SPPU Solved Question Papers
Criminal Psychology and Criminal Sociology
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
LL.B. (Three Years) · Sem 1
Oct 2025 Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
LL.B. (Three Years) Sem 1 Criminal Psychology and Criminal Sociology Oct 2025 Question Paper with Solutions
First published on munotes.in on 25 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 Savitribai Phule Pune University. It is not affiliated with Savitribai Phule Pune 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 Savitribai Phule Pune University at the Oct 2025 examination.
Contents
The questions below are the paper as Savitribai Phule Pune University set it at the Oct 2025 examination, in the order it was set.
MarksPage
MarksPage
The Paper as Set
The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the Oct 2025 examination, reproduced as Savitribai Phule Pune University 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 3 hours · Total marks 70 · 13 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.
SECTION I
PART A
Answer any two · 30 Marks
Q1)Explain in detail differential association theory. Give your opinion about, its modern day use for criminal investigation.[15]
Answer
For full marks, cover: who Sutherland was and when he stated the theory (1939, restated in the fourth edition of 1947); the meaning of "differential", "association" and "definitions"; the nine propositions in order; differential social organisation; why the theory matters (white collar crime, crime areas, prisons, rationalisations); its criticism; the later restatement by Burgess and Akers; your opinion on its use in modern investigation, with its limits (Navjot Sandhu on conspiracy, Arup Bhuyan on membership); a table; a conclusion.
Introduction
Why does one boy in a chawl become a pickpocket while his brother becomes a teacher? Edwin H. Sutherland, Professor of Sociology at Indiana University, answered that crime is learned, like any other behaviour. His theory of differential association first appeared in his Principles of Criminology in 1939. He restated it as nine propositions in the fourth edition of 1947. He said the new statement was "not so absolutistic or universal as formerly stated."
The heart of the theory is in his own words. "A person becomes delinquent because of an excess of definitions favorable to violation of law over definitions unfavorable to violation of law. This is the principle of differential association."
1. The three key words
- Association means contact and communication with other people, especially in the small groups a person belongs to.
- Differential means that associations differ. Some carry attitudes that favour breaking the law; others carry attitudes against it. The balance decides.
- Definitions are attitudes towards the law. "Everyone in this market pays bribes" is a definition favourable to crime. "Stealing is wrong whatever the excuse" is a definition unfavourable to it.
2. The nine propositions
- "Criminal behavior is learned." It is not inherited. A person not trained in crime does not invent it, just as nobody invents a machine without training in mechanics.
- It is learned "in interaction with other persons in a process of communication." The communication is mostly verbal, but it includes gestures.
- "The principal part of the learning of criminal behavior occurs within intimate personal groups." Films and newspapers, Sutherland said, "play a relatively unimportant part".
- The learning includes two things. First, the techniques of the crime, simple or complicated. Second, "the specific direction of motives, drives, rationalizations, and attitudes."
- The direction of motives is learned from definitions of the legal codes as favourable or unfavourable. Some people grow up among those who treat the law as rules to be obeyed. Others grow up among those who treat it as rules to be evaded.
- The principle itself. A person becomes delinquent because definitions favourable to breaking the law outweigh those against it. Sutherland's example: "a Southerner does not pronounce 'r' because other Southerners do not pronounce 'r.'"
- Associations vary in "frequency, duration, priority, and intensity." Frequency and duration mean how often and how long. Priority means how early in life. Intensity means the prestige of the source and the emotional pull of the relationship.
- The learning "involves all of the mechanisms that are involved in any other learning." It is wider than imitation. A person who is seduced learns, but does not merely imitate.
- General needs do not explain crime. "Thieves generally steal in order to secure money, but likewise honest laborers work in order to secure money." So money, status or frustration cannot explain why one person steals and another works.
3. Differential social organisation
The nine propositions explain why a person becomes criminal. Sutherland gave a matching idea for the crime rate of a group. He rejected the older phrase "social disorganization" in favour of differential social organization. A group "may be organized for criminal behavior or organized against criminal behavior." Most communities are organised both ways at once, and the crime rate expresses that balance.
4. Why the theory matters
- It explains white collar crime. Poverty cannot explain fraud by company directors. Differential association can: a young executive learns price fixing from colleagues, along with excuses for it.
- It explains crime areas. Shaw and McKay found that 88.2 per cent of Chicago boys in the juvenile court had offended in company with others. Delinquent traditions pass from older boys to younger ones.
- It explains why prisons can make offenders worse. Prison concentrates definitions favourable to crime. This is the case for keeping minor and first offenders out of prison.
- It explains shared excuses. Phrases like "everyone does it" and "the company can afford it" are learned with the technique.
