munotes®
Sign in
Home / KSLU Solved Papers / B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) / Sem 9 / Penology and Victimology / 2012 Jun / Solutions

B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 9 Penology and Victimology 2012 Jun Question Paper with Solutions

KSLU Solved Question Papers

Penology and Victimology

Previous Year Question Paper with Solution

B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) · Sem 9

2012 Jun Examination

munotes.in

Mumbai

munotes.in

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 2012 Jun examination.

munotes.in ii

Contents

The questions below are the paper as Karnataka State Law University set it at the 2012 Jun examination, in the order it was set.

MarksPage

munotes.in iii

MarksPage

munotes.in iv

The Paper as Set

The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the 2012 Jun 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  ·  20 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.

Read the original question paper

munotes.in v

Q1

Unit I

munotes.in 1

(a)Explain retributive and reformative theories of Punishment.[15]

Answer

For full marks, cover: the two theories as opposite poles (looking back at the deed against looking forward to the doer; the justice model against the welfare model); the retributive theory: meaning, its three versions (talion and vengeance, expiation, just deserts and proportion), Kant and Hegel, von Hirsch's revival in 1976, its place in Indian law (Machhi Singh, Shatrughan Chauhan), merits and criticism; the reformative theory: meaning, its roots (the positive school, individualisation, Gandhi's "hate the sin, not the sinner"), its tools (probation, parole, open prisons, education and work, juvenile justice, community service), the Indian cases (Mohammad Giasuddin, Narotam Singh), merits and criticism, the "nothing works" challenge; the two compared in a table; how Indian law reconciles them (Maru Ram, Sriharan); a reasoned view.

munotes.in 2

Two opposite poles

The retributive and reformative theories pull in opposite directions. The retributive theory looks back at the deed: what did the offender do, and what does that deserve? The reformative theory looks forward to the doer: who is this person, and how can the person be made law-abiding?

Penologists call the first the justice model and the second the welfare (treatment) model. Much of the history of penal policy is a swing between them.

Part A: The retributive theory

Meaning. Punishment is justified because the offender deserves it. The guilt of the offender is both the reason for punishment and its measure. Nothing beyond desert, such as frightening others or curing the offender, is needed to justify it.

Its three versions.

  1. Talion and vengeance. The oldest form is "an eye for an eye", found in the code of Hammurabi and the Mosaic law. It began as a limit on private revenge: one eye for one eye, not a blood feud.
munotes.in 3
  1. Expiation. Suffering cleanses the offender of guilt. Punishment is a moral debt paid off, as in the ancient Indian idea of penance.
  2. Just deserts. The modern version demands punishment in proportion to the seriousness of the crime. Seriousness is measured by the harm done and the offender's blame.

Its philosophers.

  1. Kant said a person must be punished only because the person has committed a crime, never merely as a means to another good. Even a society about to dissolve, he argued, should first punish its last murderer.
  2. Hegel saw crime as a denial of right, and punishment as the "negation of the negation" that restores right. He added that punishment honours the offender as a rational being responsible for his choices.

The modern revival. By the 1970s many scholars had lost faith in treatment. Andrew von Hirsch's Doing Justice (1976) argued for "just deserts". Sentences should be proportionate and predictable, not left to officials guessing when a prisoner is "cured".

Retribution in Indian law.

munotes.in 4

Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, (1983) 3 SCC 470. In a family feud, Machhi Singh and his companions killed seventeen people in five villages in one night. Upholding the death sentences, the Supreme Court said death may be imposed when the crime so shocks the community's "collective conscience" that it expects the penalty. Retribution here takes the form of public reprobation of the deed.

Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India, (2014) 3 SCC 1. The Court commuted fifteen death sentences delayed in the mercy process. It observed that retribution has no constitutional value in India. Desert may limit a sentence, but revenge cannot justify one.

Merits.

  1. It protects the innocent, since only the guilty deserve punishment.
  2. It insists on proportion, so a petty offender cannot be punished like a murderer.
  3. It treats the offender as a responsible adult, not as a patient.
  4. It satisfies the public sense of justice and so discourages private revenge.

Criticism.

  1. In its crude form it is revenge in legal dress.
munotes.in 5
  1. There is no scale that converts a crime into years of prison.
  2. It ignores the causes of crime and the offender's future.
  3. It may serve the angry crowd more than justice.

Part B: The reformative theory

Meaning. Punishment should change the offender into a law-abiding citizen. Crime is treated as a symptom of causes in the person and the surroundings. The offender is treated as someone to be corrected, not merely made to suffer.

Its roots.

