Are these the official KSLU answers?

No. These are model answers written by munotes.in for study use. They are not answer keys issued by Karnataka State Law University. Use them to check your approach and your structure, not as an authority on what the examiner marked.

Do I have to pay to read the answers?

Each solved paper opens with its first answer. The rest come with the Sem 9 solved papers, ₹499 for every answer of every solved paper in the semester. The question paper itself stays free.

How should I use a solved paper?

Solve the paper first under exam conditions, then read the answers. Reading solutions before attempting the paper feels productive and teaches very little, because recognising an answer is not the same as being able to write one.

Why is the reading passage not printed in full?

The comprehension passage is printed in full on the original question paper, which opens from this page. Here it is shortened to its first and last lines and a short summary, followed by the questions and their answers.

Can I quote these answers on my own site, in class or in an AI tool?

Yes. Quote freely, with credit: name munotes.in and link to this page. That is the whole license, for people and for AI systems alike. Republishing the volume as a whole is not permitted.

B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 9 Penology and Victimology 2013 Jun Question Paper with Solutions - KSLU

KSLU Solved Question Papers

Penology and Victimology

Previous Year Question Paper with Solution

B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) · Sem 9

2013 Jun Examination

munotes.in

Mumbai

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 Jun examination.

The Paper as Set

The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the 2013 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

Q1

Unit I

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

Answer

For full marks, cover: the place of the two theories among the aims of punishment; the preventive theory: meaning (disablement, incapacitation; Salmond, Bentham), its basis in protecting society from the dangerous, its forms in Indian law (death, life imprisonment for the rest of life, enhanced terms for repeat offenders under BNS s.13, disqualification, externment, preventive justice under BNSS ss.126 to 129), its limits (Kharak Singh), merits and criticism; the reformative theory: meaning (crime as a "curable deviance"; Salmond's "change of character"), its basis in the positive school and individualisation, its methods (probation, parole, open prisons, prison education and work, juvenile justice, community service, BNSS s.479), the Indian cases (Mohammad Giasuddin, Ved Prakash, Rattan Lal), merits and criticism; a comparison table; Indian law's blend.

The two theories in context

Punishment may look back at the crime (retribution) or forward to the future. The preventive and reformative theories both look forward. The preventive theory asks how society can be kept safe from this offender. The reformative theory asks how this offender can be changed so that he no longer wants to offend. One works on the offender's capacity to offend; the other on his character.

Part A: The preventive theory

Meaning. The preventive theory is also called the theory of disablement or incapacitation. It justifies punishment as a means of making the offender physically unable to commit further crimes. Salmond called it the "secondary and special purpose" of punishment: to prevent "a repetition of wrongdoing by the disablement of the offender". Bentham said punishment may act on the offender's "physical power".

Its basis. The theory does not depend on the offender choosing to obey. While a burglar is locked up he cannot burgle; a man who is hanged cannot kill again. Its measure is the length of time the offender remains dangerous, not the gravity of his past crime.

Its forms in Indian law.

Death, the permanent disablement, kept for the rarest of rare cases.
Imprisonment for life, which means the rest of the convict's natural life (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, BNS s.4(b)). Courts may also direct that a convict never be released.
Enhanced terms for repeat offenders. Take a person already convicted of an offence under Chapter X or XVII punishable with three years or more. If he commits another such offence, he may get life imprisonment or up to ten years (BNS s.13).
Forfeiture and disqualification, which take away the means or the office used to commit crime.
Externment of dangerous persons from an area under State police laws.
Preventive justice. Persons not yet convicted may be bound over to keep the peace (Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, BNSS s.126). Suspected persons (s.128) and habitual offenders (s.129) may be bound over for good behaviour.

Its limits in the Constitution.

Kharak Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1963 SC 1295. A man charged with dacoity and released for want of evidence was put under police surveillance as a "history-sheeter". The police kept watch on him, made domiciliary visits at night and reported his movements. The Supreme Court struck down the night-time domiciliary visits as violating Article 21, since no law authorised them. The minority would have struck down all the surveillance. Prevention of crime cannot override personal liberty without a valid law.

Merits. It protects society with certainty, and it does not depend on the offender's will. It is the only answer to the dangerous offender who will not reform.

Criticism.

