KSLU Solved Question Papers
Penology and Victimology
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) · Sem 9
2013 Dec Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 9 Penology and Victimology 2013 Dec 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 2013 Dec examination.
Contents
The questions below are the paper as Karnataka State Law University set it at the 2013 Dec examination, in the order it was set.
MarksPage
MarksPage
The Paper as Set
The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the 2013 Dec 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.
Q1
Unit I
(a)"Deterrence and retribution as forms of punishment have lost significance in modern penology" Elucidate.[15]
Answer
For full marks, cover: what the statement claims; what deterrence and retribution are; the case for the statement (the rise of reformative, preventive and restorative aims; the positive school; human rights and Article 21; weak evidence for deterrence; retribution seen as revenge; Mohammad Giasuddin, Narotam Singh, Shatrughan Chauhan); the case against it (the "just deserts" revival and proportionality; minimum sentences and the death penalty; deterrence in economic, sexual and terror offences; public conscience; Machhi Singh, Murlidhar Meghraj Loya, Mukesh); how Indian law balances them (Bachan Singh); a table; a reasoned conclusion that both have lost primacy, not significance.
What the statement claims
The statement says that two old aims of punishment, deterrence and retribution, no longer matter much in modern penology. Modern penology, it implies, punishes mainly to reform the offender, to protect society and to repair the victim's harm. To elucidate, one must explain both aims, show how far they have declined, and test whether they have really lost significance.
Deterrence and retribution explained
- Deterrence punishes so that the offender (special deterrence) and others (general deterrence) fear to commit crime. Bentham and Beccaria built the classical school on it.
- Retribution punishes because the offender deserves it. The suffering must match the wrong. It looks back at the crime, not forward to its effects. Kant and Hegel are its classic defenders, and "an eye for an eye" its oldest form.
Part A: The case for the statement
1. The rise of the reformative aim. From the late nineteenth century the positive school (Lombroso, Ferri, Garofalo) turned attention from the crime to the criminal. Crime came to be seen as having causes that could be treated. Prisons, probation, parole and juvenile justice were reshaped to reform, not to frighten or avenge.
2. Indian courts favour reform.
Mohammad Giasuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1977) 3 SCC 287. A young first offender cheated job-seekers and got three years from the trial court. The Supreme Court said punishment should re-shape a person who has slipped into crime. A therapeutic, not a terror, outlook should prevail in criminal courts, and crime is a curable deviance. It reduced the sentence and ordered a fine to be paid to the victims.
Narotam Singh v. State of Punjab, (1979) 4 SCC 505. A businessman convicted of bigamy faced two years in prison, which would have ruined the business both women depended on. The Supreme Court allowed compounding on his paying forty thousand rupees to his first wife. It said a jail term would not restore harmony, while compensation would "instil a correctional responsibility" in him.
3. Retribution is condemned as revenge. Modern constitutional values reject punishment merely to inflict suffering.
Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India, (2014) 3 SCC 1. Death row convicts whose mercy petitions had been rejected after long delay sought commutation. The Supreme Court held that Article 21 protects a prisoner till his last breath, and commuted fifteen death sentences. It said in terms that retribution has no constitutional value in India.
4. Weak evidence for deterrence. Studies have not shown that harsher penalties reduce crime. The Law Commission's 262nd Report (2015) found no evidence that the death penalty deters more than life imprisonment. Crimes of passion, drink and mental illness are not deterred at all.
5. Human rights. The Constitution and international standards forbid torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment. Public executions, whipping and branding, once the main tools of deterrence, are gone. Whipping was abolished in India in 1955.
6. New aims. Victim compensation, restorative justice and community service (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, BNS s.4(f)) have added repair to the purposes of punishment.
Part B: The case against the statement
1. Retribution returned as "just deserts". In the 1970s the rehabilitative ideal was attacked. Studies suggested many programmes did not reduce reoffending, and indeterminate sentences in the name of treatment were felt to be unjust. Reformers turned to just deserts: punishment proportionate to the seriousness of the offence, measured by harm and culpability. The principle of proportionality, now central to every sentencing system, is retribution in a modern form.
2. The law still deters. Parliament fixes minimum sentences to deter. Rape carries not less than ten years (BNS s.64(1)), and rape of a girl under sixteen not less than twenty years (s.65(1)). Death is kept for the gravest crimes, and the BNS added new capital offences for organised crime and terror acts resulting in death (ss.111(2)(a), 113(2)(a)).
3. Deterrence matters for calculated crimes. Economic offences, corruption and organised crime are committed by people who weigh gain against risk. For them, certain and heavy punishment does deter.
Murlidhar Meghraj Loya v. State of Maharashtra, (1976) 3 SCC 684. In a food adulteration case the Supreme Court condemned the practice of economic offenders getting light sentences by pleading guilty. It said such arrangements please everyone "except the distant victim and the silent society". They subvert the minimum sentences Parliament fixed. The case shows the courts insisting on deterrence for dangerous economic crime.
4. The community's sense of justice. Some crimes so shock society that it demands a sentence matching their gravity. Ignoring that invites private revenge.
Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, (1983) 3 SCC 470. In a family feud, seventeen men, women and children were killed in five villages in one night. The Supreme Court upheld death sentences. It explained when the community's "collective conscience" is so shocked that it expects the death penalty. It grouped such cases by manner, motive, anti-social nature, magnitude and the helplessness of the victim.
Mukesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2017) 6 SCC 1. A young woman was gang-raped and assaulted on a moving bus in Delhi in December 2012 and died of her injuries. The Supreme Court confirmed the death sentences, holding that the aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating ones. Deterrence and desert plainly guided the outcome.
How Indian law balances them
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684. A Constitution Bench upheld the death penalty for murder, but only for the rarest of rare cases. The court must weigh the circumstances of both the crime and the criminal, including his chances of reform. Here deterrence and retribution survive, but reform limits them.
Both sides compared
| Point | Lost significance | Still significant |
|---|---|---|
| Main aim today | Reform and repair | Proportion and protection |
| Evidence | Deterrence unproven | Calculated crimes are deterred |
| Constitution | Retribution has no value (Shatrughan) | Proportion is a fairness rule |
| Courts | Giasuddin, Narotam Singh | Machhi Singh, Loya, Mukesh |
| Legislation | Probation, community service | Minimum sentences, death penalty |
A reasoned view
The statement is true in part. Deterrence and retribution have lost their primacy: they are no longer the only or main reasons for punishment, and their cruel forms are gone. But they have not lost all significance. Deterrence survives in minimum sentences and in the punishment of calculated crime. Retribution survives as proportionality and just deserts, which protect the offender against excessive punishment as much as they demand punishment. Modern penology is a blend: it reforms where it can, deters where it must, and keeps the punishment proportionate to the crime.
Conclusion. Modern penology has moved the centre of punishment from deterrence and retribution to reform, prevention and repair. Mohammad Giasuddin, Narotam Singh and Shatrughan Chauhan show this. Yet minimum sentences and the death penalty for the rarest cases show that deterrence and desert still count. So do Machhi Singh, Loya and Mukesh. Proportionality is retribution's modern face. They have lost their old primacy, not their significance, and Indian law, after Bachan Singh, blends all the aims.
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.
Found an error in this volume? Report it and we will check it against the paper.