Law and You > Criminal Laws > Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 > Imprisonment under BNS (Ss. 6 to 10 and 13)
Imprisonment is one of the most significant and widely used forms of punishment in criminal law, involving the deprivation of an individual’s personal liberty as a consequence of unlawful conduct. Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, imprisonment continues to serve as a central mechanism for maintaining law and order while addressing crime through deterrence, retribution, prevention, and reformation.
As a legal sanction, imprisonment reflects the State’s authority to restrict freedom in order to protect society and uphold justice. It may take different forms—such as simple imprisonment, rigorous imprisonment involving hard labour, or life imprisonment extending to the remainder of a person’s natural life—depending on the nature and gravity of the offence.
In modern criminal jurisprudence, imprisonment is no longer viewed solely as a punitive measure but also as a means of rehabilitating offenders and reintegrating them into society. However, it also raises important concerns regarding prison conditions, overcrowding, and the effectiveness of correctional systems. Thus, the concept of imprisonment lies at the intersection of punishment, reform, and human rights, making it a crucial subject of study in contemporary legal discourse.
Types of Imprisonment under BNS:
Imprisonment means lawful confinement of an offender as a consequence of a crime, imposed by a court of law. Different types of imprisonment are as follows:
- Simple Imprisonment (SI): In this case no hard labour is involved. Offender is only confined. It is used for less serious offences like defamation, minor hurt, etc.
- Rigorous Imprisonment (RI): Rigorous imprisonment is a form of incarceration that typically involves hard labour and more stringent conditions compared to simple imprisonment. It involves hard labour like construction work, cleaning, agricultural activities. It is applied in serious offences like robbery, grievous hurt, etc.
- Life Imprisonment: It means imprisonment for the remainder of natural life. It may be subject to remission or commutation by the government
Depending upon the duration of imprisonment the imprisonment may also classified as Short-term (few days/months), Long-term (years), Life imprisonment (whole life). BNS, for some Sections has specified some minimum term (mandatory punishment)
Provisions Related to Imprisonment under BNS:
- Offences under sections 230 and 332(a) of the Sanhita are punishable with rigorous imprisonment only without any alternative of simple imprisonment being imposed.
- An offender is punishable with simple imprisonment for committing an offence under any of the sections 79, 202, 203, 206, 207, 208, 210, 211, 213, 214, 215,222, 223, 261, 264, 267, 293, 126(2), 355, 356(2), 356(3), and 356(4) of the BNS.
- There are a few sections in the BNS, like sections 80, 311 and 312, wherein minimum mandatory imprisonment of seven years have been provided. In section 64 also a minimum mandatory of imprisonment of seven years for ordinary rape and ten years for custodial rape as well as gang rape has been provided. However, in this Section, the Court has been empowered to impose less than the minimum mandatory imprisonment also by stating special reasons for the same in the judgment.
- The minimum duration of imprisonment provided for an offence under the Sanhit is imprisonment for twenty-four hours under section 355 of the Sanhita. However, sentences of imprisonment till rising of the Court have been imposed in very exceptional cases and they mean that the convict shall remain confined in the premises of the Court till the Court rises.
Objectives of Imprisonment
- Deterrence (Preventing Crime): Imprisonment creates fear of punishment. It discourages the offender (specific deterrence) and the public (general deterrence). Thus, it reduce future crimes
- Retribution (Just Deserts): It is based on the principle: “Punishment must fit the crime”. Society expresses moral condemnation of wrongdoing. It ensures that justice is served
- Prevention (Incapacitation): It keeps offenders away from society. It prevents them from committing further crimes during imprisonment. It protects the public from dangerous individuals.
- Reformation (Rehabilitation): It focuses on changing the offender’s behaviour It includes education, vocational training, counselling of the offender. Its aim is reintegration of the offender into society as a law-abiding citizen
- Restorative Justice (Indirect Objective): Though more directly linked to alternatives like community service, imprisonment can encourage accountability and support victim compensation mechanisms.
