OF PUNISHMENT
Introduction
Each society has its own way of social control for which it frames certain laws and also mentions
the sanctions with them. These sanctions are nothing but punishments. This chapter deals with
the following topics:
1. Punishment: Sec-53 to 70 and 73 to 74
2. Rules for Assessment of Punishment: Sec 71 to 72
3. Enhanced Punishment for a subsequent offence. Sec-75
These parameters of punishment will be applicable only for the offences mentioned in the
particular sections of The Penal Code. Moreover, punishment in the Penal Code is usually
implemented by the state or community (if approved by law) as it affects the whole of society.
Punishment
Punishment means a penalty or sanction given for any crime or offence. Punishment must be for
an offence. It must be an evil, an unpleasantness to the victim.
Crimes is behaviour or action that is punishable by criminal law. A crime is a public, as opposed
to a moral, wrong; it is an offence committed against and hence punishable by the State or the
community at large. Many crimes are immoral, but not all actions considered immoral are illegal.
Section 53 states the punishments to which offenders are liable under the provisions of The
Penal Code. They are as follows-
1. Death Sentence;
2. Imprisonment for Life (shall be rigorous);
3. Imprisonment, which is of two descriptions, namely:-
i)Rigorous, that is, with hard labour;
ii)Simple;
4. Forfeiture of property;
5. Fine.
Object of Punishment
Almost everyone accepts the fact that crime can never be wiped out entirely. The main object of
punishment is the prevention of offences, and a rational policy of the State should aim to protect
the society and reclaim the criminal by evolving measures to prevent people from committing
crimes. The punishment is to reform the society by holding out deterrents as precedents.
Punishment must be such as would be felt as punishment by the offender. It must be
commensurate with the degree of shock that it causes to the conscience of society.
Theories of Punishment
The question lawmakers must answer is, "Which system of criminal punishment works best for
society?" Each country has developed its own ides for solutions to this question, and these
solutions then determine how criminals are punished under different systems. However, there are
four main theories behind the punishment of criminals, none of which has proven 100 percent
effective. These are as follows:
i. Deterrent: This theory aims to deter criminals from repeating a crime in the future. Many
people think deterrence should be the main reason for punishment because the aim of
punishment is to stop people from committing crimes. The deterrent should be so severe no one
will dare to commit crimes.
ii. Retributive: Retributive theories of punishment are behind the ancient expression, "an eye for
an eye, a tooth for a tooth." This idea of getting even is the oldest form of justice. It says that a
criminal who causes a victim to suffer should be made to suffer him - or herself. It makes
criminals pay for their crime in proportion to the severity of the crime they have committed.
iii. Reformative: The goal of these systems is to return a former criminal to society after the
required period of treatment and training, usually in prison. The idea is to try to help change the
person's behavior and attitude so that he or she becomes a law-abiding citizen.
iv. Preventive: It aims to prevent a repetition of the offence by the offender by such penalties as
imprisonment, death and exile. Protection is the theory that punishment should protect society
from criminals and their activities. Many people think this should be the main reason for
punishment.
Some general principles that are followed by the court regarding sentences are as follows-
1)Sentence should be reasonable;
2)The court should be specified in the nature of punishment;
3)The reason for the cancellation, and ratification should be mentioned;
4) In certain situations, lower courts can overrule the decision of High Court Division. The
reasons can be inconsistency in the decisions of the High Court Division, malafide decision,
unreasonable decision etc.
Measurement of Punishment -
Court will exercise its discretionary power for determining the exact limit of punishment or to
measure the punishment in accordance with laws. 1966, Criminal Law journal describes some of
them. Those general principles area)
Law is good but justice is better.
-Judges should carefully take care of every detail and objective of the relevant law. They should
interpret the law accordingly.
- In awarding punishments the court must keep in mind the objectives of making that law. The
court should act reasonably. [AIR 1944 Patna, 16]
-Criminal offences create an impact on individuals as well as society. So the court should
proceed with good conscience. [AIR 1951 ORISSA 259]
b) Sentence should be reasonable.
- Quantum of punishment should not exceed the interest of justice. [AIR 1969 CAL 132]
- There must be a proper proportion in the gravity of the offence and the punishment provided.
[AIR 1979 SC 1820]
c) Liability of a criminal will depend on circumstances.
