Abstract
Since the commencement of history, social orders have rebuffed guilty parties while simultaneously attempting to legitimize the training on good and moral criteria and also to explain the connection between penalty and fairness. Punishment is often synonymous with crime and starts as personal revenge. Only the perpetrator carries out the punishment in order to fulfil his or her need for vengeance. Just distressed individual reserved the option to acquit the wrongdoer and no such poweris conferred in generalmass. punishment is granted to decrease wrongdoings and keep up harmony in the public eye. It is a regularly acknowledged idea that speculations of discipline address the premise of legitimating for the state’s criminal discipline methodology. This paper is an unassuming undertaking to concentrate on the general situation of retributive theory of punishment in India, and also some judicial approach regarding the retributive punishment in India. In the last segment, critical analysis of retributive punishment and some recommendations to the system has been done by the author. At the very least, I hope that my criticism of retributivism will reignite a discussion that seems to have acknowledged the superiority of retributivist roles. The study is mostly based on sources from various research article, journals and books.
Keywords: Punishment, Retributive, Critical analysis, Judicial approach, perpetrator.
Introduction
People of various faiths and classes can be seen in society. Since not every finger is the same, there are people who comply with the law and those who flung laws because of their evil intent. The State is responsible for protecting its interests. Any individual committing a crime that is prohibited by natural or statutory law, a punishment is the consequence of that crime. The wrong doers are punished for the purpose of preventing them from reoccurring the same wrong and turning them into lawful people. The type of penalty to be forced on the suspect depends on the type of society in which one lives. The efforts of various punishment theories are to transform violators into law enforcers. The legislation contains threats of imprisonment for future offenders and seeks to make the current offenders suffer to protect society from criminals and law-breakers. In its broader context, therefore, penal law comprises both substantive penal law and proceedings. Substantial criminal law describes and punishes offences and administers the substantive law in accordance with the Procedural Law.[1]
The most distinctive characteristic of penal law is undeniably punishment. Those who want to understand criminal law also need to comprehend the underlying goals of punishment and what society seeks to accomplish by punishment. Traditionally, crime has four punishment objectives. This includes restricting and eliminating society, imposing punishment for damages done to society, rehabilitating wrongdoers and dissuading the culprit and others generally from additional crime.
Antony Flew,[2] HLA Hart[3] and Stanley Benn[4] have defined punishment “as something unpleasant in lieu of an offense against legal rules, imposed by a legal authority and administered by the society”. Unlike, Durkheim has stated, that “punishment is the reaction of the society against crime, punishment should be a proportionate response to the harm caused to the society.” The changing social framework has driven society to a scope of discipline thoughts and extremist changes, from ordinary to new, and serious issues regarding them.
“The end of criminal justice is four in number, and in regard to the purposes served by the penalty may be divided,” writes Sir John Salmond. Some of the theories of punishment are – 1. Deterrent theory 2. Retributive theory 3. Preventive theory 4. Reformative theory 5. Expiatory theory.
[1]Administration of Criminal Justice System in India, available at: ‘https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/administrativelaw/administration-of-criminal-justice-law-ssays.php?vref=1 (last visited onSeptember25 2026)
[2]Antony Flew, ‘The Justification of Punishment’ 29 Philosophy293-294 (1954)
[3]HLA Hart, “Punishment and Responsibility” 5 1st, Clarendon Press, Oxford(1968)
[4]S I Benn, ‘An Approach to the Problems of Punishment’ Philosophy 127, 325 (1958)