- Denunciation (Expressing Social Disapproval): It publicly declares that certain conduct is unacceptable. It reinforces societal values and norms
Fractions of Terms of Punishment:
Section 6 BNS:
Fractions of Terms of Punishment:
In calculating fractions of terms of punishment, imprisonment for life shall be reckoned as equivalent to imprisonment for twenty years unless otherwise provided.
This provision creates a legal fiction for calculation purposes. When the law requires calculating a fraction of a punishment (like ½, ⅓, etc.), and the punishment involved is life imprisonment, then life imprisonment is treated as 20 years only for that limited purpose. If any specific law provides a different method, that will apply. This rule is not absolute
Life imprisonment means imprisonment for the entire natural life. Since it is indefinite, fractions cannot be directly calculated. Therefore, the law assumes it to be 20 years for mathematical convenience .
Example 1:
If a provision says, Punishment = ½ of life imprisonment, then:
Life imprisonment = 20 years (for calculation)
½ × 20 = 10 years
So, punishment becomes 10 years’ imprisonment
In Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 2013 SC 3622 case, the Supreme Court emphasized that life imprisonment cannot be equivalent to imprisonment for 14 years or 20 years or even 30 years, rather it always means the whole natural life.
In Md. Munna v. Union of India, AIR 2005 SC 3440 case, the Supreme 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 BNS:
Sentence may be (In Certain Cases of Imprisonment) Wholly or Partly Rigorous or Simple:
In every case in which an offender is punishable with imprisonment which may be of either description, it shall be competent to the Court which sentences such offender to direct in the sentence that such imprisonment shall be wholly rigorous, or that such imprisonment shall be wholly simple, or that any part of such imprisonment shall be rigorous and the rest simple.
Under this provision the discretion given to courts in determining the nature of imprisonment when a law prescribes that an offender may be punished with imprisonment “of either description.” This means that where the statute allows both rigorous imprisonment (involving hard labour) and simple imprisonment (without hard labour), the court has the authority to decide how the sentence should be structured. The court may direct that the entire term of imprisonment be rigorous, or entirely simple, or it may divide the sentence into parts—making one portion rigorous and the other simple. This flexibility enables the judiciary to tailor punishment according to the nature of the offence, the circumstances of the case, and the character of the offender. Thus, the provision ensures that sentencing is not rigid but adaptable, allowing a balanced approach between severity and leniency in the administration of criminal justice.
In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ratan Singh, AIR 1976 SC 1552 case, 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)
According to Section 8(1) BNS, if a fine amount is not specified, it can be unlimited but must not be excessive.
According to Section 8(2) BNS, 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.
According to Sections 8(3) and 8(4) BNS, the additional imprisonment for non-payment cannot exceed one-fourth of the maximum imprisonment term for that offence.
According to Section 8(4) and 8(5) BNS, 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.
According to Section 8(6) BNS, imprisonment for not paying a fine ends when the fine is paid or collected.
According to Section 8(7) BNS, 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.
Illustrations:
A is sentenced to a fine of one thousand rupees and to four months’ imprisonment in default of payment. Here, if seven hundred and fifty rupees of the fine be paid or levied before the expiration of one month of the imprisonment, A will be discharged as soon as the first month has expired. If seven hundred and fifty rupees be paid or levied at the time of the expiration of the first month, or at any later time while A continues in imprisonment, A will be immediately discharged. If five hundred rupees of the fine be paid or levied before the expiration of two months of the imprisonment, A will be discharged as soon as the two months are completed. If five hundred rupees be paid or levied at the time of the expiration of those two months, or at any later time while A continues in imprisonment, A will be immediately discharged.
In Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy v. 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 favour the wealthy and must follow principles of fairness.
Limit of Punishment of Offence Made Up of Several Offences:
Section 9 BNS:
Limit of Punishment of Offence Made Up of Several Offences:
(1) Where anything which is an offence is made up of parts, any of which parts is itself an offence, the offender shall not be punished with the punishment of more than one of such his offences, unless it be so expressly provided.
