Sections 53 to 75 of the IPC incorporate general provisions relating to punishment for different

offences. Chapter III of IPC titled 'Of Punishments' contains Ss. 53-60 dealing with different
types of punishments, including death sentence, life imprisonment and imprisonment for certain
periods, whether the sentence should be served as rigorous or simple imprisonment and so on.
Provisions relating to imposition of fines, including provisions for alternative sentences, if fines
are not paid are incorporated in Ss. 63-70, IPC; nature of punishment for offences made up of
several offences is provided for in Ss. 71 and 72. Solitary confinement as punishment and limits
of its imposition are spelt out in Ss. 73 and 74. Section 75 provides for enhanced punishment for
certain offences for repeat offenders.
In India, there is no uniform sentencing policy and generally it is alleged that sentences reflect
the individual philosophy of the judges. The Supreme Court spoke of the sentencing in Surja
Ram v. State of Rajasthan1, for deciding just and appropriate sentence to be awarded for an
offence
Punishment

The mood and temper of the public with regard to the treatment of crime and
criminals is one of the unfailing tests of the civilization of any country. A calm, dispassionate
recognition of the rights of the accused - and even of the convicted - criminal against the State; a
constant heart-searching by all charged with the duty of punishment; a desire and eagerness to
rehabilitate in the world of industry those who have paid their due in the hard coinage of
punishment; tireless efforts towards- the discovery of curative and regenerative processes;
unfailing faith that there is a treasure, if you can only find it, in the heart of every man; these are
the symbols which in the treatment of crime and criminal, mark and measure the stored-up
strength of a nation, and are sign and proof of the living virtue in it." It is recognized on all hands
that during the past hundred years, our views on punishment have undergone a change.
Punishment is no longer retributive in the sense of satisfying the feelings of revenge of the
victim, but the view is still held that it is retributive in the sense that it expresses the solemn
disapprobation of the community - a reprobation not always unmixed in the popular mind with
atonement and expiation. As Gardiner says: " in the sense in which retribution implies that a
criminal deserves his punishment, this feeling is connected with the notion of justice itself, of
justice as an ultimate value akin to the idea of truth and closely connected with the principle of
equality ... 'A' deserves his punishment but 'B' if he has been harshly treated by the,Courts, does
not and it is the negative corollary of retribution which makes public opinion rally in B's
favour.2"

1
AIR 1997 SC 18.
2
Gardiner, "The Purposes of Criminal Punishment"21 Mod. L.R. p.121 (1958)
Punishment governs all mankind; punishment alone preserves them; punishment awakes while
their guards are asleep; the wise considers the punishment (danda) as the perfection of justice.3

Punishment under IPC

Punishment is a procedure by which the state causes some torment to the people or property of
individual who is discovered blameworthy of Crime. At the end of the day discipline is endorse
forced on a blamed for the encroachment for the built up rules. The Object of Punishment is to
shield society from insidious and bothersome components by discouraging potential guilty
parties, by keeping the genuine wrongdoers from submitting further offenses and by
transforming and transforming them into honest nationals.

The stage of punishment is the final process of the criminal jurisprudence system. As is well
known, one of the fundamental tenets of criminal law is that „person is considered innocent until
proven guilty‟. Once the court comes to a conclusion, based on evaluation of the evidence
admitted before the court, that the accusation are proved against the accused, then the court
necessarily decide the quantum of punishment to be awarded to the accused. The object of the
punishment in the scheme of modern social defence is correction of wrong doer and not
wrecking gratuitous punitive vengeance in the criminal. The punishments to which offenders are
liable are enlisted under Section 53 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 53 to 75 of the Indian
Penal Code 1860 deals with the scheme of Punishment. Section 53 of the Indian Penal Code
prescribes five kinds of punishments.

Section 53 of the Indian Penal Code prescribes five kinds of punishments are as follows

1. Death
2. Imprisonment for life
3. Imprisonment, which is of two descriptions, namely -
(i) Rigorous, that is with hard labour.
(ii) Simple
4. Forfeiture of property
5. Fine.

