JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA

FACULTY OF LAW

SUBJECT- LAW OF CRIMES-II

TOPIC- “DETERRENT THEORY OF

PUNISHMENT”

SUBMITTED BY- SUBMITTED TO-

ABHISHEK SINGH Dr. NIDA ZAINAB NAQVI

B.A.LLB. (HONS.) S/F GUEST FACULTY,
2nd Year, IV SEMESTER FACULTY OF LAW,

Roll No. : 2 Jamia Millia Islamia

1
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

In preparation of my assignment, I had to take the help and guidance of some

respected persons, who deserve my deepest gratitude. As the completion of this
assignment gave me much pleasure, I would like to express my special
appreciation and thanks to my subject Professor DR. NIDA ZAINAB NAQVI, you
have been a tremendous mentor for me. I would like to thank you for encouraging
my research and for allowing me to grow as a researcher.

I would thank many people, especially my Parents and classmates who have made
valuable comment and suggestions on my research which gave me an inspiration to
improve the quality of the assignment.

I also thank the Faculty of Law, Jamia Millia Islamia for giving me such an
opportunity of doing research on the topic “DETERRENT THEORY OF
PUNISHMENT”.

Furthermore I would also like to acknowledge with much appreciation the crucial
role of the staff of Faculty of Law, who gave the permission to use all required
equipment and the necessary materials to complete the task “DETERRENT
THEORY OF PUNISHMENT”.

At the last but not the least I would also like to expand my gratitude to all those
who have directly and indirectly guided me in writing this assignment. All that I
have done is only due to such supervision and assistance and I would not forget
their guidance.

2
 TABLE OF CONTENT

Referred to

1. INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………......4

2. PUNISHMENT…………………………………………………………………….5

3. PUNISHMENT UNDER

I.P.C……………………………………………………….6

4. Theories of Punishment……………………………………………….………6-9

5. Deterrent Theory of Punishment……………………………………….……9-10

6. General Deterrent………………………………………………………...……11

7. Specific Deterrent…………………………………………………………...…12

8. Criticism……………………………………………………………………….13

9. Deterrent theory and Capital Punishment…………..…………………………14

10. Death Penalty in India………………………………………………...……….15

11. Conclusion…………………………………………………………………….16

12. Bibliography…………………………………………………………………..17

3
INTRODUCTION
Punishment is important concept of criminal law which is provided to offender to protect people
of society from criminals. Punishment means pain or suffering which is inflicted on the offender
to deter him from committing offences in future. For Bentham, punishment is necessary evil, it is
provided to avoid greater evil and to achieve good result. Various philosophers had defined
punishment according to the prevailing situation at that time. Section 53 of Indian Penal Code is
talks about the punishment and its different kinds. The criminal law also deals with the
sentencing policy and contains the quantum of sentences for specific offences. There is different
kind of punishment in order to understanding the punishment we need to understand the theories
of punishment. There are many theories of punishment but we will study majorly 5 type of
theories and “DETERENT THEORY” in detail. Retributive theory is oldest theory of
punishment and according to this the offender should suffer much pain as he inflicted on the
victim, in modern civilized world this theory of punishment has lost its ground. Reformative
theory is based on principle abhor the crime not the criminal, and people consider it as modern
solution criminal activities. Preventive theory focuses on preventing the criminal from
committing the crime by sentencing them. Compensatory theory focuses on economic aspect of
punishment, In this compensation (in monetary term) to the victim in order to meet the loss but in
case of criminal law this theory is less important because it is very difficult for a judge to
evaluate the life of a person and it is biggest demerit of this theory and it is not practical for all
offences except economic offences. According to deterrent theory, punishment is provided to
create an example in society so that other people out of fear do not commit the crime. Generally
hard punishment is provided to the offender to create example in society. There are two kind of
deterrent specific and general deterrent. The supporter of this theory believe that the death is the
highest deterrent, but in present context in countries like India it is not true despite of retention of
death penalty there is no decrease in crime and also there are many hindrances in way of death
penalty which decreases its effect in society. It is need of hour to bring change in criminal
sentencing process in India and for that reason law commission is there and 35th law commission
is constituted for validity of death penalty and report submitted by the commission is in favor of
continuation of death penalty in India.