- The Court will not impose a maximum amount of fine unless the offence is very grave in
nature. [1929 AIR ALL 919]
-In fixing the punishment for any particular crime court has to take into account:-
i) Nature of the offence
ii) Provocation (if there was any)
iii)Age of the accused
iv)Character and so on.
Besides, all of these must be proved before the court by evidence and circumstances. [AIR 1976
SC 392]
- As we can see in sections 299 & 300 of The Penal Code, in accordance with circumstances
decisions will vary.
d)Court has to specify the nature of the punishment.
-Whenever awarded in any case, Court must explain on which grounds it is awarding such
punishment. In case of quashing any judicial precedent, Court also has to explain the grounds.
As we all know, Higher Court can overrule the decision of lower courts on reasonable grounds.
But there are certain special situations when the lower court can overrule the decision of a higher
court. They are:
-Inconsistency with any existing judicial decision with any valid reason
- Malafide exercise of discretion
-Erroneous decision
Attitude of the Judges
Judges must abide by the following rules-
1. They must depend on the evidence.
2. They shouldn’t be emotionally biased. They should control their behaviour accordingly.
3. They must abide by the laws and interpret in a good manner to fulfil the objective of that
very law.
4. They shouldn’t be biased in any manner.
Section 53A was inserted in the Penal Code to construct of reference to transportation. While
discussing section 53A we got to know two basic things. They are-
1) Where punishment was “transportation for life” in any other law for the time being in
force shall be construed as a reference to “imprisonment for life”.
2) The term “Deportation” or “Transportation of Life” was omitted.
Section 54 deals with the commutation of the sentence of death. It states that the Government
may without the consent of the offender commute the punishment for any other punishment by
this code if death sentence shall have been passed in any case.
Section 55 is about commutation of sentence of imprisonment for life. According to this section,
in every case in which sentence of imprisonment for life shall have been passed, the Government
may, without the consent of the offender, commute the punishment for imprisonment of either
description for a term not exceeding twenty years. The prisoner undergoing imprisonment for life
is not entitled to be discharged after 20 years even assuming that the sentence is to be regarded as
one of 20 years and subject to remission for good conduct. The question of remission is
exclusively within the discretion of the govt. The court can’t commute sentence. Under this
section, the commutation of sentence can be made by the govt. and not by the court. (Sections
401 and 402 of CrPC which provide for suspensions, remissions and commutation
of sentence may be looked into.)
Relevant Cases:
● Under this section it is not within the powers of the court to direct that the accused
shall not be released from jail unless he has undergone a minimum period of 25
years imprisonment. Such a direction is illegal as it impinges on the powers of the
appropriate government under section 432 and 433 of CrPC to remit and not to
remit a part of the sentence. [Madhav Shankar, 1982 Cr LJ 1762 (Bom-FB)]
● In the absence of an order under section 55 or section 433(b) CrPC, a life convict
cannot be released even after expiry of 14 years, for a sentence of life
imprisonment means rigorous imprisonment for the rest of the convict’s life.
[Naib Singh vs State of Punjab 1983 Cr LJ 1345]
Section 55A was inserted to save for President’s prerogative. It states that nothing in section
fifty-four or section fifty-five shall derogate from the right of the President to grant pardons,
reprieves, respites or remissions of punishment.
According to this section, whatever may contain in section 54 or 55 of The Penal Code, 1860 the
president’s right to grant pardons, reprieves, respites or remissions shall not be affected.
Remission is said in section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1898.
Section 57 deals with fractions of terms of punishment. It says that imprisonment for life shall be
reckoned as equivalent to rigorous imprisonment for thirty years while calculating fractions of
terms of punishment.
According to this section, if there is fine imposed with a sentence of imprisonment for life and in
case of default of the fine the punishment shall be a fraction of the total imprisonment, then the
total imprisonment shall be deemed to be thirty years and the fraction shall be calculated from
that thirty years. Imprisonment for life has been accepted as being of 30 years duration in view of
the provision in section 57 of the Penal Code. After completion of 30 years aggregate
imprisonment no vested right accrues in favour of a life convict to be released automatically and
unconditionally and he can be released only in the exercise of the power conferred on the govt.
