability is based on the Maxim
"actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea” it means the offender is guilty only when it is done
with the guilty mind.

3) Penal liability

The theory of penal liability is concerned with the punishment of wrong. There are different
kinds of punishment, Deterrent, preventive, retributive, reformative etc. A penal liability can
arise either from a criminal or a civil wrong. There are three aspects of penal liability those are
the conditions, incidence, and measure of a liability. As regards the conditions of penal liability,
it is expressed in the maxim "actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea” This means that the Act
does not constitute guilt unless it is done with guilty intention. Two things are required to be
considered in this connection and those are the act and the mens rea requires the consideration
of imitation and negligence. The act is called the material condition of penal liability and the
mens rea is called the formal condition of penal liability.

4) Remedial Liability -

Remedial liability is based on the Maxim "Ubi jus ibi remedium” it means when there is right
there must be some remedy. The force of law can be used to compel a person to do what he
ought to do under the law of the country. if an injury is caused by the violation of a right, the
same can be remedied by compelling the person bound to comply with it.The first exception is
an imperfect obligation or duty, Second exception unenforceable duties and the third exception
is the impossibility of performance by law.
 PAGE NO – 3

5) Vicarious liability

Vicarious liability means a liability which is incurred for or instead of another.

Generally, a person becomes liable for a tort committed by him. But there are certain
circumstances in which one person becomes liable for the tort committed by another. Such
liability is called vicarious liability. There are three exceptions to the general rule that man
must be forced to do by the force of law what he is bound to do by a rule of law.

Example

Master and servant

Firm and partners

Employer and independent contractor

6) Absolute or strict liability

Both in Civil and criminal law, mens rea or guilty mind is considered necessary to hold a
person responsible/liable. However, there are some exceptions to the general rule. In those
cases, a person is held responsible irrespective of the existence of either wrongful intent or
negligence. Such cases are known as the wrongs of absolute liability/ strict liability.

STRICT LIABILITY AND ABSOLUTE LIABILITY

According to Blackburn –

The rule of law is that the person who, for his own purpose, brings on his land and collects and
keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in at his peril; and if he
does not do so is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence
of its escape.

Strict liability
 PAGE NO – 4

The principle of strict liability evolved in the case of Rylands v Fletcher. In the year 1868, the
principle of strict liability states that any person who keeps hazardous substances on his
premises will be held responsible if such substances escape the premises and causes any
damage. Going into the facts of the case, F had a mill on his land, and to power the mill, F built
a reservoir on his land. Due to some accident, the water from the reservoir flooded the coal
mines owned by R. Subsequently, R filed a suit against F. The Court held that the defendant
built the reservoir at his risk, and in course of it, if any accident happens then the defendant
will be liable for the accident and escape of the material.

Going by the principle laid in this case, it can be said that if a person brings on his land and
keeps some dangerous thing, and such a thing is likely to cause some damage if it escapes then
such person will be answerable for the damaged caused. The person from whose property such
substance escaped will be held accountable even when he hasn’t been negligent in keeping the
substance in his premises. The liability is imposed on him not because there is any negligence
on his part, but the substance kept on his premises is hazardous and dangerous. Based on this
judicial pronouncement, the concept of strict liability came into being. There are some essential
conditions which should be fulfilled to categorize a liability under the head of strict liability.

Essentials of Strict Liability

1. Dangerous Substances

The defendant will be held strictly liable only if a “dangerous” substances escapes from his
premises. For the purpose of imposing strict liability, a dangerous substance can be defined as
any substance which will cause some mischief or harm if it escapes. Things like explosives,
toxic gasses, electricity, etc. can be termed as dangerous things.

2. Escape

One more essential condition to make the defendant strictly liable is that the material should
escape from the premises and shouldn’t be within the reach of the defendant after its escape.For
instance, the defendant has some poisonous plant on his property. Leaves from the plant enter
the property of the plaintiff and is eaten by his cattle, who as a result die. The defendant will
 PAGE NO – 5

be liable for the loss. But on the other hand, if the cattle belonging to the plaintiff enter the
premises of the defendant and eats the poisonous leaves and die, the defendant would not be
liable. In the judicial pronouncement of Reads v. Lyons & Co. it was held that if there is no
escape, the defendant cannot be held liable.