4
PUNISHMENT

A person is said to be "punished" when some pain is inflicted on him. This may range from the
death penalty to a token fine. Punishment's dictionary meaning is 'pain inflicted by authority on a
person for crime1’ The punishment is provided with object to protect society from mischievous
and undesirable elements by deterring the offenders, by reforming and turning them into law
abiding citizens2 The punishment is inflicted upon offenders who have committed wrong to
create fear not only in minds of the offender but also in mind of other people to preventing them
from committing such offence in future. Punishment is a process by which the state inflicts some
pain to the persons or to the property of person who is found guilty of Crime 3. According to
Bentham “Punishment is evil in the form of remedy which operates by fear”. Punishment can
thus justify by providing only in order to prevent a great evil or produce a greater good. Since
people are not oblivious to the prospect or experience of evil, they can be constrained to obey the
law by means of the threat and experience of punishment4.
Punishment is a means of Social Control. H.L.A Hart with Mr. Bean and Professor Flew have
defined “punishment” in terms of five elements5:

 It must involve pain or other consequence normally considered unpleasant.

 It must be for an offense against legal rules.
 It must be intentionally administered by human beings other than the offender.
 It must be an actual or supposed offender for his offense.
 It must be imposed and administered by an authority constituted by a legal system against
which the offense is committed.
The idea of involving pain or suffering in awarding the punishment has been modified in view of
the modern reformatory methods introduced recently in dealing with the criminals. For instance,
probation, parole or pardon is treated as substitute for the punishment. Even in the prison, the
basic idea is not to inflict pain or suffering but to teach the convict the methods and techniques
including technical training, to make the prisoner a law abiding citizen6.
1
Bhargava 's Standard Illustrated Dictionary of English Language, p. 680.
2
K D Gaur, Textbook on Indian Penal Code,edn.6th , Lexis Nexis, Delhi, page134.
3
Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Indian penal code,edn 35th , Lexis Nexis, delhi,page89.
4
Soadhganga, ch- 2 theories of punishment (with special refrence to death penalty).
5
Soadhganga, ch- 4 theories of punishment.
6
Soadhganga, ch- 4 theories of punishment.

5
PUNISHMENT UNDER INDIAN PENAL CODE

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:

1. Death;
2. Imprisonment for life;
3. Imprisonment:
A) Rigorous imprisonment
B) Simple imprisonment
4. Forfeiture of Property
5. Fine7.

Considering the above punishments, the courts are supposed to follow the procedures and
provisions which are prescribed under other adjective and substantive laws. As per the scheme of
the Code the maximum punishment is prescribed, leaving the minimum to the discretion of the
Judge. The Judge has all the means to form an opinion on the sentence which would meet the
end of justice in a particular case. If the offence is grave in nature then the Code had prescribed
the maximum and the minimum duration of the punishment8.

THEORIES OF PUNISHMENT

According to Taylor, “A herd of wolves is quieter and more at one than so many men, unless
they all had one reason in them, or having one power on them”. Every society set certain norms
for itself and if anybody deviates from such specified norms then he will be punished by the
society. There are different kinds of punishment that a person can face. In order to understand them,
first, we need to understand the theories of the punishment. There are majorly five theories of
punishment. These theories are the deterrent theory, retributive theory, preventive theory,

7
Indain Penal code,1860.
8
Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Indian penal code,edn 35th , Lexis Nexis, delhi,page90.

6
reformative theory and compensation theory. We will discuss these theories in length below and
further will majorly emphasize on the Deterrent theory -

1. THE DETERRENT THEORY

'To deter' means, "to abstain from action/ doing ". Deterrent means, "infliction of severe
punishments with punishments with a view to prevent the offender from committing the crime
again”9. Salmond considers deterrent aspects of criminal justice to be the most important for
control of crime. In India during the Mughal period, the penalty of a death sentence or mutilation
of the limbs was imposed even for the petty offenses of forgery and stealing etc. Even today in
moat of the Muslim countries, Such as Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, the deterrent theory is
the basis of Penal Jurisprudence.   