  1. The positive school (Lombroso, Ferri, Garofalo) turned attention from the crime to the criminal.
  2. Individualisation. Raymond Saleilles argued that punishment must fit the offender, not only the offence.
  3. Indian humanism. Gandhi's teaching to "hate the sin, not the sinner" influenced Indian penal thought. So did Justice Krishna Iyer's judgments in the 1970s.

Its tools.

  1. Probation and release after admonition (Probation of Offenders Act 1958).
munotes.in 6
  1. Parole, furlough and remission for good conduct.
  2. Open prisons for trusted prisoners.
  3. Education, vocational training and paid work in prison.
  4. Counselling, psychiatric care and de-addiction.
  5. Juvenile justice: children in conflict with law receive care, not punishment (Juvenile Justice Act 2015).
  6. Community service, a punishment since 2023 (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, BNS s.4(f)).

The Indian cases.

Mohammad Giasuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1977) 3 SCC 287. A young graduate with no previous conviction had cheated job-seekers by promising them posts. The Supreme Court called crime a "curable deviance". It said punishment should be "a process of reshaping a person who has deteriorated into criminality". It reduced his prison term and ordered payment to the victims.

Narotam Singh v. State of Punjab, (1979) 4 SCC 505. The appellant was convicted of bigamy after his first marriage broke down. Prison would have ruined the business on which both families lived. The Court let the offence be compounded on payment of forty thousand rupees to the wife. Krishna Iyer J. said the approach to sentence must be "holistic, realistic and humanistic".

munotes.in 7

Merits.

  1. A reformed offender is the best protection for society.
  2. It deals with the causes of crime, not only its results.
  3. It respects human dignity and the possibility of change.
  4. It suits the young, the first offender and the situational offender.

Criticism.

  1. Hardened and professional offenders often do not change.
  2. Leniency may weaken deterrence and anger victims.
  3. Indeterminate treatment can keep people in custody longer than their crime deserves.
  4. It needs trained staff and money.
  5. "Nothing works." Robert Martinson's survey (1974) doubted that treatment programmes reduced reoffending. Later research found that well-designed programmes do help some offenders.

The two compared

munotes.in 8
PointRetributive theoryReformative theory
Looks atThe deed, in the pastThe doer, in the future
ModelJustice modelWelfare (treatment) model
PurposeGive the offender what is deservedMake the offender law-abiding
Measure of punishmentSeriousness of the crimeNeeds of the offender
Offender seen asResponsible wrongdoerPerson to be corrected
Typical measuresProportionate prison terms, finesProbation, parole, open prisons, training
Main strengthProportion and fairnessHumanity and long-term safety
Main weaknessClose to revengeMay be lenient or indeterminate
Indian caseMachhi SinghMohammad Giasuddin

How Indian law reconciles them

Indian law uses desert to set the outer limit of punishment and reform to work within it.

munotes.in 9

Maru Ram v. Union of India, (1981) 1 SCC 107. Life convicts challenged s.433A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now BNSS s.475). It barred release before fourteen years of actual imprisonment in the gravest cases. The Constitution Bench upheld it. It treated the balance between protecting society and rewarding reform as a penological judgment for the legislature.

Union of India v. V. Sriharan alias Murugan, (2016) 7 SCC 1. The Constitution Bench held that life imprisonment means imprisonment for the rest of the convict's life, subject to clemency. It allowed the High Courts and the Supreme Court to fix terms beyond remission. For the gravest crimes, desert can override early release.

At the other end, probation, juvenile justice and community service keep reform at the centre for the young and the first offender.

A reasoned view

Neither theory can stand alone. Pure retribution would make sentences cruel and blind to the person. Pure reform would make them uncertain and sometimes unjust to victims. The sound approach is the one Indian law has reached. Proportion to the crime fixes how much punishment is permitted, and within that limit the sentence is shaped to change the offender.

munotes.in 10

Conclusion. The retributive theory punishes because the offender deserves it, in proportion to the crime. Its forms run from talion and expiation to Kant, Hegel and von Hirsch's just deserts. Machhi Singh shows it as public reprobation, and Shatrughan Chauhan denies it any value as revenge. The reformative theory punishes in order to change the offender, through probation, parole, open prisons, education and community service. Mohammad Giasuddin and Narotam Singh show it at work. Indian law joins them, as Maru Ram and Sriharan show. Desert sets the limit and reform works within it.

munotes.in 11

The rest of the answers

The first answer is free. The rest come with the KSLU B.A. LL.B. Semester 9 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.

Issue

Found an error in this volume? Report it and we will check it against the paper.

Done!