3. Non-natural Use

To constitute a strict liability, there should be a non-natural use of the land. In the case
of Rylands v. Fletcher, the water collected in the reservoir was considered to be a non-natural
use of the land. Storage of water for domestic use is considered to be natural use. But storing
water for the purpose of energizing a mill was considered non-natural by the Court. When the
term “non-natural” is to be considered, it should be kept in mind that there must be some special
use which increases the danger to others. Supply of cooking gas through the pipeline, electric
wiring in a house, etc. is considered to be the natural use of land. For instance, if the defendant
lights up a fire in his fireplace and a spark escapes and causes a fire, the defendant will not be
held liable as it was a natural use of the land.

So, these three conditions should be fulfilled to constitute principal of strict liability.

Exception to the rule of strict liability

There are certain exceptions to the rule of strict liability, which are-

• Plaintiff’s Fault:

If the plaintiff is at fault and any damage is caused, the defendant wouldn’t be held liable, as
the plaintiff himself came in contact with the dangerous thing.In the judicial pronouncement
of Ponting v Noakes, the plaintiff’s horse died after it entered the property of the defendant
and ate some poisonous leaves. The Court held that it was a wrongful intrusion, and the
defendant was not to be held strictly liable for such loss.

• Act of God:
 PAGE NO – 6

The phrase “act of God” can be defined as an event which is beyond the control of any human
agency. Such acts happen exclusively due to natural reasons and cannot be prevented even
while exercising caution and foresight. The defendant wouldn’t be liable for the loss if the
dangerous substance escaped because of some unforeseen and natural event which couldn’t
have been controlled in any manner.

• Act of the Third Party:

The rule also doesn’t apply when the damage is caused due to the act of a third party. The third
party means that the person is neither the servant of the defendant, nor the defendant has any
contract with them or control over their work. But where the acts of the third party can be
foreseen, the defendant must take due care. Otherwise, he will be held responsible. For
instance, in the case of Box v Jubb where the reservoir of the defendant overflowed because a
third party emptied his drain through the defendant’s reservoir, the Court held that the
defendant wouldn’t be liable.

• Consent of the Plaintiff:

his exception follows the principle of violenti non fit injuria. For instance, if A and B are
neighbours, and they share the same water source which is situated on the land of A, and if the
water escapes and causes damage to B, he can’t claim damages, as A wouldn’t be liable for the
damage.

Absolute liability

The concept of absolute liability evolved in India after the case of M.C Mehta vs Union of
India famously known as Oleum Gas Leak case. This is one of the historic cases in the Indian
Judiciary. The case of M.C Mehta is based on the principle of strict liability but with no
exception were given and the individual is made absolutely liable for his acts. It is based under
this principle that the defendant won’t be allowed to plead defence if he/she was at fault as it
was laid down in Ryland vs Fletcher case. After the Bhopal gas leak case many people lost
their lives and are suffering from some of the fatal diseases through the generation and because
 PAGE NO – 7

of this there was an urgent need to develop a rule under strict liability which had no exceptions
available to the defendant to escape from the liability.

The rule laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of India is much wider with respect to
the rules laid down the House of Lords in the case of Ryland vs Fletcher. It was propounded
by the Supreme Court that where an enterprise is engaged in a hazardous or inherently
dangerous activity and if any harm results to anybody on account of the accident in operation,
the enterprise would be held strictly and absolutely liable to compensate to all those who are
affected by the accident.

Essential Elements of Absolute Liability

The essential elements of absolute liability are-

• Dangerous Thing– As per the rules laid down, the liability of escape of a thing from an
individual’s land will arise only when the thing which is collected is a dangerous thing
that is a thing which likely causes damage or injury to other people in person or their
property on its escape. In various torts cases which have happened all over the world, the
doctrine of strict liability has held a large body of water, gas, electricity, vibrations,
sewage, flag-pole, explosives, noxious fumes, rusty wires etc are certain things which
come under the ambit of dangerous things.