The idea behind deterrent punishment is that of preventing crime, by the infliction of an
exemplary sentence on the offender.

2. THE REFORMATIVE THEORY

According to Reformative theory, the object is of punishment is the reformation of criminals.
This theory gave human touch to the criminal law and reduces brutalities of punishment. This
theory seeks to bring about a change in the attitude of offender so as to rehabilitate him as a law
abiding member of society. Even if an offender commits a crime under certain circumstances, he
does not cease to be a human being10. The circumstances under which he committed the crime
may not occur again. Crime is a mental disease, caused by different anti-social elements.
Therefore the mental cure of criminals rather than awarding punishment will serve the purpose.

If the criminals are educated and trained, they will be competent to behave well in the society .
The ultimate aim of the reformists is to try to bring about a change in the personality and
character of the offender, so as to make him a useful member of society.

3. THE RETRIBUTIVE THEORY

9
K D Gaur, Textbook on Indian Penal Code,edn.6th Lexis Nexis, Delhi, page-134.
10
Sindhuza M.S., Reformative Theory of India- An Anlaysis of The Need for a revesion.

7
'Retributive' means, punitive or payback or make a return to."  In Ancient society punishment
was mainly retributive. The person wronged was allowed to have revenge against the wrongdoer.
The Principle of 'an eye for an eye', 'a tooth for a tooth ', a nail for nail, limb for limb was the
basis of criminal administration. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is deemed to be the
rule of natural justice. Unfortunately, the retributive theory ignores the causes of the crime, and it
does not strike at the removal of the causes.11
While discussing the history of the administration of justice, it was seen that punishment by the
State is a substitute for private vengeance. In all healthy communities, any crime or injustice stirs
up the retributive indignation of the people at large. Retribution basically means that the
wrongdoer pays for his wrongdoing, since a person who is wronged would like to avenge
himself, the State considers it necessary to inflict some pain or injury on the wrongdoer in order
to otherwise prevent private vengeance12.

4. THE PREVENTIVE THEORY

Preventive theory is also known as 'theory of disablement.'  According to this theory, punishment
is based on the proposition, "not to avenge crime but to prevent it" The aim of this theory is to
disable the criminal.  Offenders are disabled from repeating the crime by awarding punishments,
such as death, exile or forfeiture of an office. By putting the criminal in jail, he is prevented from
committing another crime. The supporters of this theory recognize imprisonment as the best
mode of punishment because it serves as an effective deterrent as also a useful preventive
measure.  Bentham supported the preventive theory because of its humanizing influence on
criminal law. If the deterrent theory tries to put an end to the crime by causing fear of the
punishment in the mind of the possible crime-doer, the preventive theory aims at preventing
crime by disabling the criminal.13 In the ultimate analysis, the preventive mode of punishment
works in three ways, viz-
(a) by inspiring all prospective wrong-doers with the fear of punishment;
(b) by disabling the wrong-doer from immediately committing any crime

11
K D Gaur, Textbook on Indian Penal Code,edn.6th Lexis Nexis, Delhi, page-135.
12
Anthony Ellies, A Deterrence Theory of punishment.
13
Soadhganga, ch- 7, theories of punishment.

8
 (c) by transforming the offender, by a process of reformation and reduction so that he would
not crime again14.

5. THE COMPENSATION THEORY

According to this theory, the object of punishment must not be merely to prevent further crimes,
but also to compensate the victim of the crime.
Though there is considerable truth in this theory, it must be pointed out that this theory tends to
over-simply the motives of a crime. The motive of a crime is not always economic. Offences
against the state, against justice, against-religion, against marriage, and even against persons,
may not always be actuated by economic motives. There may be other complicated motives
involved. In such cases, the theory of compensation may be neither workable nor effective. Quite
often, even in the case of offences actuated by such motives, the economic condition of the
offender may be such that compensation may not be available 15. Therefore, this theory can at
best, play a subordinate role in the framing of a Penal Code.

