In India, the concept of punishments has been prescribed and enshrined in ancient mythological texts and artefacts like the Mahabharat, Vishnu Puran, Ramayana, and Durga Saptshti, as well as in legal codes and law books of the modern era like the Constitution of India, the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita Bill, 2023. With the advent of time and progress in society, the relevance and application of theories of punishment have evolved considerably.

The Indian Penal Code (IPC) provides a framework for determining the appropriate punishment for various criminal offenses. Punishment serves as a means to deter individuals from committing crimes, protect society, and ensure justice. This article aims to provide an overview of punishment under the IPC, explore the different types of punishment, and present case laws and illustrations to illustrate their application.

The imposition of an outcome which is not desirable or agreeable upon the persons jointly involved or a single person by any authority or forum is nothing but punishment. The study of the punishments meted out for various crimes and their implication upon the receiver and the society as a whole is known as Penology. A group of persons (known as recognized as Khaps or Panchayat in villages) or a single person authorized under an established legal system can extend punishments.

The process by which a State inflicts some kind of undesirable outcome or agony to any person or his property who is proven to be guilty by a Court of Law is punishment. The compelling factors behind inflicting punishments can be summed up as retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, and incapacitation.

According to Edward Coke "The law should be a shield for the innocent and a sword against the guilty".

Punishments do not merely act as deterrent rather they also play a very important and crucial role in any legal system because they not only maintain social order but also tent to provide justice to victims and society at large. In the context of the Indian Penal Code (herein after referred IPC), various punishments are prescribed for the offences ranging from minor infringements and breaches to heinous or graver crimes.

Professor Robert Blecker says that "the punishment must be painful in proportion to the crime".

With the evolution and advancement of societal norms, the perspective on criminal justice has become broader and matured than before due to which there is an ongoing need for reforms which aim to achieve the objects of fairness, proportionality, and rehabilitation within the punishment system.

Objective of Punishment

Punishment is the remedy that the commonwealth takes against an offending member of the society. It has been defined by many scholars; some of them are as follows:

• H. Kelsen: In his general theory of 'law and state,' described "sanction is socially organized, consisting in the deprivation of possession - life, freedom or property."
• Jeremy Bentham: Stated that "punishment is evil in the form of remedy which operates by fear."
• John Finnish: "Delinquent behavior of a person needs to be taught a lesson not with melody but with an iron hand."

Punishments are imposed on the wrongdoers with the object to deter them from committing further offenses, by reforming and turning them into law-abiding citizens. The object of punishment has been very well summarized by Manu, in the following words:

"Punishments govern all mankind; punishment alone preserves them; punishment wakes while their guards are asleep; the wise consider the punishment (Danda) as the perfection of justice."

Bentham suggested that punishment might be useful in controlling crimes in the following ways:

• By making it impossible or difficult for a criminal to commit the offense again, at least in certain ways;
• By deterring both offenders and others;
• By providing an opportunity for the reformation of the offender.

IN THE CASE OF State of Punjab v. Dil Bahadur (2023), the Supreme Court held that "The Indian Penal Code is punitive and deterrent, with its principal aim and object being punishing offenders for committing offenses under the act." In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Surendra Singh (2015), it was held that undue sympathy by means of imposing inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system by leading to the erosion of public confidence in the efficacy of law.

Elements of Punishment

Under the Indian Penal Code, the sentencing policy is measured on the following factors:

• The gravity of the violation;
• The seriousness of the crime;
• Its general effect upon public tranquillity.

There is a correlation between measures of punishment and the measure of guilt. Accordingly, the sentencing policy in a particular offence is standardized.

A body was established by the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Malimath Committee (the Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice System) in India. The purpose of the committee was to give recommendations on the sentencing guidelines for the Indian Judiciary. The aforesaid committee had issued its report in which it stated that there is a need to introduce guidelines on sentencing to minimize the uncertainty of awarding sentences. The committee observed that "for many offences, only the maximum punishment is prescribed and for some offences, the minimum may be prescribed" and thereby there is a lack of uniformity. This results in wide discretionary powers to the Judges to decide the sentencing duration, which leads to uncertainty in the sentencing policy.[5]

In 2008, the Madhava Menon Committee (the Committee on Draft National Policy on Criminal Justice), again reaffirmed the need for statutory sentencing guidelines.

As per the white paper introduced by the British Parliament, the aim of having a sentencing policy should be "deterrence and protection of society from evils". The lack of sentencing policy will not only affect the judicial system but it will also substantially harm society.