• Escape– Anything which has caused damage or mischief should have escaped from the
area which was under the control of the defendant to come under the ambit of absolute
liability. Like it happened in the case of Read vs Lyons and Co. where the plaintiff was
working as an employee in the defendant’s company which was engaged in manufacturing
shells. The accident happened while she was on her duty that day within the company’s
premise. It happened when a piece which was being manufactured there exploded and due
to which the plaintiff suffered harm. After this incident and a case was filed against the
defendant’s company but the court eventually let go the defendant and gave the verdict
that strict liability is not applicable here in this particular case. This was declared by the
court because the explosion that took place was within the defendant’s premises and not
outside. And the concept says that it should have escaped the dangerous thing like shell
here from the boundaries of the defendant premise which didn’t happen and was missing
over here. So, the negligence on the part of the defendant could not be proved in the court.
 PAGE NO – 8

• Non-natural use of land– Water collected on land for domestic purposes does not
amount to non-natural use of land but if one is storing it in large quantities like in a
reservoir as it was the case in Ryland vs Fletcher then it amounts to non-natural use of
land. The difference between natural and non-natural use of land by keeping in mind the
surrounding social conditions. As the growing of trees and plants on land is considered as
a natural use of land but if one starts growing trees which are poisonous in nature then it
will be considered as non-natural use of land. If an issue arises between the defendant and
the plaintiff even though the defendant is using the land naturally, the court will not hold
the defendant liable for his conduct.

• Mischief- To make the person liable under this principle, the plaintiff at first needs to
show that the defendant had done the non-natural use of land and escaped the dangerous
thing which he has on his land which resulted in the injury further. In the case of Charing
Cross Electric Supply Co. vs Hydraulic Power Co., the defendant was assigned to supply
water for industrial works. But he was unable to keep their mains charged with a minimum
pressure that was required which led to the bursting of the pipeline at different places.
This resulted in causing heavy damage to the plaintiff which was proved in the court of
law. The defendants were held liable in spite of this that they were not at fault. These are
the few rules where this doctrine is applied.

Scope of Rule of Absolute Liability

In most of the places, the rule of strict liability and absolute liability are seen as exceptions in
the law. And the individual is held liable only when he/she is at fault. But, in such cases, the
individual could be held guilty even if he is not at fault. After the catastrophic accident of
Oleum Gas Leak case the act of The Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 was introduced with
the main purpose of providing immediate relief to people who are victims of the accident in
which handling of hazardous substances is involved. The agenda behind this act was that the
act will create a public liability insurance fund which will eventually be used for the purpose
of compensating the victims. Hazardous Substance under this act is defined as any substance
which by reason of its chemical or any properties is liable to cause any damage to human
beings, other living creature, plants, microorganism, property or to the environment. The term
handling is described in section 2(c) of the Public Liability Insurance Act,1991 which is the
clear expression of the rule of absolute liability laid down in M.C Mehta vs Union of India.
 PAGE NO –9

APPLICATION OF STRICT AND ABSOLUTE LIABILITY BY THE INDIAN

JUDICIARY

Doubts about the act that was formulated for the protection of the victims of the tragedy in
Bhopal were raised by Mishra CJ. in the case of Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India as to the
correctness of the rule. It was said that the Oleum gas leak case was an obiter. These doubts
were not accepted by the court in the case of Indian Council for Environmental Legal Action
v. Union of India and the M.C Mehta case was not called to be obiter. In the Indian Council
case the court, keeping in sight the absolute liability principle, put a fine of Rs. 38.385crores
on the defaulting company (HACL) with compound interest since 1997, imposing the “polluter
pays” principle according to which polluter must pay for the damage done to human beings
and the environment.

In a case where the plaintiff’s husband died as a result of getting electrocuted because of gross
negligence on the part of the Kerala State Electricity Board (K.S.E.B), the Kerala HC observed
that KSEB was involved in such a dangerous activity that it was absolutely liable for any
damage caused because of it. In Union of India v Prabhakaran, the court rejected the plea of
the Railways and held that the “contributory negligence” in the part of the plaintiff’s wife was
not to be considered in such cases where the railways had a strict liability, hence making the
State and its officials liable. The apex court discussed the doctrine of strict liability in the case
of M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari & Ors, where the Electricity Board was ordered to
compensate for the electrocution of one cyclist because of a livewire that got snapped and fell
on a public road which was partially inundated with water.

The rule has also been considered by the courts in a number of cases to decide the
appropriateness, legality and amount of damages to be paid by the defendants, whether
aggravated or punitive damages be awarded. Thus, it can be seen that these principles have
been recognized and applied by the Indian Judiciary to a great extent even in present cases.