DETERRENT THEORY OF PUNISHMENT

The word is derived from the Latin word ‘de’ meaning away word ‘terrere’ which means “to
frighten”. ‘The word ‘deter' means, “to abstain from action/ doing”. Deterrent means, “infliction
of severe punishments with a view to prevent the offender from committing the crime again”. In
ancient time most of punishments were of deterrent in nature. Dictionary meaning of deterrent is
‘discouraging’16. According to exponents of this theory, the object of punishment is not only to
prevent the wrong-doer from doing a wrong a second time, but also to make him an example to
other persons who have the criminal tendencies.
According to Sir John Salmond Detrence is: “Punishment is before all things deterrent, and the
chief end of the law of crime is to make the evil doer as example and a warning to all who are
like minded with him17. Salmond considers deterrent aspects of criminal justice to be the most
important for control of crime to quote a judge: I do not punish you for stealing the ship, but so
14
Soadhganga, ch- 4,theories of punishment.
15
Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Indian penal code,edn 35th , Lexis Nexis, delhi,page89
16
Bhargava 's Standard Illustrated Dictionary of English Language, p. 210.
17
Soadhganga, ch- 2, theories of punishment(with refrence to death penalty).

9
that the ship may not be stolen. The deterrent theory was the basis of punishment in England in
the medieval period and because of this theory of punishment, severe and inhuman punishments
were sentenced to offenders for minor offences18. For instance, for the ordinary crime of stealing,
the culprits were subjected to the -severe punishment of death by stoning and whipping, in India,
the penalty of a death sentence or mutilation of the limbs was imposed even for the petty
offences of forgery and stealing etc. during the Mughal period19.
The very purpose of choosing of this type of punishment on offenders over other type is to deter
them from committing crime in future. The deterrent theory also seeks to create some kind of
fear in the mind of others by providing adequate punishment to offenders which keeps them
away from offences.
The deterrent effect of a particular type of punishment depends upon several factors. These are20-
(1) The social structure and value system under consideration
(2) The particular population in question.
(3) The type of law being upheld.
(4) The form and magnitude of the prescribed penalty
(5) The certainty of apprehension and punishment, and
(6) The individual’s knowledge of the law as well as the prescribed punishment, and his
definition of the situation relative to these factors.

The deterrence theory finds no justification for action in a past offence, which has more than a
certain evidential importance, and it depends upon consequences of punishment other than the
immediate satisfaction given to victims of offences and others (as in retribution theory). It need
not ignore these satisfactions. It rightly explains them of relatively less value 21. What is
important here is that punishment prevents further offences. Deterrence means the use of
punishment to prevent others from committing crimes. To achieve this purpose, the accused is
punished so that he will be an example of warning to those we are thinking to violate the law.
The general assumption is that this will curb the criminal activities of others in addition to the
real offenders22.

18
K D Gaur, Textbook on Indian Penal Code,edn.6th Lexis Nexis, Delhi, page-134.
19
idbi
20
Soadhganga, ch- 2, theories of punishment(with refrence to death penalty).
21
Soadhganga, ch- 7, theories of punishment.