5. Criticism
- It cannot be measured. Sutherland admitted that a formula for the balance of definitions "would be extremely difficult" to develop.
- It ignores individual differences. Two brothers with the same associations may turn out differently.
- It cannot explain the first offender. Someone must have committed a crime before anyone could learn it.
- It fits sudden crimes badly. A man who kills in a burst of rage learned no technique and no definition favourable to murder.
- Learning without contact. Critics argued that a person can identify with criminals he has never met.
6. A later restatement: Burgess and Akers
In 1966, Robert Burgess and Ronald Akers restated Sutherland's propositions as seven propositions based on operant learning. Behaviour that is rewarded is repeated; behaviour that is punished fades. Akers later built this into social learning theory, with four elements: differential association, definitions, differential reinforcement and imitation. This filled Sutherland's gap on how the learning happens.
7. Modern use in criminal investigation: my opinion
In my opinion, the theory is very useful to an investigator as a map of where to look. But it is dangerous if it becomes a substitute for proof.
(a) Where it helps
- Gangs and organised crime. Investigators trace who recruited whom, who trained whom, and who shares the profits. Call records and chat groups show the "intimate personal groups" of proposition 3.
- Fraud inside organisations. In a bank or a clearing agency, fraud is usually learned from seniors. An investigator who studies the work group, its habits and its excuses finds the other participants.
- Cyber crime. Techniques of phishing and hacking are taught in online groups. These groups can be as close as any face-to-face gang. This stretches proposition 3, but it confirms the core idea: crime is learned from others.
- Children in conflict with law. The JJ Act 2015 requires a social investigation report on the child's antecedents and family background (s.13(1)(ii)). The report asks the differential association question: whom did the child spend time with?
- Separating prisoners. The Prisons Act 1894 requires that unconvicted prisoners be kept apart from convicted ones, and young prisoners from the rest (s.27). This limits the learning of crime in custody.
- Interviewing. Knowing an offender's group and its "definitions" helps the interviewer understand his excuses and his loyalties.
(b) Where the law draws a line
Association is a lead, not evidence of guilt. The law punishes a person for what he agreed to or did, not for whom he knew.
State (N.C.T. of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu, decided 4 August 2005. This was the Parliament attack case. On criminal conspiracy, the Supreme Court approved a passage from Russell on Crimes. It reads: "Agreement is essential. Mere knowledge, or even discussion, of the plan is not, per se enough". The Court also quoted Nalini: those who drop out "cannot be roped in as collaborators on the basis of mere knowledge" unless their acts show a guilty common intention. So contact with conspirators, without agreement, is not conspiracy.
Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam (Review), (2023) 8 SCC 745, decided 24 March 2023. Earlier decisions had read down the anti-terror laws to require an overt act over and above membership of a banned organisation. A larger bench held that view not good law. Continued membership of an association declared unlawful under section 3 of the UAPA is itself punishable under section 10(a)(i). This is a special statutory exception. It does not make ordinary association a crime.
(c) My conclusion on its modern use
The theory tells investigators that crime runs along human networks, so network analysis is sound investigative method. It also guides prevention: keep first offenders away from hardened ones, and break the groups that teach crime. But a court needs proof of each person's own agreement or act. Used as a guide, the theory improves investigation. Used as a shortcut, it produces guilt by association, which our law rejects.
8. The theory at work: a table
| Proposition | Investigative or policy use |
|---|---|
| Crime is learned in intimate groups (1 to 3) | Map the offender's group: gang, work group, online forum |
| Techniques and excuses are learned together (4) | Study the group's methods and its stock excuses |
| Excess of favourable definitions (6) | Separate first offenders from hardened ones (Prisons Act s.27) |
| Frequency, duration, priority, intensity (7) | Social investigation report on a child's company (JJ Act s.13) |
| Needs do not explain crime (9) | Look past motive to the group that taught the method |
Conclusion
Conclusion. Sutherland's differential association theory holds that crime is learned in intimate groups. A person offends when definitions favourable to breaking the law outweigh those against it. Its nine propositions explain white collar crime, crime areas and the harm of mixing offenders in prison. It is hard to measure, and it fits sudden or solitary crimes badly. Burgess and Akers later explained the learning through reinforcement. In modern investigation, the theory is a valuable guide to networks and to prevention. But, as Navjot Sandhu shows, knowing or meeting offenders is not proof of guilt. Only a special law, as upheld in Arup Bhuyan (2023), makes membership itself an offence.
The rest of the answers
The rest of the answers come with the SPPU LL.B. (Three Years) Semester 1 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 open to everyone.
Found an error in this volume? Report it and we will check it against the paper.