KSLU Solved Question Papers
Criminal Law I
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) · Sem 4
2022 Oct (100 marks) Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 4 Criminal Law I 2022 Oct (100 marks) Question Paper with Solutions
First published on munotes.in on 21 October 2026.
Published by munotes.in, Mumbai.
Model answers written and edited by the munotes.in editorial desk.
Passages from this volume may be quoted, in print, online or by an AI system, with credit: name munotes.in and link to this volume's page. The volume may not be reproduced as a whole. Full terms at munotes.in/content-license.
munotes.in is an independent study resource for students of Karnataka State Law University. It is not affiliated with Karnataka State Law University, and is not endorsed by it.
The University does not publish an official answer key for this paper. The answers in this volume are model answers, written to show how a full-mark answer is built. They are a study aid, not an authority on what an examiner marked.
The question paper reproduced here is the paper as set by Karnataka State Law University at the 2022 Oct (100 marks) examination.
Contents
The questions below are the paper as Karnataka State Law University set it at the 2022 Oct (100 marks) examination, in the order it was set.
MarksPage
The Paper as Set
The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the 2022 Oct (100 marks) examination, reproduced as Karnataka State Law University set them, in the order it set them. Long reading passages are shortened to their first and last lines and our summary; the original paper prints them in full. Only the answers are ours. See the original question paper.
Duration 3 hours · Total marks 100 · 13 questions answered
How to use this volume
Solve the paper first, under exam conditions and against the clock. Then read the answers here and mark your own. Reading a solution before attempting the question feels productive and teaches very little, because recognising an answer is not the same as being able to write one.
Q1Explain various punishments to which offenders are liable under IPC with special reference to Death sentence.[16]
Answer
For full marks, cover: the five punishments in section 53 of the Indian Penal Code (now six in section 4 of the Sanhita), each in brief: imprisonment for life (Gopal Vinayak Godse), imprisonment rigorous or simple, forfeiture of property and fine; then the death sentence in depth, through six questions: (1) for which offences the Code allowed it; (2) whether it is constitutional (Jagmohan Singh, Bachan Singh); (3) when a judge may choose it, the rarest of rare rule; (4) why it can never be mandatory (Mithu); (5) how it is passed and carried out: special reasons, confirmation, and hanging (Deena); (6) mercy and delay (Shatrughan Chauhan); the debate; the Sanhita; a conclusion.
The scheme of section 53
Section 53 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 lists "the punishments to which offenders are liable under the provisions of this Code". After amendments in 1949 and 1955 the list stood at five.
- Death.
- Imprisonment for life.
- Imprisonment, "rigorous, that is, with hard labour", or simple.
- Forfeiture of property.
- Fine.
The list is closed. A court can pass only these punishments, and only the ones the section creating the offence allows.
The four punishments other than death, in brief
Imprisonment for life. It replaced "transportation for life" in 1955 (section 53A). It means imprisonment for the rest of the prisoner's natural life, not a fixed term of fourteen or twenty years.
Facts. In Gopal Vinayak Godse v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1961 SC 600, decided on 12 January 1961, a prisoner sentenced in 1949 to transportation for life had earned 2,963 days of remission. His time served plus remission exceeded twenty years, and he sought release.
Held. A life sentence is rigorous imprisonment for life. The prisoner must serve the rest of his life unless the Government commutes or remits the sentence. Remission under prison rules does not by itself end it.
Imprisonment. It is rigorous, with hard labour, or simple. Some offences allow only simple imprisonment, such as wrongful restraint under section 341.
Forfeiture of property. It survives for only a few offences against the State. An example is committing depredation on the territories of a Power at peace with India (section 126).
Fine. Where no limit is stated, the amount is unlimited but must not be excessive (section 63). In default of payment, the court may order imprisonment, within limits (sections 64 to 70).
Death, question 1: for which offences
The Code allowed death for a small group of the gravest offences.
- Waging war against the Government of India (section 121).
- Abetting mutiny that is then committed (section 132).
- False evidence on which an innocent person is convicted and executed (section 194).
- Murder (section 302), and murder by a life convict (section 303).
- Abetting the suicide of a child or an insane person (section 305), and attempted murder by a life convict who causes hurt (section 307).
- Kidnapping for ransom (section 364A).
- The gravest rape offences added in 2013 and 2018, such as rape causing death (section 376A) and repeat rape offences (section 376E).
- Dacoity with murder (section 396).
In every one of them death is an alternative to life imprisonment, never the only sentence.
Death, question 2: is it constitutional?
Facts. In Jagmohan Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1973 SC 947, a death sentence for murder was challenged under Articles 14, 19 and 21. It was argued that judges had unguided discretion, and that there was no procedure for weighing the choice between death and life.