10
The supporters for the retention of capital punishment rely on this theory in support of their
contention. They argue that capital punishment, by its very nature, cannot have either a
reformative value or be a retributive necessity. Its only value, is by way of deterrence.
Noted criminologist Sutherland divided this theory into two categories23:
1. General Deterrence and
2. Specific Deterrence.
GENERAL DETERRENCE: Punishment is designed to deter future crime by making an
example of each defendant, thus frightening citizens so much that they will not do what the
defendant did.
SPECIFIC DETERRENCE: Beyond serving the above mentioned purpose, punishment is
designed to educate and therefore to reform the criminals subjected to it. It is also maintained
that punishment reforms criminals and that it does it by creating fear of repetition of the
punishment.
1) General Deterrence
General deterrence, is based on the assumption that punishing individuals who are convicted of
crimes will set an example to potential violators who, being 'rational' beings, would wishing to
avoid such pain, will not violate the law. Again, we can see the influence of the classical
thinkers, with their emphasis on free will and rational choice. People will seek pleasure and
avoid pain, thus, if the punishment is perceived as too painful, people will avoid the criminal
activity that might result in that punishment. The punishment was to be a terror to evil-doers and
an awful warning to all others who might be tempted to imitate them 24.This theory of deterrence
is criticized by many. The deterrence principle is mechanistic, holding that varieties of crimes
and varieties of punishments are to be finely balanced that each punishment imposed on a
criminal will have a significant impact on citizens at large, as well as directly on the criminal. In
this view, the calculus of deterrence is the basis of criminal law; law makers and others need
only do their sums carefully in order to ensure that appropriate amounts of pain are inflicted on
wrong doers, thus convincing bystanders, that the cost of committing a crime outweighs the

22
Mark C Stafford, Deterrence Theory: Crime, School of Criminal Justice, Texas University, San Marcos,
USA.
23
Soadhganga, ch- 2, theories of punishment(with refrence to death penalty).
24
S.M. Afzal, Ahamd Siddque Criminology Penology and Victimology, edn. 7th EBC Lucknow, Page-253.

11
benefit25. General deterrence has a limited effect because of the delay in punishing the criminals.
It generally takes years to finally dispose of a criminal case as the appeals can be filed in the
higher courts against the conviction/acquittal. By that time the general public may not remember
the offence for which the punishment was awarded. The same thing happen in Nirbhya case
where it take 7 year to execute death penalty of the offenders and easily people forget about it
after days . In addition general deterrence depends upon the publicity given to the general public
about the arrest, conviction and the punishment of the offenders.

2) Specific (Individual) Deterrence

Individual deterrence refers to the effect of punishment in preventing a particular individual from
committing additional crime. In the past this form of deterrence often took the form of
incapacitation, making it impossible for a particular offender to commit again the crime for
which he or she had been convicted. For example, the hand of the thief would be amputated;
rapist would be castrated; prostitutes would be disfigured in way that would repel potential
customers; and so on26. The justification of the punishment is that the criminal is to be punished
simply because he has committed a crime. It is believed that by punishing criminals they can be
change into non-criminals. When a boy touches a hot stove, he is hand burnt, and because of that
he learns to avoid hot stoves. The philosophy of specific deterrence is very simple. Pain must be
inflicted to get results. All over the world many parents believe in this philosophy and practices
it upon their children. Law enforcement authorities practise the same upon criminals. The
deterrent effect of the threat of penal treatment in relation to non-criminals and its deterrent or
corrective effect upon criminals is modified by many factors, such as: the psychological make-up
of the culprit: his previous history: the attitudes of those who administer punishment: certainty
and severity: the psychology of the community that is concerned, etc., All these and more work
together to determine the effect of punishment upon a given individual 27. The effect of
punishment is a human nature problem and like human nature it admits of no easy analysis.

Criticism:  
There is a lot of criticism of the deterrent theory of punishment in modern times. It has been

25
Soadhganga, ch- 7, theories of punishment.
26
S.M. Afzal, Ahamd Siddque Criminology Penology and Victimology, edn. 7th EBC Lucknow, Page-246.
27
Soadhganga, ch- 2, theories of punishment(with refrence to death penalty).