By section 401 of the CrPC. [ 20 DLR (WP) 25 FB ]
In Rokeya Begum vs State [19 BLC (2014)-AD-204] it was said that sentence of imprisonment
for life as used in Bangladesh is utterly a misnomer, indeed it appears to be an erroneous
interpretation. The way it has been interpreted, the word “life” does not bear its normal linguistic
meaning. In other words, a person sentenced to imprisonment for life does not necessarily spend
his life in prison, although section 45 of the code defines “life” as the life of a human being
unless the contrary appears from the context. The given interpretation has been arrived at with
the aid of section 57 of the code which provides that in calculating fraction of terms of
punishment, imprisonment for life shall be reckoned as equivalent to rigorous imprisonment for
30 years. A person sentenced to imprisonment for life will be released after spending a maximum
of 22.50 years in prison.
In a recent case Ataur Mridha and others vs State [2017 (2) LNJ (AD) 35 ]The Appellate
Division of the Supreme Court clarified that life sentence means imprisonment for 30 years, not
the detention of a convict until his or her natural death in jail. However, according to the
Appellate Division, if any court or tribunal specifies imprisonment until death, the convict would
have to remain behind bars until natural death, with no concession or benefit being granted.
Relevant cases:
● Sentence of imprisonment for life means rigorous imprisonment for life. In the absence of
order of commutation under section 55 penal code or section 402(1) of CrPC a convict
cannot be released forthwith even after expiry of 14 years. [AIR 1983 SC 855]
● Where the accused was sentenced to imprisonment for life, direction by court that he
shall in no case be released unless he has undergone minimum 25 years imprisonment
was bad in law. [1982 CriLi 1762]
● It is only for the purpose of calculating fractions of terms of punishment that a sentence
for imprisonment for life is to be treated as one for 20 years. For other purpose such a
sentence will not become one for 20 years by operation of this section. [AIR 1976 SC
1552]
● A sentence of imprisonment for life cannot be treated sentence for 14 years unless it has
been commuted by the govt. Under section 55. [AIR 1961 SC 600]
● Under this section, for the purpose of calculating the fractions of the term of
imprisonment for purpose of granting remissions on the ground of good conduct the
sentence of imprisonment for life should be treated as one for 20 years. [AIR 1945 PC
64]
Section 60 discusses that sentence may be in certain cases of imprisonment wholly or partly
rigorous. To explain this section Court in (1971)73 Bom LR 215 case stated that the Court can
direct whether the imprisonment shall be rigorous or simple for the whole term of the sentence or
for any specified portion of such term. So we can say Court will exercise its discretionary power
to determine the nature of the punishment.
Besides, Court in AIR 1964 Orissa 149 has opined that this section has no application in which
the prescribed punishment is imprisonment for life. So as to say when the punishment is
imprisonment for life, Court has no power to declare that the imprisonment should be simple, it
will always be rigorous in nature.
Section 63 contains provisions relating to amount of fine. To summarize this section we can say,
the fine imposed on the accused should not be excessive, it should be reasonable. Fine levied
should be in accordance with-
1. the gravity of the offence
2. the character and conduct of the accused
3. the degree of mens-rea of the accused
4. and the financial condition of the accused.
Relevant cases:
● Court in AIR 1957 Assam 74 case has decided that, where the maximum amount of fine
is not laid down by this Code, the court has a discretion to impose any amount of fine that
it considers fit according to the need of justice in each case. But the fine must not be
made to feel that he is being persecuted not prosecuted.
● Court in AIR 1957 All 764 case has stated that the amount of fine should among other
things be commensurate with the financial circumstances of the accused and must not be
beyond his means to pay so as to subject him to a further term of imprisonment as an
inevitable consequence in addition to the substantive term of imprisonment to which he
may have been sentenced.
● Court also decided that though the fine must not be excessive it must be sufficiently
heavy to make the accused feel that it is a punishment in AIR 1953 Mys 75 case.
● Moreover, where the offence is of an aggravated type, the sentence of imprisonment is
obviously more suitable than mere sentence of fine where the punishment section
provides for both according to the decision of AIR 1924 Lah 81 case.
● Besides, where an offender is convicted under two or more sections and is sentenced to
fines of different amounts in regard to the different offences with sentences of
imprisonment in case of default if he makes any payment towards the fines inflicted in
him such payments should be first appropriated for the smaller amounts as otherwise the
severity of the punishment may be increased according to the decision of AIR 1931 Sind
73 case.