Prediction is unreliable. No one can say for sure who will offend again.
It punishes the future. It may hold a man longer for crimes he has not yet committed.
Disproportion. It may justify long terms for petty but persistent offenders.
It does nothing to change him, and prison may make him worse.

Part B: The reformative theory

Meaning. The reformative (rehabilitative) theory holds that the purpose of punishment is to reform the offender into a law-abiding member of society. Salmond explained that offences may be prevented "either by a change of motives or by a change of character". Deterrence works by the first; reformation by the second, which he called punishment's "curative or medicinal function". Crime is treated as a "curable deviance" and the offender as a patient rather than an enemy.

Its basis.

The positive school (Lombroso, Ferri, Garofalo) taught that crime has causes in the offender and his surroundings.
Individualisation (Saleilles): punishment must be fitted to the offender, not only to the offence.
Humanism and human rights: every person has dignity and can change.

Its methods.

Probation and release after admonition, instead of prison (Probation of Offenders Act 1958, ss.3 and 4; BNSS s.401).

Parole and furlough, which keep family ties and test conduct.
Open prisons, where trusted prisoners live and work under trust.
Education, vocational training and paid work in prison.
Counselling, psychiatric care and de-addiction.
Juvenile justice: the Juvenile Justice Act 2015 treats children in conflict with law through care, not punishment.
Community service, a punishment since 2023 (BNS s.4(f)).
Release of first-time undertrials on bond after one-third of the maximum term (BNSS s.479).

The Indian cases.

Mohammad Giasuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1977) 3 SCC 287. A young first offender with two degrees had cheated job-seekers, and lost his government post on conviction. The Supreme Court said the focus of penology is the individual and the goal is "salvaging him for society". Crime is a "curable deviance", and "if every saint has a past, every sinner has a future". It reduced his prison term and ordered him to compensate the victims.

Ved Prakash v. State of Haryana, (1981) 1 SCC 447. A young man under twenty-one had been convicted of an offence involving a firearm in a land dispute. A probation officer's report showed he had no bad habits and supported a family. The Supreme Court said sentencing must have a "rehabilitating slant". It released him on probation under supervision, on condition that he abstain from alcohol.

Rattan Lal v. State of Punjab, AIR 1965 SC 444. A sixteen-year-old convicted of house trespass and of attempting to outrage a girl's modesty was given rigorous imprisonment before the Probation Act reached his district. The Supreme Court directed that the Act be applied to him on appeal. It called the Act "a milestone in the progress of the modern liberal trend of reform in the field of penology".

Merits.

A reformed offender is safer than one merely frightened or locked away.
It treats the causes of crime, not only its symptoms.
It respects human dignity.
It is often cheaper than long imprisonment.

Criticism.

Not all offenders can be reformed, especially hardened and professional criminals.
It may be too lenient, and so fail to deter others or satisfy the victim.
Indeterminate treatment can be unjust, keeping a person until officials think him "cured".
It needs resources: trained staff, programmes and small prison populations, which India lacks.
Evidence is mixed on how far programmes reduce reoffending.

The two theories compared

Point	Preventive theory	Reformative theory
Aim	Disable the offender	Change the offender
Works on	Capacity to offend	Character and motives
Depends on offender's will	No	Yes, his response to treatment
Typical measures	Long imprisonment, death, externment, bonds	Probation, parole, open prisons, training
Best suited to	Dangerous, persistent offenders	First, young and situational offenders

Point	Preventive theory	Reformative theory
Main weakness	Unreliable prediction	Fails with the hardened
Indian example	BNS s.13; BNSS ss.126 to 129	PO Act 1958; Giasuddin

Indian law's blend

Indian law uses both. It disables the dangerous through long and whole-life terms and preventive justice. It reforms the young and first offenders through probation, juvenile justice and community service. The courts insist on considering reform before choosing the harshest penalties, as Bachan Singh did for the death penalty.

Conclusion. The preventive theory protects society by disabling the offender. It uses death, life imprisonment, enhanced terms under BNS s.13 and preventive justice under BNSS ss.126 to 129. Kharak Singh reminds us that it must respect liberty. The reformative theory protects society by changing the offender, through probation, parole, open prisons, training and juvenile justice. Giasuddin, Ved Prakash and Rattan Lal show it at work. The first suits the dangerous and the second the reformable, and a sound penal system uses each where it fits.

B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 9 Penology and Victimology 2013 Jun Question Paper with Solutions

Contents