12
criticized on the grounds that it has proved ineffective in checking crimes and also that excessive
harshness of punishment tends to defeat its own purpose by arousing the sympathy of the public
towards those who are given cruel and inhuman punishment. Hardened criminals are not afraid
of punishment. Punishment losses its horror once the criminal is punished.
In a case decided by the Supreme Court, Phul Singh vs. State of Haryana28, a young philanderer
aged 22, overpowered by excess sex stress, raped a twenty-four year old girl next door in broad
day-light. The Sessions Court convicted him to four years' rigorous imprisonment, and the High
Court confirmed the sentence in appeal. When the matter went in appeal to the Supreme Court,
the sentence was reduced to two years' rigorous imprisonment, as the accused was not a habitual
offender, and had no vicious antecedents. The Supreme Court observed: "The incriminating
company of lifers and others for long may be counter-productive, and in this perspective, we
blend deterrence with correction, and reduce the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for two
years,"
DETERRENT THEORY AND CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
In the history of punishments, capital punishment has always occupied a very important place. In
ancient times, and even in the middle ages, sentencing offenders to death was a very common
kind of punishment. Even what might be considered as minor offences in modern criminal law,
attracted the death penalty in those days. In England, there was a time when there were as many
as 200 felonies for which the punishment was death. Even the offence of theft of property worth
more than two shillings would attract the penalty of death29. Till the middle of the seventeenth
century in England, even the penalty for the offence of forgery was death.
Then in the 18th century, a voice of protest was raised against this barbaric punishment. Bentham
can be considered as the spearhead of this movement. He analyzed the causes of crime, and
showed how punishment would serve its purpose. According to him, punishment itself was an
evil, but a necessary evil. No punishment was to be inflicted unless it brought greater good30.
Royal Commission on Capital Punishment observed that “Prima facie (i.e. common sense tell us)
the penalty of death is likely to have stronger effect as a deterrent to normal human beings than
any other form of punishment, and there is some evidence (though no convincing statistical
evidence) that this is in fact so. But, this effect does not operate universally or uniformly, and

28
(1980 Cri. L. J. 8).
29
S.M. Afzal, Ahamd Siddque Criminology Penology and Victimology, edn. 7th EBC Lucknow, Page-260.
30
Soadhganga, ch- 7, theories of punishment.

13
there are many offenders on whom it is limited and may often be negligible. It is accordingly
important to view this question in a just perspective and not to base a penal policy in relation to
murder on exaggerated estimates of the uniquely deterrent force of the death penalty. Before
arriving at this conclusion, the commission had noted that “Capital Punishment has obviously
failed as a deterrent when a murder is committed. We can number its failures. But, we cannot
number its successes.31
Many experts have questioned whether a capital punishment has any greater deterrent value than
a sentence of life in prison without parole. When criminals are sentenced for life, long sentences
inside the prison without liberty, luxurious comfort, isolated from family, friends, and society
that would be more ideal painful deterrence than death. Inconsistency in awarding death
sentences strengths the argument of abolitionist.
DEATH PENALTY IN INDIA
The apex court in India through various decisions held that death penalty should be provided in
exceptional cases. The Supreme Court in Rajendra Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh 32 upheld the
constitutional validity of the death penalty. The question of the reasonableness of the death
penalty was again raised before the Constitution Bench of the SC in Bachan Singh v. State of
Punjab,33 where the Court, emphasized that the death penalty is an exception rather than the rule
and it ought to be imposed only in the ‘gravest of cases of extreme culpability’, or in the ‘rarest
of rare’ cases when the alternative option is unquestionably foreclosed. Further, in Machhi Singh
v. State of Punjab,34 the SC has emphasized that death penalty need not be inflicted except in the
"gravest of cases of extreme culpability" and that "life imprisonment is the rule and death
sentence is an exception. The Law Commission in its 35 th report has also favored retaining the
death sentence in India The Indian Law Commission cites the following reasons for the retention
of death sentences35
1. Capital punishment acts as deterrent. “Do we want more of Murders in our country or
do we want less of them?
2. Danger criminals need to be eliminated to protect the society and, therefore, it is
difficult to say that capital sentence as such is unreasonable or not in public interest.
31
Soadhganga, ch- 2, theories of punishment(with refrence to death penalty).
32
1979 AIR 916.
33
1980 SCC (Cri) 580.
34
1983 AIR 957.
35
Law Commission of India’s Thirty Fifth Report on “The Capital Punishment.” pp. 53-66.

