Mumbai University Solved Question Papers
Criminology and Penology
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
LLB 3 years · Sem 4
May 2026 - 60/40 Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
LLB 3 years Sem 4 Criminology and Penology May 2026 - 60/40 Question Paper with Solutions
Get access to whole semester resourcesSemester Pass
MU law student group
Free to join
First published on munotes.in on 24 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 the University of Mumbai. It is not affiliated with the University of Mumbai, 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 the University of Mumbai at the May 2026 - 60/40 examination.
The law in these answers is stated as at October 2026. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and Sakshya Adhiniyam replaced the IPC, the CrPC and the Evidence Act on 1 July 2024, so older papers that cite the old sections are answered under the new ones. The Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 repealed the Act of 2000 (s.111). The Maharashtra Prisons (Furlough and Parole) Rules, 2024 superseded the Rules of 1959, and on 4 May 2026 the Bombay High Court struck down their requirement of one year of actual imprisonment before regular parole (Vinodkumar Chellappan Pillai v. State of Maharashtra). Food adulteration now falls under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, which repealed the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
Contents
The questions below are the paper as the University of Mumbai set it at the May 2026 - 60/40 examination, in the order it was set.
MarksPage
MarksPage
The Paper as Set
The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the May 2026 - 60/40 examination, reproduced as the University of Mumbai set them, in the order it set them. Nothing has been reworded, added or left out. Only the answers are ours. See the original question paper.
Duration 2 hours · Total marks 60 · 22 questions answered
Instructions printed on the paper
- N.B: 1. All questions are compulsory. 2. Figures to the right indicate full marks. 3. Write relevant case laws wherever necessary.
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.
Q.1
Q.1: Answer in not more than two sentences, any six
12 Marks - 2 marks each
(a)What is the objective of retributive theory of punishment?[2]
Answer
The retributive theory says an offender should be punished because he has done wrong and deserves it. Its objective is to give him the suffering he has earned, no more and no less. It looks back at the crime, not forward to any future good.
Its objectives, in plain terms:
- Justice by desert. The guilty must suffer for the wrong. Kant held that punishment must be imposed "only because the individual on whom it is inflicted has committed a Crime".
- Proportion. The punishment must match the gravity of the offence. In its old form this was "an eye for an eye" (jus talionis, the law of retaliation).
- Condemnation by society. Punishment expresses the community's disapproval of the act. The Law Commission's 35th Report (1967) called this "reprobation".
- Preventing private revenge. If the State punishes the wrongdoer, the victim and his family need not take revenge themselves.
Its place in Indian law. Indian law accepts proportion, but not revenge. The Supreme Court held that retribution has no constitutional value in India in Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India, (2014) 3 SCC 1. Its lasting value is a limit: no one may be punished more than he deserves, and no innocent person may be punished at all. In its crude form, however, retribution slides into vengeance, which modern penology rejects.
The rest of the answers
The first answer is free. The rest come with the LL.B. 3 Years 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.
Notes + Solved papers: ₹798 Already bought it? Sign in
Or solved papers only: ₹499
Or notes only: ₹499
The question paper itself stays free, and so does the syllabus.
Found an error in this volume? Report it and we will check it against the paper.