Section 64 describes the provision of Sentence of imprisonment for non-payment of fine. If
sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of fine is imposed by Court it will be in addition
to the original punishment.
● In AIR 1953 Trav-Co 233 case, the power of passing a sentence of imprisonment in
default of payment of fine imposed does not make it imperative on the Court to pass such
a sentence of imprisonment in every case in which a sentence of fine may have been
passed. So, this section deals with the power of the court to award sentence of
imprisonment in default of payment in cases in which a sentence of fine may have been
passed.
Section 65 is about the limit of imprisonment for non-payment of fine, when imprisonment and
fine are awardable. It depicts that, when an offender is to suffer both imprisonment and fine and
he is unable to pay the fine, then he will be imprisoned for not paying the fine, which will not
exceed one-fourth of the term of punishment which is the maximum fixed for the offence.
Section 65 applies to all cases where the offence is punishable with imprisonment as well as fine,
i.e. cases where fine and imprisonment can be awarded and also those where the punishment
may be either fine or imprisonment but not both. It does not apply to cases dealt with in section
67 where fine alone can be imposed. Therefore the term of imprisonment which can be legally
awarded in default of payment of fine is not to exceed one-fourth of the maximum term of
imprisonment fixed for the offence.
Relevant cases:
● This section applies to all cases where the offence is 'punishable with imprisonment as
well as fine,' i.e., cases where fine and imprisonment can be awarded, and also those
where the punishment may be either fine or imprisonment, but not both. The only cases
that it does not apply to are those dealt within s. 67 where fine only can be awarded."
[Yakoob Sahib, (1898) 22 Mad 238]
● Section 33 (now 30) of the Criminal Procedure Code acts as a corollary to this section.
Thus under s. 65, I.P.C., the imprisonment in default of fine cannot exceed one-fourth
of the maximum term of imprisonment that can be awarded for the offence. Thus
where the High Court altered the conviction of the appellant to one under s. 419 read
with s. 109 P.C., from a conviction recorded by the trial Court under ss. 420/511, 467,
468 and 471 read with s. 120B I.P.C., and awarded a sentence of two years' rigorous
imprisonment while maintaining the fine of Rs. 3,000 and by implication the default
imprisonment of two years as awarded by the trial Court, it was held that, though the
trial Court's order regarding two years' imprisonment in default of payment of fine was
quite in order in view of the fact that the five offences for which the trial Court
recorded a conviction were each punishable with seven years' imprisonment and the
fine of Rs. 3,000 was only a part of the cumulative sentence for the commission of
those five offences, yet the sentence of three years' imprisonment in default of payment
of fine became illegal the moment the High Court altered the conviction to one under s.
419 read with s. 109 I.P.C., as under these sections the accused could be sentenced to a
maximum of three years' imprisonment and, therefore, the default imprisonment could
under no circumstance exceed nine months, that is, one-fourth of the maximum
sentence of three years that be awarded under s 419, I.P.C. [Ram Jas v. State of U.P.,
1974 Cr LJ 1261 AIR 1974 SC 1811]
Section 66 tells about the description of imprisonment for non-payment of fine. According to
this section, the imprisonment that the court imposes in default of payment of fine may be of any
description to which the offender might have been sentenced for the offence. The imprisonment
in default of payment of a fine may be either rigorous or simple.
Relevant Cases:
● Where the substantive sentence for the offence can only be a sentence of rigorous
imprisonment, the imprisonment in default of the payment of fine must also be
rigorous. [(1967) 7 South WR (Cri) 31]
● If the substantive sentence of imprisonment for the offence can only be simple
imprisonment then the sentence of imprisonment for default in payment of fine can
only be simple imprisonment. [(1868-69) 5 Bom HCR (Crown Case)]
● According to section 66 of P.C. the imprisonment which the court imposes in default of
payment of a fine may be of any description to which the offender might have been
sentenced for the offence. If the offence is punishable with rigorous imprisonment, it
follows that the additional term of imprisonment in default of payment of fine must be
rigorous. However, if the offence is punishable with fine only, the imprisonment in
default of payment of fine shall be simple. Imprisonment in default of payment of
fine-May be of the description prescribed for the offence- Simple imprisonment
prescribed for offence- Rigorous imprisonment cannot be ordered for default. [Shafiq
Ahmed vs State PLD (WP) (Lah) 851]
Section 67 deals with the matter of imprisonment for non-payment of fine, when the offence is
punishable with fine only. According to this section, the term of imprisonment in default of
payment of fine shall be simple and shall not exceed the scale given in the section itself.