In the case of Soman v. Kerala (2012)[6], the Supreme Court of India cited a number of principles while exercising discretionary powers by the Court. The general principles are proportionality, deterrence, and rehabilitation. In the proportionality principle aggravating and mitigating factors should be considered. Mitigating circumstances are related to the criminal and aggravating circumstances are related to the crime.

in the case of State of Punjab v. Prem Sagar (2008)[7], wherein the Court stated that "In our judicial system, we have not been able to develop legal principles as regards sentencing. The superior courts except making observations with regard to the purport and object for which punishment is imposed upon an offender have not issued any guidelines." Therefore, there is a necessity to have a sentencing policy with due consideration to the recommendations made by the Madhava Menon Committee and Malimath Committee[8].

Theories of Punishment

• Deterrent Theory: Deter means to refrain a person from doing an act. The main purpose of this theory is to inflict the deterrent effect on the criminals themselves from repeating the crime, so that they don't commit the crime fearing the punishment.
• Retributive Theory: This theory is also known as the theory of vengeance. Retribute means to give in return; this theory proposes that the punishment has to be corresponding to that of the crime committed. 'An eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth' etc., are the basic principles of this theory.
• Preventive Theory: By this theory, the criminal is prevented from committing the crime either by putting him into prison, by inflicting the death penalty, or by ending the modes by which he used to commit a crime.
• Reformative Theory: This theory is based on the principle of 'hate the sin, not the sinner.' The object of this theory is to reform the sinner, the behavior of the criminal. It tries to modify the attitude of the offender so that he can become a law-abiding member of society.

Kinds of Punishment under IPC

• The penal code in chapter III, sections 53 to 75, has provided for the general provisions relating to punishment for different offenses. Depending upon the nature and gravity of the offense, the code has prescribed 5 types of punishments under section 53:
• Death Sentence
• Imprisonment for life
• Imprisonment –
  • (a) Rigorous with hard labor
  • (b) Simple
• Forfeiture of property
• Fine
• One of the harshest punishments provided in the IPC is the death sentence. It is the punishment where the accused is executed to death if he has been found guilty of the offense. The IPC provides for capital punishment for certain offenses.

Death Sentence
The death sentence is a punishment which is sanctioned by the government and ordered by the court where a person is put to death for a crime acted by him. It is also referred to as 'Capital Punishment'. The act of carrying out such practice is called execution.

The subject of death sentence always has been a matter of controversy. While considering the Constitution as the supreme, the validity of death sentence v/s fundamental rights constantly came forward for the debates. However, the death sentences are rarely given in the Indian criminal courts. In the case of Bachan Singh vs State Of Punjab, the Supreme Court held that capital punishment shall be given in the "rarest of the rare" case. However, what constitutes the "rarest of the rare cases" is not prescribed by the Supreme Court or by the legislature.

In the case of Jagmohan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the SC ruled that the approach towards imposing capital punishment shall be balanced on mitigating and aggravating factors of the crime. However, in the case of Bachan Singh, for the first time, this approach was called into question due to the amendments in the Cr.P.C. As per the amendment in the Cr.P.C. in the offence of murder the offender shall be punished with the sentence of life imprisonment. After taking due consideration of the amendment, the Court stated that capital punishment shall be given in special cases only.

However, in the case of Sangeet & Anr. v. State of Haryana, the court noted that the approach laid down in Bachan Singh's case is not fully adopted. The courts still give primacy to the crime and not to the circumstances of the criminal. The balance of the mitigating and aggravating factors have taken a bit of a back seat in ordering punishment.[11]

• Section 115– Abetment for an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life (if offence not committed);
• Section 118– Concealing design to commit an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
• Section 121– When armed rebellion (i.e. waging, abetting to waging of war or attempting to wage war) is made against the constitutionally and legally established government;
• Section 132– Uprising, supporting and encouraging the formation of the mutinous group of people in the nation's armed forces;
• Section 194- With the intent to obtain a death sentence to an innocent by presenting concocted vexatious proof;
• Section 302– Causing murder of another;
• Section 305– Abetting suicide to an insane or minor person;
• Section 303– When a life convict person murders another person;
• Section 396– Causing dacoity with murder;
• Section 364A– Kidnapping;
• Section 376A (as per the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013)- Rape.