Held. A Constitution Bench upheld the death penalty. The Constitution itself contemplates it in Articles 72 and 134, and Article 21 allows deprivation of life by procedure established by law. Parliament had not accepted proposals to abolish it. Judicial discretion, corrected by appeal, is the safest safeguard for the accused.
Facts. In Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 898, decided on 9 May 1980, the appellant had served a life sentence for one murder. He then killed three more people and was sentenced to death. A Constitution Bench re-examined the validity of the death penalty under the new procedure code of 1973.
Held. The death penalty for murder, and the sentencing procedure in section 354(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, were upheld. Bhagwati J. dissented.
Death, question 3: when may a judge choose it?
Bachan Singh laid down the rule that still governs. For murder, "life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence an exception". Death may be passed only "in the rarest of rare cases when the alternative option is unquestionably foreclosed". Mitigating factors must be read liberally, and judges must never be "bloodthirsty". The judge must weigh the crime and the criminal, the aggravating and the mitigating circumstances. In Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1983 SC 957, the Court grouped the aggravating cases under five heads. They are the manner, the motive, the anti-social nature and the magnitude of the crime, and the personality of the victim.
Death, question 4: can it be mandatory?
Facts. In Mithu v. State of Punjab, AIR 1983 SC 473, decided on 7 April 1983, section 303 was challenged. It said a person under sentence of life imprisonment who commits murder "shall be punished with death".
Held. A Constitution Bench struck section 303 down as void under Articles 14 and 21. A law that takes away the court's discretion in a matter of life and death, whatever the circumstances, is harsh, unjust and unfair. Since then every murder falls under section 302, and no death sentence is mandatory.
Death, question 5: how is it passed and carried out?
- Special reasons. Section 354(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure required the judgment to state "special reasons" for a death sentence. The accused must also be heard on sentence after conviction.
- Confirmation. A Sessions Court's death sentence cannot be executed unless the High Court confirms it.
- Hanging. Section 354(5) directed that the condemned person "be hanged by the neck till he is dead".
Facts. In Deena v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 1155, decided on 23 September 1983, prisoners under sentence of death argued that hanging by rope was cruel and barbarous, and so violated Article 21.
Held. Hanging does not violate Article 21. It is quick and certain, unconsciousness follows almost at once, and it causes the least pain imaginable. The State must carry out an execution with decency, without degradation or brutality.
Death, question 6: mercy and delay
The President under Article 72 and the Governor under Article 161 may pardon, commute or remit a death sentence.
Facts. In Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India (2014) 3 SCC 1, decided on 21 January 2014, death-row prisoners challenged long delays in deciding their mercy petitions. Some had become mentally ill while waiting.
Held. Article 21 protects a prisoner till his last breath. Undue and unexplained delay in deciding a mercy petition, and insanity, are grounds on which the Court may commute the sentence. The death sentences of fifteen prisoners were commuted to life imprisonment.
The debate
For retaining it: supporters say it marks society's abhorrence of the worst crimes, and that it may deter some killers. The rarest of rare rule also confines it to very few cases.
Against it: critics say no deterrent effect beyond life imprisonment has been shown, and an error cannot be undone. Its use can also depend on the quality of the defence. Judges applying the same rule have also reached different results on similar facts.
Under the Sanhita
Section 4 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 keeps the five punishments and adds a sixth, community service. Death remains for murder (section 103) and for murder by a life convict (section 104). Under section 104 it is now an alternative to imprisonment for the rest of natural life. The procedure is in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: special reasons in section 393(3), hanging in section 393(5) and confirmation in section 407. Section 472 now sets time limits for mercy petitions and makes the President's or Governor's order final.
Conclusion. Section 53 of the Code allowed five punishments: death, life imprisonment, imprisonment rigorous or simple, forfeiture and fine. The Sanhita adds community service. Life imprisonment means the rest of natural life, as Gopal Vinayak Godse holds. Death is constitutional, as Jagmohan Singh and Bachan Singh decided, but it is the exception. It may be passed only in the rarest of rare cases, and it can never be mandatory after Mithu. It needs special reasons and the High Court's confirmation. It is carried out by hanging, which Deena upheld. Delay in deciding mercy may itself require commutation, as Shatrughan Chauhan shows.
The rest of the answers
The first answer is free. The rest come with the KSLU B.A. LL.B. Semester 4 solved papers.
You have read the question paper and its first answer in full. Buy the solved papers once and you can read every answer of every solved paper in this semester.
Solved papers: ₹499 Already bought it? Sign in
The question paper itself stays free.
Found an error in this volume? Report it and we will check it against the paper.