Amount of fine Term of imprisonment in default of payment
of fine
i) Not exceeding Tk. 50 Not exceeding 2 months
ii) Not exceeding Tk. 100 Not exceeding 4 months
iii) In any other case Not exceeding 6 months
Relevant cases:
● This section refers solely to cases in which the offence is punishable with fine only and
has no application to an offence punishable either with imprisonment or with fine, but
not with both. Such offences are governed by s. 65. For consideration under this
section of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (61 of 1985), s. 21 of
which imposes a fine and imprisonment in default. [Daulat Raghunath Derale v. State
of Maharashtra, 1991 Cr LJ 817]
Section 68 says that any imprisonment imposed in default of payment of fine shall no longer be
in force if it is paid by the accused or otherwise recovered from him.
Relevant cases:
● Where the amount of the fine is paid by the offender while undergoing imprisonment in
default of the imprisonment shall terminate. As per as, Cr. P.C. (5 of 1898) , S.386(1)
Proviso, S.401— Penal Code (45 of 1860) , S.64, S.68, S.69— Imprisonment in default
of fine - Undergoing of imprisonment does not operate as discharge or satisfaction of fine
- Special circumstances to be mentioned - Remission of part of imprisonment u/S.401 is
illegal - Remission cannot amount to undergoing the whole term awarded. The
undergoing of imprisonment awarded in default of payment of the fine does not operate
as a discharge or satisfaction of the fine which may nevertheless be levied in the manner
prescribed by Sec. 386(1) Cr. P. C. Where the offender has undergone the whole of the
sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of the fine, the warrant for the levy or
realisation of the fine will not be issued unless the court considers it necessary to do so
for special reasons to be recorded in writing. Where no special reasons have been
recorded by the Magistrate for issuing the warrant and if in law and fact the accused has
undergone the whole of the period of imprisonment imposed upon him in default of
payment of the fine the issue of the warrant would be illegal as they are issued contrary to
the provisions of the proviso to S. 386(1).(Para 2) [AIR 1969 All 116]
● According to the case Ramaswamy Iyer Agnellus Lawrence vs The Union Of India And
Anr. AIR 1963 Bom 21 both under this section and under S. 69 the imprisonment in
default of payment of fine will terminate under either section only by the actual
realization of the fine and not merely on the setting motion of the legal process for the
recovery of the fine.
Section 69 states that if only a part of fine imposed is paid, the termination of imprisonment in
default of payment will take place proportionately. Both according to section 68 and 68, the
termination will not take place until the court receives the money.
Relevant cases:
● Section 68 and S. 69 are independent of section 70. The expiry of limitation for levy of
fine imposed under section 70. P. C. would no way affect the liability of the convict to
undergo imprisonment in default of payment of fine under section 68. [AIR 1980 Crilj
1160]
● The term 'levied' under this section means realized. In other words, unless the proportion
of the fine referred to in the section in actually realized the accused will not be entitled to
release from the imprisonment. This meaning is in contrast to the meaning of the word
‘levy’ as used in S. 70. Under that section the word ‘levy' refers to the taking of legal
proceedings for the recovery of the fine and not the actual realization thereof. [AIR 1963
Bom 21]
Section 70
Legal rights of a dead person-
1. Body
2. Reputation
3. Will
Any person who is liable to pay fine, will not be discharged from it even if he dies. His property
is liable for such fine.
Fine imposed can be paid/ levied before the expiration of the time of total imprisonment (six
years or more). In this case, if government decides to reward commution, then the time allowed
to pay fine will also reduce accordingly.