Case laws on Death Sentence (When the death sentence is confirmed)

1. State of Tamil Nadu v Nalini (1999): In the case of State of Tamil Nadu v Nalini, the case was filed as an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Tamil Nadu. This case is popularly known as Rajiv Gandhi's assassination case. The offenders were accused under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933, The Foreigners Act, 1946, Passports Act, 1967, Arms Act, 1959, Explosive Substances Act, 1908, Indian Penal Code, 1908 (IPC), TADA Rules, The Terrorist And Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987. In the case, there were 26 accused out of which four accused were punished death penalty by the Apex Court. The accused were from the LTTE (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam) group and were seeking revenge for the Indian government's decision for sending army troops in Sri Lanka. However, as per recent update Nalini Sriharan, V Sriharan, and Murghan have applied plea for mercy killing as there is no response to their mercy petition till date.
    
2. Jai Kumar v State of Madhya Pradesh (1999): In Jai Kumar v State of Madhya Pradesh case, an appeal by the grant of special leave against the order of the Division bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh was made. In this case, the accused brutally murdered sister-in-law and 7-year-old niece. The Court considered the factual matrix of the case and observed that the act of murder was not done in the rage and the accused himself under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C admitted the murder. Thereby, the Supreme Court upheld the verdict of the Sessions Court and the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.
    
3. Suresh Chandra Bahri v State of Bihar (1994): The case of Suresh Chandra Bahri v State of Bihar was filed as an appeal from the High Court of Patna. The Sessions Court convicted the three appellants named Suresh Bahri, Gurbachan Singh, and Raj Pal Sharma for the death penalty under Section 302 and Section 120 B of the IPC. The High Court of Patna dismissed the appeal affirming the sentence awarded by the trial court. In this case, the accused killed Urshia Bahri and her two children because of some dispute in the property. The Supreme Court confirmed the death penalty of Suresh Bahri, whereas the death penalty of Gurbachan Singh and Raj Pal Sharma was commuted to a life sentence.
    
4. Dhananjoy Chatterjee alias Dhana v State of West Bengal (1994): In the 21st century, the case of Dhananjoy Chatterjee alias Dhana v State of West Bengal can be called a historic case as the accused was the first person who was lawfully executed for a crime not related to terrorism. The accused was working as a watchman in the building of the deceased. He had raped and murdered an 18-year-old girl at her own home. The trial court ordered the death penalty under Section 302 of the IPC. The same has been confirmed by the High Court of West Bengal. While the appeal in the Supreme Court, the court held that the case will be considered under "the rarest of the rare" case, thereby there will be no commutation of the punishment.
    
5. Sushil Murmu v State of Jharkhand (2003): In the case of Sushil Murmu v State of Jharkhand, the accused was punished with the death penalty for the sacrifice before Goddess Kali of a 9-year-old child. The accused made the sacrifice for his own prosperity. The trial court held the accused liable under Section 302 and 201 of the IPC, 1860 and the Jharkhand High Court confirmed the death penalty. The Appeal was made to the Supreme Court; however, the Apex court upheld the order of the lower court and affirmed that this is an exemplary case which can be treated as the rarest of rare case, therefore there is no exception to be given to this case.
    
6. Holiram Bardokti v State of Assam (2005): In the case of Holiram Bardokti v State of Assam, there were 17 accused. The appellant is one of the accused who has been awarded the death penalty under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC by the Sessions Judge. The same has been confirmed by the High Court of Assam. The accused was being held for two murders i.e. of Narayan Bordoloi, Padam Bordoloi, and Nayanmoni (6-year-old child). The Supreme Court observed that the appellant had no spark of kindness or compassion while burning the bodies and cutting the body into pieces; the whole accident shocked the collective conscience of the community. Therefore, the Apex Court upheld the order of the lower courts and observed that the court is not able to find any mitigating factors to refrain from the death penalty.
    
7. State of Odisha v. Chilu @ Sanjeev Kumar Prusty & Ors (2024): The Court examined all the aggravating and mitigating circumstances in a detailed manner and came to the conclusion that the acts of the accused persons come under the category of 'rarest of rare' and thus, warrants imposition of the severest punishment, i.e. death penalty.
    
8. Byluru Thippaiah And State of Karnataka (2024): The Karnataka High Court has confirmed the death sentence handed down to an accused by the trial court for murdering his wife, sister-in-law, and three children below the age of 10 years, suspecting the fidelity of his wife.
    
9. Mukesh & Anr v. State for NCT of Delhi & Ors (2020): The Delhi court convicts the remaining four men of 13 offences including gangrape, unnatural offence, and murder of the woman and attempt to murder her male friend. The Court awarded death to all four culprits.