Death

Capital punishment is the harshest of discipline endorsed in the Indian Penal Code, which
includes the legal murdering or ending the life of the blamed as a frame for discipline. The
question of whether the state has the right to take the life of a person, however, gruesome the
offence he may have committed, has always been or contested issue between moralists who feel
that the death sentence is required as a deterrent measure and the progressives who argue that

3
Hindu Law giver ‘Manu’
judicial taking of life is nothing else but court mandated murder. The following are the offences
for which a sentence of death may be passed

 . Waging or attempting to wage war or abetting the waging of war against Government of India
(S. 121).
 Abetment of mutiny actually committed (S.132).
 Giving or fabricating false evidence upon which innocent person suffers death (S.194).
 Murder (S.302).
 Punishment for murder by lifer (S.303).
 Abetment of suicide of a child, insane or intoxicated person (S.305).
 Abetment to murder by a person under sentence of imprisonment for life; if hurt is caused
(S.307).
 Dacoity with murder (S.396)

The law vests in the judge a wide discretion in the matter of passing a sentence and as such the award of
death penalty, except in the solitary cases provided the section 303, is left to the discretion of the court.
Section 303 I.P.C. which had left no option to the judge as it made capital sentence compulsory in the
case of a convict who committed murder while undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for life; was
however struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

Constitutionality of Death Sentence

It has been held by the Supreme Court in Jagmohan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh 4, that death sentence
is not violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. It cannot be regarded per se as
unreasonable or not in public interest. The provision does not suffer from the vice of excessive
delegation on the ground that the legislature has abdicated its essential function in not providing by
legislative standards in what cases the judge should pass death sentence.

The same question as to whether death sentence is constitutional or not again came up before the
Supreme Court in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab 5

The provision of death penalty as an alternative punishment for murder is not violative of Article 21. The
founding fathers of the Constitution recognized the right of the State to deprive a person of his life or
personal liberty in accordance with fair, just and reasonable procedure established by valid law.

In Shashi Nayar v. Union of INDIA6 , the Supreme Court observed that the procedure provided by the law
for awarding death sentence is reasonable. The death sentence should be awarded in rarest of rare
cases and it does not violate the mandate of Article 21.

4
AIR 1973,SC 947
5
AIR 1980 SC 898
6
AIR 1978 SC 1605
Imprisonment–for Life with Hard Labour, Simple Imprisonment
Before 1955, the words “transportation for life” was used. The Code of Criminal Procedure
Amendment Act, 1955 (Act No. 26 of 1955) substituted the words “Imprisonment for life” in
place of “transportation for life”. The punishment of the Imprisonment for Life means
imprisonment for the whole of the remaining period of the convicted person‟s natural life.

Imprisonment
Imprisonment is its pure and simple form is a kind of punitive reaction. Its object being primarily to
deprive the offender of his liberty which is the most serious damage which can be caused to a human
being, next to deprivation of life by death sentence.

The most serious problem associated with imprisonment is what has been termed as „prisonization‟.
The prisoner introduced to a new environment which has its own culture and values, is affected by the
direct impact on the earlier culture which the prisoner was exposed to before entering the jail.

The sentence of imprisonment for life is provided for about 50 offences under
the code.

Kinds of Imprisonment
Simple imprisonment

Rigorous imprisonment

In the case of the former the convicted person is not put to any kind of work or
labour. There are various offences mentioned in the code which are punishable
with simple imprisonment only.