14
 3. The life of police and prison staff cannot be put into risk by not awarding death
sentences to danger criminals.
4. If danger criminals are not hanged, they are likely to repeat the offence after their
release.
5. Where death sentence is abolished, the crime rate is very low but that cannot be in
India.
6. Public opinion is substantially in favour of capital punishment otherwise, it leads to
lynching.
7. Imprisonment of criminals leads to problem of prison administration and taxpayer
money has to be utilized for maintenance of criminals that is unjust.
8. Capital punishment is a painless and less cruel than life imprisonment.
It is seen that death penalty has less relevance we take example of India, there is death
penalty but still the crime rate are high and there are many countries where death penalty is
abolished but the crime rate is low. The reason for ineffectiveness of death penalty in India may
be economic resources and lengthy legal process. If the offender is reach he know that he can
easily escape the legal process and it is opposite for the poor people as they have less money, it is
difficult for them to escape legal process.
According to project 39A of NLU Delhi most of the criminal who sentences death
penalty are illiterate and poor. As they are economically weak they are unable to heir a good
lawyer to defend them. In case of reach people they heir good lawyers and escape from penalty
and if they get the penalty they appeal the decision of courts and any how manage to escape. In
India another problem is delay in execution of death penalty.

15
CONCLUSION
Punishment means pain which is inflicted on the wrongdoer to make him law-abiding citizen.
This is done through creating fear in the mind of wrong doer. The punishment must involve pain,
provided against the legal wrong by human being to offender intentionally by actual authority
derive power from legal system. Judges decide quantum of punishment on various factors like
mental state of offender, gravity of crime and its effect on society. Under Indian penal code
section 53 talks about the punishment and there are five kind of punishment and also in
subsequent sections it is mentioned that for which crime what is the punishment and also there
are procedural law which talks about process of sentencing. In order to understanding the
punishment we need to understand the theories of punishment. According to retributive theory
the offender should receive as much pain and suffering as inflicted by him on the victim now
days this theory has no relevance. Preventive theory focuses on preventing the offender from
committing crime. Reformative theory focuses on reforming the offender and believes criminal is
not born but made by the society. Deterrent tries to deter the offender from repeating the offences
and example is set through the punishment for the rest of people in society. Generally the
punishment under this theory is hard so that it deter other people from committing such crime.
There are two kind of deterrence general and specific. Under the general deterrence such
punishment is provided to the offender that it deter other people from doing it otherwise they
have to suffer same pain as the offender who punished this led to fear in mind of rational being
and he deter from doing it. Under specific deterrence such punishment is provided to the
wrongdoer which deter him from committing such offence in future like cutting the hand of thief.
Nowadays this theory has not much relevance and we can say that it is losing its effect. Death
penalty is considered as good deterrent but it is abolished in the many countries once upon a time
when in Britain death penalty is given frequently even for petty crime but now death penalty is
abolished in Britain. In India death penalty still exist and given to people and apex court of India
also validated death penalty from time to time. The 35 th law commission report also gives
negative report to abolish the death penalty. Death penalty should be there for brutal offences but
state should focus reformation of criminal rather than executing the criminal. Now we are in 21 st
century but in matter of punishment we are lagging behind.

16
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books Referred-

 K D Gaur, Textbook on Indian Penal Code, (Lexis Nexis, Delhi,6th edn., 2016).

 Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, (Lexis Nexis. 35th edn., 2017).

 S.M. Afzal, Ahamd Siddque Criminology Penology and Victimology, edn. 7th EBC

Lucknow.

 K I Vibhute, PSA Pillai’s CRIMINAL LAW, (Lexis Nexis, 11th edn., 2012.

Journals & Articles-

 All India Reporter

 Supreme Court Cases

 Mark C Stafford, Deterrence Theory: Crime, School of Criminal Justice,

Texas University, San Marcos, USA.

 Anthony Ellies, A Deterrence Theory of punishment.

 Critical Analysis of Theories Of Punishment. (ISSN 2321 – 4171)

 Elaborating the Individual Difference Component in Deterrence Theory Alex R. Piquero,

Raymond Paternoster, Greg Pogarsky, and Thomas Loughran.

 Legal Database-

 Hein Online
 Lexis Nexis
 Manupatra
 SSC Online
 Jstor

17