CONCLUSION

As understood by the explanations given above, it is obvious that the rule of absolute liability
today is extremely essential in India in order to make sure that the ever growing number of
industries dealing with hazardous substances and thus carrying out inherently dangerous
activities, keep a check of the basic norms of safety of their employees working in such
 PAGE NO - 10

conditions as well as of the people living in and around that area by holding them fully liable
for any damage caused to anyone because of such activities. It is important to observe the
change in the judiciary’s view on how the previously held notion that public industries carrying
out such work should not be held liable under such circumstances as they work for public
benefit, has changed with time and now they are held equally liable as the private industries
are. The present structure of the principle has so far turned out to be sufficient in regulating
these practices and so there is not an immediate need for reform although a better recognition
of it by the legislation is required.
 PAGE NO – 11

Answer – 4

Theories of Punishment

Punishment

Punishment is infliction of some kind of pain or loss upon a person for his misdeeds. In criminal
law punishment is allowed due to wrongful intent involved in the crime. A punishment such as
incarnation seeks to give any victim involved retribution against offender, deter and hopefully
rehabilitate the offender. This is distinct from Civil law, which seeks to compensate the injured
party rather than punish the wrongdoer.

Justification of punishment typically takes place in five forms.

1. Retributive

2. Deterrent

3. Preventive

4. Rehabilitative

5. Restitutionary

Justification of Punishment-

1. Prevents the person from future wrongs.

2. Rehabilitate to reform offender. Make him a law-abiding citizen.

3. Restoration for the offence committed. (The punishment in the form of fine or payment of
compensation)

THEORIES

1. Deterrent theory – to prevent, to obstain.

Deter means to abstain from doing an act. The main object of this theory is to deter (prevent)
crimes itself as a warning to the offender as not to repeat the crimes in the future and also itself
as examples to the other evil-minded persons of the society. The founder of this theory was
Jeremy Bentham. He said that a man could be deterred from committing a crime if the
 PAGE NO – 12

punishment applied is swift, certain and severe. Plato, Locke, Fischte and many more were
supporter of this theory.

Indian Position- Supreme Court accepted this theory in recent times due to increment in
murders, dowry deaths, rapes etc.

In Pani Ben Vs State of Gujrat- The Supreme Court said that it would be a travesty if sympathy
is shown for crimes like bride burning is committed and the court upheld the conviction of the
mother in law for murder by bride burning of daughter -in law.

In State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Ghanshyam the court observed that the proper sanctioning
should be done according to the crime.

Draw Back of Deterrent theory-

• It fails in the case of hardened criminals

• It fails in the case of spur space of the moment crimes

2. Retributive theory- To give in return.

This theory refers to the crude, barbaric primitive and animalistic thinking of humans.
Retributive means to given in return. Objective of this theory is to make the offender to realize
suffering or the pain. It considers punishment as an end itself. The idea of vengeance revenge)
runs through this theory. The kingdom of Saudi Arabia practices this theory. They believe in
the concept of An Eye for an Eye.

In Jagmohan Singh Vs State of U.P.-

The court observed that Death Penalty serves two purposes-

a. It satisfies the stint of retribution.

b. It works as a deterrent to like – minded criminals.

 PAGE NO - 13

Drawback of Deterrent Theory- The majority of Jurists, criminologist, penologist and

sociologist do not support this theory as it was felt to be brutal and barbaric.

3. Preventive Theory- to refrain.

The idea behind this theory is to keep the offender away from the society through
imprisonment, death punishment etc in order to prevent repetition of crime. It follows the
principle of " not to avenge crime but prevented". By keeping them away the society ensures
its safety and security. Bentham, Austin supported this theory because it is human touched. This
theory laid to the formation of present system.

In D.K. Vashu Vs Vest Bengal-

Supreme Court highlighted the purpose of preventive detainment and observed that security of
the state individuals can be preventively detail.

4. Reformative Theory-

The reformative theory based upon the principle of "Hate the Sin, Not the Sinner". The object
of this theory is to reform the sinner; the behavior of the criminal. The idea behind the theory
is that 'no one is born as a criminal'. It tries to modify the attitude the offender so he can
become a law abiding member of the society. It is also known as Correctional Theory or
Rehabilitated Theory. Individualized treatment of the offender becomes the coordinal
principle of this theory. Crime is considered as a disease and the aim of every punishment
should be reclamation of the offender by prescribing of the proper treatment. This theory states
that punishment should be Curative and Medical in criminal.

The reformative theory takes into account serious factors which lead the person to commit the
crime. For example- his family, education and his socio-economic background. It tries to find
out the causes and reasons which compels and individual to commit a crime and then price to
eradicate the criminal tendency by providing appropriate education to him.
 PAGE NO – 14

This theory emphasizes that in prison; the prisoner should be taught and trained so after being
released he can secure a better living. It takes the view that punishment is justiciable only if
looks to the future not the past.

