KSLU Solved Question Papers
Penology and Victimology
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) · Sem 9
2022 Apr Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 9 Penology and Victimology 2022 Apr 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 Apr examination.
Contents
The questions below are the paper as Karnataka State Law University set it at the 2022 Apr examination, in the order it was set.
MarksPage
MarksPage
The Paper as Set
The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the 2022 Apr 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 80 · 20 questions answered
Instructions printed on the paper
- N.B. (1) Answer all five Units. (2) One essay type question and short note/problems compulsory from each Unit. (3) Figures to the right indicate marks. (4) Answer should be written in English/Kannada completely.
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)Explain the various theories of punishment.[10]
Answer
For full marks, cover: why punishment needs a justification; the two families of theories; the deterrent, preventive, reformative and retributive theories, each with its exponent, merits and criticism; expiation and compensation in a line; a comparison table; the Indian position with Mohammad Giasuddin, Narotam Singh and Shatrughan Chauhan.
Why punishment needs a theory
Punishment is suffering that the State deliberately inflicts on a person for an offence. The State hangs a man, locks him up or takes his property. A private person who did the same would commit a crime. So the State needs a reason, and that reason is a theory of punishment.
Bentham put the problem sharply: "all punishment in itself is evil". It can be admitted only "in as far as it promises to exclude some greater evil". The theory chosen also decides the kind and amount of punishment in a given case.
Salmond said the ends of criminal justice are "four in number": deterrent, preventive, reformative and retributive. They fall into two families.
- Forward-looking (utilitarian) theories justify punishment by the good it will do in future. Deterrence, prevention and reform belong here.
- The backward-looking (retributive) theory justifies punishment by the wrong already done. The offender deserves it.
1. The deterrent theory
Idea. Punishment should make the offender and others afraid to commit crime. Punishing the offender so that he does not repeat the crime is special deterrence. Punishing him as an example to others is general deterrence.
Exponents. Bentham and Beccaria. Bentham's rule was that the punishment must outweigh "the profit of the offence". Salmond called deterrence "the essential and all-important" end.
Merits. It protects society by its effect on many people, not just one. Certain and prompt punishment does deter many ordinary people.
Criticism. It can lead to punishments far harsher than the crime deserves. Hardened offenders and people acting in passion do not calculate. Certainty of being caught deters more than severity.
2. The preventive theory
Idea. Society is protected by taking away the offender's power to repeat the crime. Bentham called this "disablement". Imprisonment, death, forfeiture and disqualification all disable.
Merits. It looks to the safety of the public. It is realistic about dangerous and habitual offenders.
Criticism. It punishes for crimes not yet committed. Taken alone, it would justify locking up a person for as long as he seems dangerous, however small his offence.
3. The reformative theory
Idea. Crime is like a disease that can be cured. The offender should be changed into a law-abiding person through education, work, counselling, probation and parole.
Exponents. The positive school (Lombroso, Ferri, Garofalo) moved attention from the crime to the criminal. Modern penologists and the Supreme Court of India follow this line.
Mohammad Giasuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1977) 3 SCC 287. The appellant had cheated unemployed young men of about twelve hundred rupees each by promising them jobs. He was a young graduate with no previous conviction. The Supreme Court said punishment should be "a process of reshaping a person who has deteriorated into criminality". A therapeutic rather than a terror outlook should guide the courts. It reduced his prison term and ordered a fine to be paid to the victims.
Merits. It treats the offender as a human being. It fits young and first offenders, and it lowers repeat offending where it works.
Criticism. Some offenders do not reform. Too much comfort in prison may weaken the deterrent effect. Reform also needs trained staff and money that many prisons lack.
4. The retributive theory
Idea. The offender should suffer because he deserves it, and in proportion to his wrong. Kant said punishment must be imposed "only because the individual on whom it is inflicted has committed a Crime". The old form was "an eye for an eye".
Merits. It protects the innocent, because only the guilty deserve punishment. Its principle of proportion keeps punishment from being excessive.
Criticism. It can look like revenge in a legal form. It cannot tell us how many years of prison a crime "deserves". It ignores the offender's future.
Other ideas
Expiation holds that suffering washes away the guilt of the crime. Salmond treated it as a form of retribution. Compensation makes the offender repair the harm to the victim. Indian courts now use it beside reform, and section 395 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (BNSS) allows it.
The theories compared
| Theory | Why punish | Looks to | Typical punishment | Main weakness |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Deterrent | Fear stops crime | Future, everyone | Severe, certain, public | Can become harsh |
| Preventive | Disable the offender | Future, the offender | Prison, death, disqualification | Punishes future crime |
| Reformative | Cure the offender | Future, the offender | Probation, education, work | Some do not reform |
| Retributive | He deserves it | Past wrong | Proportionate to the crime | Close to revenge |
The Indian position
Indian law combines the theories. The long maximum sentences in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 (BNS) reflect deterrence and proportion. Life imprisonment and death disable the most dangerous offenders. Probation, parole and community service under section 4(f) of the BNS reflect reform.
Narotam Singh v. State of Punjab, (1979) 4 SCC 505, shows reform and compensation in practice. The appellant was convicted of bigamy after his first marriage broke down. Prison would have ruined the business on which both families lived. The Supreme Court allowed the offence to be compounded on payment of forty thousand rupees to the wife. Krishna Iyer J. said the approach to sentence should be "holistic, realistic and humanistic".
Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India, (2014) 3 SCC 1, went further. The Supreme Court commuted fifteen death sentences delayed in the mercy process. It observed that retribution has no constitutional value in India. So pure revenge cannot justify a sentence, though proportion still guides it.
Conclusion. No single theory is enough. Deterrence and prevention protect society, retribution keeps punishment proportionate, and reform restores the offender. Salmond's "perfect system" was a compromise between them, and Indian law follows that path. The Supreme Court in Mohammad Giasuddin and Narotam Singh has leaned towards reform and repair, while the statute keeps deterrent maximums for grave crime.
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.