6. Community Service (a new addition)

Community Service as a Punitive Measure

A significant aspect of the BNS is the introduction of community service as a form of punishment. This represents a shift towards rehabilitation, allowing offenders to contribute positively to society rather than simply facing incarceration.

Eligible Offenses for Community Service:

• Theft of property valued under ₹5,000: This recognizes that not all thefts are driven by malicious intent. Engaging in community service allows offenders to make amends and learn the importance of contributing positively.

• Attempting suicide in a manner obstructing a public servant: This provision acknowledges mental health challenges, offering support and rehabilitation instead of harsh penalties.

• Public intoxication causing annoyance: Instead of serving time in jail, offenders can perform community service, which promotes accountability and helps them understand the broader impact of their behavior.

The focus on community service is supported by various case laws:

• In Mulla & Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court acknowledged socio-economic factors as mitigating circumstances, reinforcing that community service can aid in rehabilitation.

• In Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court emphasized the need for the justice system to prioritize reform, supporting the idea that community service can be an effective alternative to incarceration for lesser offenses.

Benefits of Community Service

The inclusion of community service provides several advantages:

1. Rehabilitation: Offenders develop responsibility and gain valuable skills through community projects.

2. Restorative Justice: This approach helps individuals repair the harm caused by their actions and fosters a connection with their community.

3. Reducing Recidivism: Meaningful engagement makes offenders less likely to reoffend, as they build positive ties to their community.

4. Positive Community Impact: Community service projects benefit local organizations, encouraging cooperation and support.

Commutation of Sentence ( Section 5)

The appropriate Government may commute any punishment under this Sanhita to a different punishment without the offender's consent, as per section 474 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Explanation: The term "appropriate Government" is defined as follows:

• (a) In cases involving a death sentence or offences related to laws under the Union's executive power, the Central Government is appropriate.

• (b) In cases involving any sentence (including life imprisonment) related to laws under the State's executive power, the State Government where the offender is sentenced is appropriate.

1. The appropriate Government alone has the authority to commute a death sentence to another punishment as per section 5 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanita and section 474 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanita, 2023.

2. These provisions are subject to Articles 72 and 161 of the Indian Constitution, which empower the President of India and the Governor of a State to grant pardons, suspend, remit, or commute sentences in certain circumstances.

3. Without an order under section 5 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanita, 2023, or section 474 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanita, 2023, a life convict cannot be released even after 14 years, as life imprisonment means rigorous imprisonment for the remainder of the convict's life.

In Ashok Kumar vs Union of India (AIR 1991 SC 1792), the court held that imprisonment for life means imprisonment for the remaining span of the convict's life, and consequently, a convict cannot claim as a right that their life sentence should expire after 14 years.

Fractions of terms of punishment. (Section 6)

In calculating fractions of terms of punishment, imprisonment for life shall be reckoned as equivalent to imprisonment for twenty years unless otherwise provided.

When calculating fractions of terms of punishment, imprisonment for life will be considered equivalent to twenty years, unless otherwise specified.

In the case of Mohinder Singh vs. State of Punjab (2013 CrLJ 1559, SC), the Supreme Court emphasized that imprisonment for life means the entirety of a convict’s life, rather than a fixed term like ten, twenty, or thirty years. Similarly, in Md. Munna vs. Union of India (2005 CrLJ 4124, SC), the Court reaffirmed that life imprisonment signifies rigorous imprisonment for the entirety of the convict’s life, clarifying that it is not equivalent to a limited term of years.

Sentence may be (in certain cases of imprisonment) wholly or partly rigorous or simple. (Section 7)

Rigorous imprisonment is a form of incarceration that typically involves hard labour and more stringent conditions compared to simple imprisonment. In certain cases, a sentence may be wholly or partly rigorous or simple. When an offender is punishable by imprisonment that can be classified in either way, the court has the authority to specify the nature of the imprisonment in its sentencing. The court may decide that the imprisonment shall be entirely rigorous, entirely simple, or that any part of the imprisonment can be rigorous while the remainder is simple.

It is important to note that the court can determine the nature of the imprisonment based on the offense. The available options include wholly rigorous imprisonment, wholly simple imprisonment, or a combination of both types. Additionally, in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ratan Singh, AIR 1976 SC 1552, the Supreme Court held that a life sentence must always be rigorous and cannot be simple.

Amount of fine, liability in default of payment of fine, etc. (Section 8)

If a fine amount is not specified, it can be unlimited but must not be excessive. For offences that can result in both imprisonment and a fine, the court can impose additional imprisonment if the fine is not paid. This imprisonment is beyond any other sentence given.

The additional imprisonment for non-payment cannot exceed one-fourth of the maximum imprisonment term for that offence. If the offence is punishable by a fine or community service, the imprisonment must be simple, with limits based on the fine amount: two months for fines up to ₹5,000, four months for fines up to ₹10,000, and one year for larger fines.