Scope- Utility of reformative of theory certain cases

1. Incurably corrupt persons

2. Habitual offenders

3. Terrorist

4. Crimes Syndicates

5. Contract Killers

6. Hired criminals

7. Hardcore criminals

In Sunil Batra Vs Delhi Administration-

The court observed that fair treatment will enhance their personality rather than to affect or
regulate their life.

In Rejendra Prasad Vs State of U.P.-

The court held that Death Sentences is a violative of article 14, article 19 and 21. The prisoner
was release on Gandhi Jayanti.

In Jindal Vs Delhi Administration measures to rehabilitate offenders jail manuals.

Criticism Drawback-

• Reformative theory is applicable for minor offences but not to severe crimes.

• It is contrary to the principle the natural justice.

• Every individual has a different mindset. So, the effectiveness is always a question.
 PAGE NO – 15

5. Expiation Theory- penance.

In Hindu Law it means that the Sin is washed away. Manu said men who are guilty of crime
may condemn to the king and then only he can go to heaven as a normal.

'Expiation' means the act of expiating, reparation, amends and compensation. According to the
Expiation Theory, compensation is awarded to the victim from the wrongdoer. The criminal is
punished by awarding such compensation and is prevented from doing such offences in is
remaining life. This also becomes a lesson for remaining public.

Drawback-

• This theory is now obsolete. The principle of punishment can be considered aced to the
principle/ maxim of old theory.

• This theory is based on moral doctrines and therefore it is beyond the limits of modern
times and jurisprudence.

• If the expiation is the reason the punishment then the prisoner should be convicted only
where he is ethically responsible for the offence.

A Reformative theory of punishment is followed in India. The criminal justice system of our
country is based on the simple principle of Abhor the crime, not the criminal. It is taken as a
purification process by which an evil doer would wash away his sins. This theory of
punishment in India incorporates a simple rationale that the anti-social elements in the society
require to be coerced by the arm of the constable and at times by the rigour of the iron bars but
the question arises, is this theory still an effective tool in the present time in India to impede
the criminalism prevailing here when the crime rate is 167.7 per 100,000 people in the country?

It is the bitter truth that those days are gone when a criminal was prompted to understand the
difference between a right deed and a wrong one. It was considered that it would stop him or
her from further proceeding towards another crime. But that is no more the scene as per the
records promulgated by the National Crime Records Bureau in 2016.Today it has been widely
seen that the criminals once out of prison commit even more serious forms of crime which
leads to another question- should not punishment be given in such a manner that it turns into a
 PAGE NO – 16

dreadful thought which would stop the same person or any other citizen from committing a
crime? Most of the people in the country are aware of the prominent case of Priyadarshini
Mattoo – A 25-year-old law student from Delhi who was raped and murdered in her uncle’s
house in the city. The convict – Santosh Kumar Singh was convicted and was awarded a death
sentence by the Delhi High Court which was then stayed by the Supreme Court. However, in
2010 Supreme Court converted the death sentence of the convict into life imprisonment. Does
converting life incarceration instead of death penalty solve the purpose? Not as per the current
scenarios in the country.

If we also take a look on the post-conviction scenes of the Mattoo case, Santosh Singh, the
convict, barely spent four years behind the bars and was led out on parole in March 2011. Upon
return, he subsequently filed another application for grant of parole citing several reasons
before the Delhi High Court. The High Court granted him a parole in March 2011. The High
Court granted him a parole of another month on March 6, 2012 and so on. Does this procedure
solve the point of the criminal justice system in India? The convict was considered so easy a
criminal that he was released on parole from time to time. It would not at all be wrong if said
that we all failed Priyadarshini Mattoo and the lackadaisical approach of the country made
future rapists carefree and less law dreading. What should have been followed after the death
penalty of the convict instead?

The answer lies in the retribution and the deterrent theories of punishment where the sole
principle is “reap what you sow”. These theories say that a punishment is a necessary
consequence of crime which the offender deserves and its severity should be calculated based
on the gravity of the wrong done. The concept of deterrence has two key assumptions: Specific
punishments imposed on offenders could totally prevent the offender from committing further
crimes and also, the fear of punishment could prevent others from committing similar crimes.
In the Mattoo case, had the convict been hanged to death in front of the public following the
deterrence theory of punishment, the six convicts of Nirbhaya would have not dared to touch
her body.