Relevant cases:
Limitation where offender has been sentenced to imprisonment for longer term than 6 years-
● If the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a period of 10 years but the offender is
actually sentenced only to a term of 7 years imprisonment and fine, the fine can be
recovered only within the period of seven years from the date of the sentence and not ten
years. [AIR 1943 Pesh 56]
Payment of portion of fine-
● Sentence under section 69 where the accused pays a portion of the fine while he is
serving a sentence of imprisonment for default in the payment of the fine, he will be
entitled to release, if the period of imprisonment already suffered by him is not less than
proportional to the part of the fine remaining unpaid. [7577 Bom Un Cri C 40]
Death of offender-
● Under this section the death of the offender before payment of the fine to which he has
been sentenced does not extinguish the ability for the fine and even after his death the
fine can be levied and recovered from any property which would be legally table for his
debts. [AIR 1953 Trov-Co 233 (234)]
● Only the assets left by deceased accused are liable for fine imposed on him- Under
section 70 of the Penal Code, the fine imposed on the deceased accused may be realised
from his assets which after his death may come into possession of his legal
representatives. An order directing the fine to be realised from any property of the legal
representatives of the deceased accused is illegal. [6 DLR 29-Daktar Ali and others Vs.
Sukramani Das]
Section 71 deals with that where an offence is made up of parts, each of which constitutes an
offence, the offender shouldn’t be punished for more than one offence unless expressly provided.
Where an offence falls within two or more separate definitions of offences, or where several acts
of which one or more than one would, by itself or themselves, constitute an offence, constitute
when combined, a different offence, the offender shouldn’t be punished with more severe
punishment than the court which tries him could award for any one of such offences.
The section governs the whole code and regulates the limit of punishment in cases in which the
greater offence is made up of two or more minor offences. It is not a rule of adjective law or
procedure, but a rule of substantive law regulating the measure of punishment and it does not,
therefore, affect the question of conviction, which relates to the province of the procedure.
Relevant cases:
● Section 71 of the Penal Code as well as section 26 of the General Clauses Act talks only
of punishment and not of conviction. Thus conviction of the accused in respect of the
same act for two different offences is quite legal. [Ramanaya 1972 CrLJ 467(Pat)]
● Where offences are committed under two separate enactments, section 71 is not helpful to
the accused and as such two separate sentences can not be questioned by pressing section
71 in Service. [Re Natarajan 1976 CrLJ 1502(Mad)]
● Kidnapping two different persons make two different offences. [(1926) 27 CriLJ 64]
● Rioting and causing damage to crops on the holding of different persons will constitute a
distinct offence in regard to each holding. [AIR 1929 Pat 710]
● Person driving rashly on a public road causing grievous hurt by an offence falls under
section 279 and section 338. [AIR 1956 Madh 147]
● Where the accused cause both hurt and grievous hurt the case will not fall under para 3
nor under CrPC section 235(3).He can only be convicted of grievous hurt. [AIR 1968 Guj
218]
● Grievous hurt combined with lurking housing trespass or house breaking constitute the
offence under section 459 and thus the offence is a compound offence directly falling
within para 3, only punished under section 459 and not separately. [(1929)30 CrLJ 838]
● If forged a document and use as genuine punish only for the forgery under section 467,
not for using it as genuine under section 471. [AIR 1927 Oudh 630]
Section 72 is intended to prevent an offender whose guilt is fully established from eluding
punishment on the ground that the evidence does not enable the tribunal to pronounce with
certainty under what penal provision his case falls. This section applies to cases in which the law
applicable to a certain set of facts is doubtful. The doubt must be as to which of the offences the
accused has committed, not whether he has committed any.
Relevant cases:
● And this rule would apply even if one of the alternatives be an offence of murder. [(1904)
CriLJ 390]
Section 73 speaks of solitary confinement. Solitary confinement amounts to keeping the
prisoners thoroughly isolated from any kind of intercourse with the outside world. It inflicted in
order that a feeling of loneliness may produce wholesome influence and reform the criminal.
This section gives the scale according to which solitary confinement may be inflicted.
When solitary confinement should be imposed: The imposition of the sentence of solitary
confinement although it is legal, should be very rarely exercised by a criminal court.
It is a concern of the Supreme Court in regard to solitary confinement. On parity of reasoning it,
therefore follows that solitary confinement as a punishment under section 73 and section 74,
though legal, must be inflicted sparingly and only in exceptional cases.
Relevant cases:
Where the petitioners, an under trial prisoner, who was arrested in connection with the
assassination of a former Prime Minister, was put in a separate cell only as a precautionary
measure, to ensure the non-mingling with other prisoners and for his security, it was held that it
did not amount either to solitary confinement or cellular confinement. [Periravalan v I.G of
Prisons Madras 1992 CriLJ 3125(Mad)]
It should be administered, if ever, in most exceptional cases of unparalleled atrocity or brutality.