They are as follows:

 Public servant unlawfully engaging in trade or unlawfully buying or bidding for property (Section
168 and 169).
 Absconding to avoid service of summons or other proceedings or not attending to obedience to an
order from a public servant (Sections 172- 174)
 Intentional omission to produce a document to a public servant (Sections 175, 176 and 187)
 Refusing oath when duly required to take oath by a public servant (Section 178, 179, 180).
 Disobedience to an order duly promulgated by a public servant if such disobedience causes
obstruction, annoyance or injury (Section 185).
 disobedience causes obstruction, annoyance or injury (Section 185).
In case of rigorous imprisonment, the convicted person is put to hard labour but not harsh labour.
A vindictive officer victimising a prisoner by forcing on him particularly harsh and degrading
jobs violates laws mandate. The determination of the right measure of punishment is often a
point of great difficulty and no hard and fast rule can be laid down. It being a matter of discretion
which is to be guided by a variety of considerations but the court has always to bear in mind the
necessity of proportion between an offence and the penalty. In imposing a punishment it is
necessary to have as much regard to this pecuniary circumstances of the accused person as to the
character and magnitude of the offence.
Forfeiture of Property

Forfeiture of the whole of the property of the criminal is not possible according to the present
Law. The opinions received by the Law Commission of India in its 42nd report, were largely
against the introduction of confiscation of property. The Commission too was of the view that
the harsh punishment which will fall not only on the criminal but on his dependent family, is not
to be recommended. Such a punishment is certainly called in case of smugglers and black
markets where prima facie the source of income or property acquired by the offender may be
illegal. As regards hardships to the family, the same is caused in varying degrees in all forms
punishments. This punishment has been retained in the I.P.C. Bill of 1972. Sections 61 and 62 of
the I.P.C. which provided for absolute forfeiture of all property of the offender, have been
repealed. There are three cases in which specific property of the offender is liable to forfeiture,
viz.
 where depredation is committed on territories of any power at peace with the
government of India, such property as is used or intended to be used in committing such
degradation is liable to forfeiture in addition to the sentence of imprisonment and fine
(Section 126).
 Where property is received knowing the same to have been taken in the commission of
depredation on the territories of any power at peace with the government of India or in
waging war against any Asiastic Power at peace with Government of India. The property
so received is liable to forfeiture (Section 125 and 127).
 A public servant unlawfully buying or bidding for property forfeits the property so
purchased. (Section 169).
Fine
Fine as an additional or alternative form of punishment has been increasingly favoured by the
law as well as judicial authorities. They are very frequently imposed in relation to property crime
and the embezzlement, fraud, theft, violations of lottery and gambling laws and minor offences
like loitering and disorderly conduct.

The imposition of fines may be made in four different ways as provided in the I.P.C. It is the sole
punishment for certain offences and the limit of maximum fine has been laid down : in certain
offences it is an alternative punishment but the amount is limited, in offences where it is
imperative to impose fine in addition to some other punishment and in offences where it is
obligatory to impose fine but no particular pecuniary limit is laid down.

As regards the question of quantum of fines, no general provision exists in England to regulate it.
But both Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights contain provisions prohibiting excess and
unreasonable fines and assessment. In I.P.C. it is observed, that in offences, which are the result
of greedy, the amount of fines ought to be so excessive as to reduce the offender to poverty. The
measure of punishment of fine must be carefully regulated and due regard must be had to the
nature of the offence and the means of the offender.

The I.P.C. prescribes only the sentence of fine in the following cases :

 The master negligently concealing a deserted on board a merchant vessel (Section 137).
 The owner or occupier of the land upon which an unlawful assembly or riot has taken places if he does
not give the earliest notice at the nearest police station (Section 154).
 Any person for whose benefit a riot is committed and who does not use the lawful means to prevent it.
(Section 155).
 An agent or manager of a person for whose benefit a riot is committed if he does not use lawful means
to prevent it (Section 156).
 Bribery by treating with food, drink etc. (Section 171 E).
 A person making a false statement in connection with an election (Section 171 G).
 Any person incurring illegal payments in connection with an election (Section 171-H).
 Failure to keep election accounts (Section 171-I).
 Dealing in or selling any fictitious stamp (Section 263-A).
 Making atmosphere noxious to health (Section 278).
 Obstructing a Public way or line of navigation (Section 283).
 Committing a public nuisance not otherwise punishable by this code (Section 290).
 Publication of proposal regarding a lottery not being a state lottery or authorized by the Stage
Government (Section 295-A).