The same was the situation of the death sentence awarded to the convicts of Nirbhaya Case.
The situation of the justice system in the country has floundered to such a level that the convicts
of the case have still not been hanged. Why not award those criminals with such severe and?
 PAGE NO -17

brutal a punishment that it would set an example for others and in future anyone would not
even let the thought of raping someone in his or her mind? What rights do people guilty of such
heinous a crime like rape lay claim to, what else do they deserve but brutal death for destroying
a girl’s verve?

The Indian system of justice and penalization is already an example of “Justice delayed-
Justice denied.” The rationale of delaying the justice to a victim is indubitably useless as it
consequently leads to the denial of justice to the victim. If the remedy is not affirmed in a timely
fashion, it is efficaciously the same as having no redress at all. The “better late than
never “logic has no more practicality at the present time.

A report by Hindustan Times states that 70% of the criminals accused of rape are those
offenders who have been behind the bars earlier too for probably the same reason or
whatsoever. This phenomenon called “Recidivism” is prevalent because of the singular reason
of lack of deterrence in our punishment system. The total number of repeat criminal offences
in 2015 if counted was 2,44,364. Jharkhand leads with 35.5% followed by Chhattisgarh with
17%, Andhra Pradesh with 16.3% and the Union territory of Delhi with 15.8%.

It is not only offences like rape that should be dealt with such strictness; other severe non
bailable offences like acid attacks on women, bludgeoning, murders etc. are prevalent which
should be pushed out into the light here. The cases of bludgeoning in India are towards a rise.
Several cases have become notable throughout the country. One of them was in Bengaluru in
2015 where an inebriated 18-year-old severely crushed the head of a one-and-a-half-year-old
to death with a boulder. The reason provided in this case was that” the convict was upset with
the victim’s father and wanted to take a revenge”. The situations have deteriorated to such an
extent that the youth of the country is becoming gradually involved in such acts just to “seek
revenge” totally keeping aside the fear of law and penalty.

Another prominent case where a 19-year-old college student was brutally bludgeoned to death
with pavement blocks made of cement by a group of approximately 10 people in Chinchwad.
The convicts have not been prosecuted yet and this showcases or highlights the loop holes in
our criminal justice system and the application of the reformative theories of punishment in
India. There seems no way to reform the criminal who killed a one and half year old brutally
with a boulder and to teach him the difference between the correct and the incorrect in a country
 PAGE – 18

where a 12-year-old is considered intelligent enough to understand the concept of theft and that
it is wrong.

In Punjab, a man was charged with bludgeoning his wife to death by hitting her with a sewing
machine in 2016. Had that 18-year-old boy back in Bengaluru been executed in 2015 itself
thereby retributively judging the gravity of his deed, the man in Punjab here would have no
guts to kill his wife by continuously hitting her with a sewing machine the very next year. It
seems that in a country like India which “claims” to be the largest democracy of the world,
people have been given too much ease when it comes to law and order and the results of
committing any offence.

Meanwhile talking about the cases of acid attacks on women, we come across various aspects.
In a society where the masculine gender dominates, many women have been facing exploitation
and oppression at each and every step of their lives and face endless difficulties throughout.
The case of Preethi Rathi who was a nursing student was one important case in this context.
Preethi, along with her father, uncle and aunt reached Bandra Station in Mumbai when an
unidentified man, with his face half concealed threw acid on her face and scampered away. The
victim succumbed to her injuries after going through an unbearable pain. The question arises
here that what gave the man courage to throw acid on her face. Moreover, it was seen that the
attacker smiled to the media and flashed off a victory sign after the court sentenced him to
death. Had the laws been strict enough to bind his thoughts and not let them grow into such a
gruesome act, the scene would have been somewhat else.

Haseena Hussain who was an 18-year-old computer professional was attacked by the head of
the company she earlier worked for. The reason was that the convict- Joseph Rodriguez could
not bear to see her working for some other firm. The question is that who gave the right to that
man to consider Haseena as his property and that he had the power to direct her and order her
to do as whatever pleased him. Even today, Haseena cannot walk without support and cannot
sit straight. The cases are on a rise in our country because of lack of severe deterrence and
prosecution in the public and in the minds of the wrongdoers.

Thus concluding, the theories of punishment need to be changed from reformative to retributive
and deterrent as it would create a fear in the minds of the wrongdoers and curb the increasing
crime rate in the country. This is a very practical aspect presented here which can be easily
understood and applied.