Imprisonment for not paying a fine ends when the fine is paid or collected. If part of the fine is paid, the imprisonment may be reduced proportionally. For instance, if A is fined ₹1,000 and has four months' imprisonment for default, paying ₹750 within the first month would release A after that month.

Fines can be collected within six years of sentencing, or longer if the imprisonment is extended. The obligation to pay fines remains even after the offender’s death, affecting their estate. Fines should be imposed individually and not excessively harsh.

In the case of Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy vs. Sushil Ansal, the Supreme Court upheld high fines against the Ansal brothers for a tragic incident in their cinema, highlighting that significant fines do not favor the wealthy and must follow principles of fairness.

Limit of Punishment of offence made up of several offences. (Section 9)

In cases where an action constitutes an offence made up of multiple parts, each part being an offence in itself, the offender cannot be punished more than once for these offences unless explicitly stated otherwise. This principle helps prevent excessive punishment for actions that can be viewed as a single incident.

When an action falls under different definitions of offences, or when several acts combine to form a distinct offence, the offender cannot face a punishment more severe than what the court could impose for any one of the offences. This ensures that punishments are proportionate and fair.

For example, consider a scenario where A strikes Z fifty times with a stick. In this situation, A has committed the offence of voluntarily causing hurt to Z through the entire act of beating. Each individual strike could also be seen as a separate offence, meaning A could technically face up to fifty years of imprisonment—one year for each blow. However, the law stipulates that A will only receive one punishment for the entire act of beating Z, not for each individual strike.

Now, if during this incident Y intervenes and A intentionally strikes Y, the blow to Y is considered a separate act. Since this act does not contribute to the offence against Z, A will face one punishment for voluntarily causing hurt to Z and an additional punishment for the assault on Y. This distinction is crucial as it acknowledges that the offences are not interconnected.

It is also important to note that any sentence of fine must be imposed on an individual basis, rather than collectively, ensuring that the total amount is fair and not excessively harsh or severe. This principle emphasizes the need for the legal system to maintain a balance between accountability and fairness in sentencing.

Punishment of person guilty of one of several offences, judgment stating that it is doubtful of which. (Section 10)

In situations where a judgment concludes that a person is guilty of one of several offences but does not specify which one, the offender shall be punished according to the offence with the lowest penalty, provided that the penalties differ. This provision ensures that individuals are not subjected to harsher punishments due to uncertainties in the judgment, promoting fairness and proportionality in sentencing. It safeguards the rights of the accused by defaulting to the least severe consequence when there is doubt about their specific guilt.

Solitary confinement. (Section 11)

Solitary confinement refers to completely isolating prisoners from other inmates and segregating them from the outside world. This harsh measure should be used rarely and only in exceptional circumstances, as highlighted in Kishore Singh Ravinder Dev v. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1981 SC 625).

When a person is convicted of an offence that permits rigorous imprisonment, the court may order solitary confinement for a portion of the sentence, not exceeding three months in total. The specific limits are as follows: one month for imprisonment up to six months, two months for terms exceeding six months but not exceeding one year, and three months for terms longer than one year. Solitary confinement is a severe form of punishment, isolating the prisoner from family and friends. If a prisoner requests isolation for their safety, written consent and approval from the relevant authorities are required.

When a person is convicted of an offence that permits rigorous imprisonment, the court may order solitary confinement for a portion of the sentence, not exceeding three months in total. The specific limits are as follows: one month for imprisonment up to six months, two months for terms exceeding six months but not exceeding one year, and three months for terms longer than one year. Solitary confinement is a severe form of punishment, isolating the prisoner from family and friends. If a prisoner requests isolation for their safety, written consent and approval from the relevant authorities are required.

Limit of solitary confinement. (Section 12)

The execution of a sentence of solitary confinement is strictly regulated. Such confinement shall not exceed fourteen days at a time, with required intervals between periods of solitary confinement that are at least as long as the periods of confinement themselves.

If the total imprisonment exceeds three months, the solitary confinement is limited to a maximum of seven days in any one month, again with intervals of no less duration than the periods of confinement. These regulations are in place to ensure that solitary confinement is applied fairly and does not become excessively punitive.

Enhanced punishment for certain offences after previous convictions. (Section 13)

Whoever, having been convicted by a Court in India of an offence punishable under Chapter X or Chapter XVII of this Sanhita with imprisonment for a term of three years or more, is found guilty of any subsequent offence punishable under either of those Chapters with a similar term of imprisonment, shall face enhanced punishment. For each subsequent offence, the individual shall be subject to imprisonment for life or to imprisonment of either description for a term that may extend to ten years. This provision aims to deter repeat offenders and emphasizes the severity of these offences.