(2) Where—
(a) anything is an offence falling within two or more separate definitions of any law in force for the time being by which offences are defined or punished; or
(b) several acts, of which one or more than one would by itself or themselves constitute an offence, constitute, when combined, a different offence, the offender shall not be punished with a more severe punishment than the Court which tries him could award for any one of such offences.
Illustrations:
(a) A gives Z fifty strokes with a stick. Here A may have committed the offence of voluntarily causing hurt to Z by the whole beating, and also by each of the blows which make up the whole beating. If A were liable to punishment for every blow, he might be imprisoned for fifty years, one for each blow. But he is liable only to one punishment for the whole beating.
(b) But, if, while A is beating Z, Y interferes, and A intentionally strikes Y, here, as the blow given to Y is no part of the act whereby A voluntarily causes hurt to Z, A is liable to one punishment for voluntarily causing hurt to Z, and to another for the blow given to Y.
The provision embodies the principle against double punishment for the same act. It means that when a single offence is composed of several parts, and each of those parts may independently constitute an offence, the offender should not be punished separately for each part. Instead, the offender will be punished only once for the main or composite offence, unless the law specifically provides otherwise.
In other words, if different acts form part of one larger offence, even though those individual acts may themselves be punishable, the court will impose punishment for only one offence to avoid multiple punishments for the same wrongdoing. This ensures fairness in criminal justice and prevents excessive or overlapping penalties. However, if a statute expressly allows separate punishments for each component act, then the offender may be punished accordingly.
Thus, the provision promotes the principle of justice, proportionality, and protection against double jeopardy, ensuring that punishment remains reasonable and not duplicative.
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 BNS:
Punishment of Person Guilty of One of Several Offences, Judgment Stating That It is Doubtful of Which:
In all cases in which judgment is given that a person is guilty of one of several offences specified in the judgment, but that it is doubtful of which of these offences he is guilty, the offender shall be punished for the offence for which the lowest punishment is provided if the same punishment is not provided for all.
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.
Enhanced Punishment for Certain Offences after Previous Convictions:
Section 13 BNS:
Enhanced Punishment for Certain Offences after Previous Convictions:
Whoever, having been convicted by a Court in India, of an offence punishable under Chapter X or Chapter XVII of this Sanhita with imprisonment of either description for a term of three years or upwards, shall be guilty of any offence punishable under either of those Chapters with like imprisonment for the like term, shall be subject for every such subsequent offence to imprisonment for life, or to imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years.
This provision deals with enhanced punishment for repeat offenders (habitual offenders). It means that if a person has already been convicted by a court in India for an offence under Chapter X (offences against property) or Chapter XVII (certain serious offences) that is punishable with imprisonment of three years or more, and thereafter commits another offence under the same chapters carrying a similar punishment, then stricter consequences follow.
In such cases, for every subsequent offence, the offender becomes liable to more severe punishment, which may extend to imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description (rigorous or simple) up to ten years. This provision reflects the idea that repeat offenders pose a greater threat to society and therefore deserve harsher penalties than first-time offenders.
The purpose of this rule is to deter habitual criminal behaviour, protect society, and ensure that individuals who repeatedly engage in serious offences are dealt with more strictly. It also reinforces the principle that punishment should escalate when earlier penalties have failed to reform the offender.
Conclusion:
Imprisonment continues to be a central form of punishment under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, reflecting the State’s authority to restrict personal liberty in the interest of justice and social order. It serves multiple objectives—deterrence, retribution, prevention, and reformation—thereby balancing the need to punish offenders with the goal of rehabilitating them. The flexibility in its forms, such as simple and rigorous imprisonment, along with judicial discretion in sentencing, allows courts to tailor punishment according to the gravity of offences and individual circumstances.
At the same time, modern criminal jurisprudence recognizes that imprisonment should not be purely punitive but also reformative and humane. While it remains an essential tool for dealing with serious crimes, its limitations—such as overcrowding, social stigma, and challenges in rehabilitation—highlight the need for a balanced approach, including alternatives like community service. Thus, imprisonment under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita must be applied judiciously, ensuring that it upholds justice while promoting the broader goals of correction and reintegration into society.
For More Articles on the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Click Here