Inadequacy of Fines as a Punishment under the Indian Penal Code, 1860

Profile of the Author: Kanav Bharti Gupta is a third-year student in ICFAI Law School, The ICFAI University Dehradun and has a keen interest in Criminal law, Labour law and Intellectual Property Rights.

INTRODUCTION

As the most comprehensive, complete, deliberated and debated legal measure enacted by the British colonial administration, the Indian Penal Code, 1860 stands out for its qualities of analytical rigour and philosophical integrity. Lord Thomas Babington Macaulay, the chief architect of the Code describes the rationale for going in for a Code.

A Code that deserves the name, is not a mere series of unconnected provisions; it is one great and entire work symmetrical in all its parts and pervaded by one spirit. It is not sufficient to consider whether a rule appears in itself to be unexceptional.

It is also necessary to consider how that rule may affect other rules which are scattered over every part of the code (1) irrespective of all the positives, if there has been something that has been criticized for quite some time under the Code, it has to be the provision of fines as a punishment.

The punishment of any offence is usually dependent on the gravity and the consequences of the act. Punishment under criminal law can play a major part in the prevention of such offences by instilling a sense of fear in the mind of the wrongdoer. The Indian judicial system is a reformative one that seeks to punish the offence and not the offender. The provision of fines as a punishment takes that force away. This article analyses the major problems with fine provisions and their inadequacies.

What are the major reasons for the inadequacy of fines under the Indian Penal Code, 1860?

There are various provisions under IPC, where there is an option with the court to order a fine as a form of punishment but no amount is mentioned. This brings in flexibility but also a lot amount of responsibility and discretion. Even with respect to fines, the exercise of unguided discretion for the determination of the amount of fine in the absence of sentencing guidelines can lead to arbitrariness and inconsistency in decision making. In Omanakuttan v. State of Kerala (2), the fine given by the trial court and the high court of Rs. 50,000 was reduced by the Supreme Court to Rs. 1,000 because the courts failed in justifying the imposition of such a heavy fine.

In Arun Garg v. State of Punjab 3 relating to the offence of Section 304 B (Dowry Death), the Session judge ordered a fine of Rs. 2,000 along with the imprisonment, which was later increased to Rs. 2 lakhs by the high court.

Interestingly, on appeal, the Supreme Court completely set aside the fine which was ordered. This is an interesting case as it deals with 304B, which is one of the rare offences in the IPC where the imposition of a fine is not prescribed at all.

Moreover, the disparity and inconsistency in the application of fines by judges at the three levels reflect the utter lack of sentencing guidelines particularly with regard to the amount of fine and its need.

In Bipin Bihari v. State of MP [4], the case, high court on appeal increased the fine amount from Rs.5,000 to Rs. 30,000 and in lieu of it, reduced the imprisonment. This brings us to the proposition of whether a fine can work as a viable alternative to imprisonment and does it commodify the offence.

These cases signify one major problem with fines as a form of punishment as it is completely dependent on the mindset of the judges as no strict laws are present with respect to the same and a plethora of provisions under the Code state that the number of fines can go to a certain maximum limit but the bar for the lower limit has not been set up which is the background reason of ambiguities and irregularities in awarding fines as a punishment.

Another major concern that can be observed is that the Indian Penal Code was framed more than 150 years ago, and still, the amount of fines hasn’t been amended under the Code due to which the punishment seems to be at no paradigm with the offence. The value of the rupee has changed significantly and therefore the fines as a form of punishment serve no purpose whatsoever under specific provisions of the Code.

Moreover, there are certain provisions in which fines are an alternative to imprisonment which is a worrisome scenario. Moreover, if fines are accepted as an alternative to imprisonment, then the fundamental of criminal theory, which mandates imprisonment as a punishment, will also have to be revisited and modified. In a recent case Allanoor & Anr. v. The State Of M.P. (5), the charge was of an attempt to murder (section 307 of IPC) which resulted in the amputation of both the hands of the victim besides other injuries, the Madhya Pradesh high court, being bound by a precedent order by the Supreme Court reduced the rigorous imprisonment of 7 years to 3 years (less than half of what was awarded initially) and to justify this they increased the fine from Rs. 2,000 to Rs. 10,000. In Jitender v. State of Madhya Pradesh (6), where the accused was charged for death by negligence for rash and negligent driving which led to the death of the victim, section 304 A, the punishment was reduced to 1 month (less than half of the initial sentence) in exchange of enhanced fine of Rs. 5,000 instead of Rs. 500 (10 times the initial amount).

In Vasant Maruti Waiker v. State of Maharashtra [7], where the accused is a public servant was charged for corruption (bribery) the learned judge reduced the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of 6 months to just 1 day and in exchange increased the fine amount from 1,000 to 10,000.

These provisions appear to be a deterrent to the concept of social justice and the reformative theory of the Indian judiciary; as the offender is not given the threat towards similar actions.

Conclusion and Author’s Notes

In my opinion, crime and the punishment for the crime are directly interlinked to one another. To understand the impact that a crime has on society, one generally looks at the punishment for the same. When such paradigms are being drawn by society at large, it is thoroughly regressive to substitute punishment forms such as imprisonment with mere fines. This process leads to the belief that money is equivalent to human life which is something that is completely unconstitutional and against the very spirit of the Preamble. To remove such atrocity, certain steps are needed to be taken which include amending the number of fines as per the modern-day value of money. All the grave offences which provide fines as an alternative to imprisonment should be amended right away so as to establish the value of life in society.

These changes will have an impact on the mindset of the offenders and ensure regularity in the punishments being given under the Indian Penal Code, subsequently establishing harmony in the society.

References:

(1) Lord Macaulay’s Legislative Minutes, Geoffrey Cumberlege, OUP (1946) selected by C.D. Dharkar, ‘The Law Commission and the Penal Code’ No. 28 (no date), p. 256

(2) (2006) 10 SCC 197

(3) (2004) 8 SCC 251

(4) Appeal (crl.) 986 of 2006

(5) CRA No.719/1999

(6) Criminal Revision No: 1028/2013

(7) (1991) 93 BOMLR 510

FAQ -

1. Which are the two gravest offences under which fines have been given as an alternative to imprisonment under IPC?

Answer: Culpable homicide and death by negligence are the two gravest offences under which fines have been given as an alternative to imprisonment under IPC.

Disclaimer: This article is an original submission of the Author. Niti Manthan does not hold any liability arising out of this article. Kindly refer to our Terms of use or write to us in case of any concerns.