Why in News?

• Recently, Bombay High Court has ordered the release of a 30-year-old man convicted in 41 theft cases and sentenced to over 83 years in prison.
• The court further added that and since he is not in a position to pay the fine, for non-payment of the fine amount, he would require to undergo imprisonment of further 10 years 1 month and 26 days i.e. a total of 93 years 5 months.
• The court was hearing a criminal writ petition of Aslam Salim Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra.

Background

• The petitioner filing through Legal Services Authority under writ jurisdiction and inherent powers plead that the sentences of imprisonment awarded different Courts, in 41 cases, run concurrently.
• The petitioner also requested the setting aside of the fine amount of Rs.1,26,400/-.
• He submitted that he was falsely implicated in these cases and, being illiterate and financially constrained, he pleaded guilty under the belief that he would be released for the period already served as an undertrial prisoner since December 2014.
• The High Court noted that the discretion under Section 427(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C) to run the sentences concurrently had not been exercised by the trial court.

Court’s Observations

• The court noted that the punishment is grossly disproportionate to the crime committed.
• A division bench of Justice Revati Mohite-Dere and Justice Gauri Godse emphasized that the chief goals of sentencing are deterrence and reformation, and in this case, such an excessive sentence would lead to a travesty of justice.

Punishment in Indian Penal Code, 1860

• Punishment is an undesirable or unpleasant outcome upon a group or individual imposed by an authority as a result of offence committed by the offender.
• According to Manu, “Penalty keeps the people under control, penalty protects them, penalty remains awake when people are asleep, so the wise have regarded punishment as a source of righteousness”.
• In the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 53, specifically deals with different types of punishments which can be given by the Criminal Courts if the person is held liable under the Code. There are five kinds of punishments recognized under Section 53 of the Code:
  • Death Penalty;
  • Imprisonment for life;
  • Imprisonment:
    • Rigorous Imprisonment; or
    • Simple Imprisonment.
  • Forfeiture of property;
  • Fine

Theories of Punishment

The five major theories of punishment are mentioned below:

1. Retributive:

• It is based on a doctrine of Lex talionis, which means ‘an eye for an eye’.
• Plato was a supporter of the retributive theory.

2. Deterrent:

• It aims to “deter” (prevent) the commission of crime again by punishing the criminal in such manner that it sets or establishes an example for the individuals or the whole society.
• According to Salmond, “The chief end of the law is to make the evildoer an example and a warning to all that are likeminded with him”.

3. Preventive:

• Preventive theory of punishment seeks to prevent prospective crimes by disabling the criminals either temporarily or permanently.
• The offenders are disabled from repeating the offences by such punishments as imprisonment, death, exile, forfeiture of office etc.

4. Reformative:

• It depends on the humanistic rule that regardless of whether a wrongdoer perpetrates a wrongdoing, he doesn’t stop to be a person.
• It states that the primary object of the punishment should be the reform of the criminal.

5. Compensatory:

• Its main object is to compensate the victim suffered by crime done by offender
• A criminal who had inflicted an injury against the person (or group of persons), or the property must compensate the victim.

Concurrent and Consecutive Sentencing

• Consecutive punishments refer to the scenario where a court gives sentence in two cases, second sentence will commence after the expiration of first sentence.
• Concurrent punishments mean that two punishments will be counted parallelly.
  • When two sentences are directed to run concurrently, they do merge into one sentence.
• Section 31(1) of the Cr.P.C., 1973 entrusts a discretion in the Court to direct that the punishment shall run concurrently when a person is convicted at one trial of two or more offences.
• Section 427 of the Cr. P.C., 1973 directs that one sentence takes effect after the other. The sentencing Court has the discretion of ordering a concurrency of punishments.