Imprisonment for Life
Life imprisonment is one of the types of punishment which is recognized under Section 53 of the IPC. Earlier this was also known as transportation for life. This punishment is given for serious crimes wherein the convicted remains in prison until his/her last breath.

Scope of Section 57
Section 57 of the IPC is used when fractions of terms of punishment need to be calculated. However, it is important to understand that this section does not give any implied or explicit right to the prisoner to reduce his life imprisonment to 20 years of the sentence.

Under some sections like Section 116,119,120 and 511 of the Code, the prisoners can ask for relief under this section.

Is Life Sentence does Period of 14 Years?
In the case of Duryodhan Rout vs State Of Orissa (2014), the Apex Court clearly stated that reading Section 55 of the Code and Section 433 and 433 A of Cr.P.C, life imprisonment is not confined to 14 years of imprisonment, only the appropriate government can commute the life imprisonment of the prisoner.

The government can commute the punishment of life imprisonment to the imprisonment of term equal to or less than 14 years, or if the prisoner exceeded 14 years of imprisonment then he can be released.

In 1961 in Gopal Vinayak Godse vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors., the question 'whether there is any section in the law wherein the life imprisonment without formal remission by the appropriate government can be automatically treated as one for a definite period?' came to the Apex Court as a question of law. Answering the question the court pointed out the observation made by the judicial committee which stated that, the transportation for life shall be deemed to be transportation for 20 years, however, this does not say that it shall be deemed to be considered the same for all purposes.

Further, the provisions under which transportation for life has been amended to imprisonment for life can also not be put under Section 57 IPC. Therefore, a sentence of imprisonment for life or transportation for life must prima facie need to be considered as imprisonment or transportation for the whole life of the prisoner till his natural death.

In the Case of Bhaktu Gorain v. State of West 2023) [19] the Supreme Court upheld the rigorous life imprisonment sentence of the convicts in a witchcraft-related murder case. The Court ruled that the convicts had a common intention to kill the victim.

The five accused persons called the deceased a witch (diayen) who is the cause of trouble to the villagers as she used to indulge in witchcraft and killed her.

In the case of Binu @ Kari Binu V State of Kerala & Connected 2024) [20] The Kerala High Court upheld rigorous life imprisonment imposed upon four accuseds 1 to 4 (Sijith alias Rajan, Arun alias Gabri, Vineeth alias Picha, Arun Mali alias Aneesh) for the offence of murder of CITU worker Sunil Babu due to gang rivalry.

The Court also set aside the conviction of rigorous life imprisonment imposed upon accuseds 5 to 8 (Binu alias Kari Binu, Saju alias Kallan Saju, Saji alias Pori Saji, Suresh alias Kopra Suresh) for criminal conspiracy to murder due to lack of evidence.

In Journalist Soumya Vishvanathan murder case (2024) A Delhi Court on Saturday sentenced four men to life imprisonment in the murder case of journalist Soumya Vishwanathan, more than 15 years after she was killed in 2008.

Additional Sessions Judge Ravindra Kumar Pandey of Saket Court also sentenced the fifth convict, Ajay Sethi, to simple imprisonment for a period of three years.

The four convicts namely Ravi Kapoor, Amit Shukla, Baljeet Malik and Ajay Kumar have been sentenced to life imprisonment.[21]

Imprisonment
The general meaning of imprisonment means captivity or to put someone in prison. Under Section 53 of IPC, imprisonment can be of two types. One is simple and the other is rigorous. As per Section 60 of the IPC, the competent court has the discretion to decide the description of sentencing. It can be of various types, like:

• Wholly or partly rigorous; or
• Wholly or partly simple; or
• Any term to be rigorous and the rest simple.[22]

Case: State of Uttar Pradesh v. Naushad (2018) – The accused was convicted for rape and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years. The court considered the gravity of the offense and the impact on the victim while determining the appropriate punishment.[23]

Forfeiture of Property

Forfeiture generally means the loss of property without any compensation in return, which is the result of the default caused by the person in terms of contractual obligation, or in paying penalty for illegal conduct. In two provisions, the forfeiture of the property has been abolished:

• Under Section 126 for committing depredation on territories of Power at peace with the Government of India.
• Under Section 127 for receiving property taken during war or depredation mentioned in sections 126 and 126 of IPC [24].

Fine

The court may impose a fine as an alternative for imprisonment or can add it as an addition to the imprisonment. In certain cases, the fine is added along with imprisonment. Section 63 to 69 covers various fines under the IPC. However, as per Section 64 of the Code, when there is a default in the payment of a fine, the court may order for imprisonment.