[Munuswamy 1948 Mad 359]
Section 74 of The Penal Code further limits the duration of Solitary Confinement. It provides-
“In executing a sentence of solitary confinement, such confinement shall in no case exceed
fourteen days at a time, with intervals between the periods of solitary confinement of not less
duration than such periods, and when the imprisonment awarded shall exceed three months, the
solitary confinement shall not exceed seven days in any one month of the whole imprisonment
awarded, with intervals between the periods of solitary confinement of not less duration than
such periods.” Solitary confinement may be imposed as a disciplinary punishment for convicted
prisoners who are die-hard criminals and dangerous to other vulnerable prisoners, or considered
to help prison-staff to manage certain offenders.
Solitary confinement refers to confinement of prisoners for a specific period without meaningful
human contact. Thus Human being social creature if stays in solitary confinement for a long time
without interval is sure to suffer mental derangement, which does not reflect the modern curative
aspect of punishment. This section limits the solitary confinement to seven days in any one
month when the substantive sentence exceeds three months. Solitary confinement must be
imposed at intervals. It cannot be imposed for the whole of the term of a person’s imprisonment
merely because that term is a short one coming within the extreme limit of fourteen days
prescribed in section 74 of The Penal Code.
- [(1869) 3 Beng LR (App) (Cri) 49 (50) (DB)]
The Prison Act, 1894 also contains provisions relating to solitary confinement. Section 29 of The
Prison Act, 1894 provides that the cell to be used for solitary confinement must be furnished
with the means of enabling the prisoner to communicate at any time with an officer of the prison,
and every prisoner so confined for more than twenty-four hours shall be visited at least once a
day by the Medical Officer or Medical subordinate. The revised UN Standard Minimum Rules
for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules) provide guidance on the treatment of
incarcerated people worldwide. Those rules prohibit the use of indefinite or prolonged solitary
confinement of more than 15 days and advise that prisons and jails only use it as a last resort.
Section 75 of deals with enhanced punishment to be awarded in case of, what is known as ‘old
offenders’. It states:
“Whoever, having been convicted,-
a) by a Court in Bangladesh of an offence punishable under Chapter XII or Chapter XVII of
this Code with imprisonment of either description for a term of three years or upwards;
shall be guilty of any offence punishable under either of those Chapters with like imprisonment
for the like term, shall be subject for every such subsequent offence to imprisonment for life, or
to imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years.”
The meaning of this section is that when an offender having been convicted by a Court in
Bangladesh, for an offence under Chapter XII (offences relating to coin and Government stamp)
or Chapter XVII (offences against property) of the Code, punished with three years’
imprisonment or upwards, commits an offence of a similar description after his release from
prison, he is liable to increased punishment on the ground that the punishment undergone has had
no effect in preventing a repetition of the crime.
To bring the offence within the term of this section, the following conditions must be
fulfilled:
1. The offence of which the accused has been previously convicted and of which he is
subsequently charged with must be-
(a) under either Chapter XII or Chapter XVII of The Penal Code;
(b) punishable with imprisonment for three years or more.
2. The subsequent offence must have been committed after the previous conviction.
This section does not constitute a separate offence, but only imposes a liability to enhanced
punishment.
Relevant cases:
● The words “having been convicted shall be guilty of any offence” imply that the previous
conviction should have been before the commission of the offence with which the
accused is subsequently charged. [AIR 1918 Low Bur 121]
● Where the accused pleads guilty to the charge of previous conviction, that amounts to an
admission of guilt under section 255A CrPC and, therefore the previous conviction need
not be proved under section 511 CrPC. – Qaim Din vs State 10 DLR (WP) 69
● Enhanced sentence must be taken to mean not merely a sentence over and above the
sentence specified for a particular offence but also a deterrent sentence even within the
range of the maximum sentence that the Court is competent to award. [(1970) 2 Mad LJ
668]
Group-B
1812016107 - Afia Jahin Mow
1812116123 - Samanta Sabrina Sagufta
1812516127 - Tanjin Akter
1812016128 - Fouzia Momtaj
1812016151 - Sumaiya Nurain
1812516154 - Suraia Sharmin Khushi
1812116156 - Nafisa Islam
1711016202 - Haider Anika Tahseen