Amount of Fine should not be Excessive

As per Section 63 of the IPC, when the sum is not expressed under the provisions of the Code, the amount of fine to which the offender is liable is unlimited; however, the fine shall not be excessive. In the case of Palaniappan Gounder v. State of Tamil Nadu[25], the Apex Court stated that the sentence given by the court shall be proportionate to the nature of the offence, which includes the sentence of fine. And the punishment shall not be unduly excessive. State of Rajasthan v. Ram Niwas (2005) – The accused was found guilty of theft and was ordered to pay a fine of INR 10,000. The court considered the value of the stolen property, the financial condition of the accused, and the need to deter similar offenses in imposing the fine[26].

Updates under New Criminal Laws

The Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) received the assent of the President of India on 25.12.2023. There is a misconception that BNS has replaced IPC with effect from 25.12.2023 and FIR for all offences will be filed under BNS with effect from 25.12.2023. It is not so. BNS will repeal and replace IPC only from the date of coming into force of BNS as appointed by the Central Government by issuing a notification under section 1(2) of BNS. The Central Government is empowered to appoint different dates of coming into force for different provisions of BNS. All offences committed till the notified date(s) of coming into force of BNS will be dealt with under IPC only. The following are the top 10 changes in BNS as compared with IPC applicable from the date(s) to be notified by the Central Government:

• Community Service has been included in BNS as a punishment for the first time for petty offences.
• Punishment for mob lynching (new provision).
• New offence of organized crime.
• New offence of petty organized crime.
• New offence of terrorist act.
• Change in punishment in hit and run cases.
• Sedition made not punishable by omission of section 124A of IPC; Instead, treason is made punishable under new section 150 of BNS.
• Mere possession of fake currency notes is no more punishable.
• Scope of the offence of "theft" expanded to cover theft of intangible items like theft of data (e.g., credit card skimming), identity theft, theft of intangible assets in view of expanded definition of "movable property."

Snatching (new offence)

• Community Services Section 4(f) of BNS has introduced a new 6th type of punishment – Community service. To reduce the burden on jails, community service has been included in BNS as a punishment for the first time and it is being given legal status. [PIB Press Release, dated 20-12-2023] BNS prescribes Community Service as punishment for petty offences like non-or restraint exercise of lawful power of public servant, petty theft on return of theft money, misconduct in public by a drunken person, defamation, etc. The term "community service" is not defined in BNS. However, it is defined by Explanation to section 23 of BNSS to mean the work which the Court may order a convict to perform as a form of punishment that benefits the community, for which he shall not be entitled to any remuneration.
   
• Punishment for mob-lynching (new provision) Section 103(2) of BNS is a new provision. Section 103(2) provides that when a group of five or more persons acting in concert commits murder on the ground of race, caste or community, sex, place of birth, language, personal belief or any other ground, each member of such group shall be punished with death or with imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.
   
• New Offence of Organized Crime There was no offence of organized crime or punishment for it in IPC. Hitherto, Organized crime is defined and punishable in state laws such as Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA). Section 111 of BNS is a new provision dealing with Organized Crime.
   
• New Offence of Petty Organized Crime Section 112 of BNS is a new provision. There is no such provision in IPC.
   
• New Offence of Terrorist Act Section 113 of BNS is a new provision.
  • Whoever does any act with the intent to threaten or likely to threaten the unity, integrity, sovereignty, security, or economic security of India or with the intent to strike terror or likely to strike terror in the people or any section of the people in India or in any foreign country,––
  • by using bombs, dynamite or other explosive substance or inflammable substance or firearms or other lethal weapons or poisonous or noxious gases or other chemicals or by any other substance (whether biological, radioactive, nuclear or otherwise) of a hazardous nature.
     
• Changes in punishment in hit and run cases Section 304A of IPC deals with death caused by negligence. Section 106 of BNS corresponds to section 304A. Increased punishment: Section 106(1) of BNS provides that whoever causes death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years. The new law increases the punishment for causing death by negligence from a maximum of two years to a maximum of five years. This change reflects a stricter approach to cases of negligence resulting in death.
   
• Sedition made not punishable by omission of section 124A of IPC; Instead treason is made punishable under new section 150 of BNS BNS has omitted section 124A of IPC under which sedition was a punishable offence. Section 124A of IPC provided that whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards, the Government established by law in India, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine. Instead, the offence under BNS is treason which is covered in section 152 of BNS as acts endangering sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India.
   
• Mere possession of fake currency notes is no more punishable Section 242 of IPC has been amended and introduced as section 178 in BNS to protect the public who are merely in possession of forged or counterfeit currency notes or banknotes etc. Under the amended law, mere possession of forged or counterfeit currency notes or banknotes etc. is not an offence. The amended law (section 178 of BNS) provides that in order to constitute an offence, possession of a counterfeit currency note has to be accompanied by the intention to use the same as genuine.
   
• Scope of offence of "theft" expanded The scope of theft is expanded to cover theft of intangible items like theft of data (e.g., credit card skimming), identity theft, and theft of intangible assets in view of expanded definition of "movable property." Theft is covered by section 303 of BNS. Corresponding provisions were sections 378 and 379 of IPC.
   
• Snatching [New offence u/s 304 of BNS] Section 304 of BNS is a new provision. IPC did not treat snatching as an offence distinct from theft under section 379 of IPC. Theft is "snatching" if, in order to commit theft, the offender suddenly or quickly or forcibly seizes or secures or grabs or takes away from any person or from his possession any movable property. Whoever commits snatching shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

Proposals for Reforms

The punishments should be effective enough to act as a deterrent as well as not be severe. Therefore, it is time for the Indian Judiciary to have a sentencing policy where there is no space for ambiguity and prejudice on the part of the Judge, which creates a barrier while sentencing. An effective implementation of this reform will also reduce the appeals for enhancing or reducing punishment, which will, in turn, remove the burden of the growing number of pending appeals, allowing the Court to devote crucial time to matters of concern.

1. Sentencing Guidelines: Comprehensive and standardized sentencing guidelines need to be introduced in order to ensure consistency and proportionality in punishments. These guidelines will act as a framework for judges within which they have to determine the appropriate sentences based on the factors such as nature and severity of the offence after taking into account mitigating and aggravating factors and no other.
    
2. Rehabilitation and Restorative Justice: The purpose of punishments should not be merely punitive, but the rehabilitation and reintegration of the offenders into the social fabric are also of much importance. This is what restorative justice is, which acts as an alternative to the incarceration of offenders for certain offences and also prevents them from resorting to crime in their remaining part of their lives. The focal point of punishment should not only be to address the root causes of criminal behavior but also to provide support and opportunities for offenders to reintegrate into society.
    
3. Community Service and Probation: In the cases of non-violent offences, the use of community service and probation as alternatives to imprisonment should be widely expanded. These measures can contribute to promoting accountability, providing opportunities for offenders to make amends, and thus reducing the burden on the correctional system.
    
4. Victim Compensation Fund: The Code can allow for the establishment of an appropriate victim compensation fund that may also contain confiscated assets from organized crime.

End Notes:

1. Punishments Under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Libertatem Magazine
2. https://thelegalquotient.com/criminal-laws/criminal-jurisprudence/punishment/1138/
3. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 267
4. (2015) 1 SCC 222
5. https://aishwaryasandeep.in/title-punishment-under-ipc-a-comprehensive-overview-with-case-laws/
6. AIRONLINE 2012 SC 468
7. 2008 AIR SCW 4805
8. Analysis of Punishments under IPC (legalserviceindia.com)
9. Punishments Under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Libertatem Magazine
10. Punishments Under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Libertatem Magazine
11. https://blog.ipleaders.in/punishment-under-ipc-all-you-need-to-know-about-it/
12. AIR 1999 SUPREME COURT 1860
13. 1994 AIR 2420
14. 1994(1)ALT(CRI)388
15. 2004 (1) SLT 275
16. AIR 2005 SUPREME COURT 2059
17. Case No. 42 of 2019
18. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 216
19. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 779
20. 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 206
21. https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/delhi-court-life-imprisonment-2008-journalist-soumya-vishwanathan-murder-case-243027
22. https://blog.ipleaders.in/punishment-under-ipc-all-you-need-to-know-about-it/
23. Title: Punishment Under IPC: A Comprehensive Overview with Case Laws - Aishwarya Sandeep - Parenting and Law
24. https://blog.ipleaders.in/punishment-under-ipc-all-you-need-to-know-about-it/
25. 1977 AIR 1323 1977 SCR (3) 132 1977 SCC (2) 634
26. https://aishwaryasandeep.in/punishments-under-ipc/
27. Top 10 Changes Made by Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) vis-à-vis Indian Penal Code (IPC) (taxmann.com)
28. https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-11956-analysis-of-punishments-under-ipc.html