The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 reorganises India’s criminal law framework. Section 4 clearly lays down the categories of punishments that courts may impose on offenders.
This article explains each punishment under Section 4 with legal meaning, judicial interpretation, and practical impact.
Understanding Section 4 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
Section 4 states that offenders under this Sanhita are liable to the following punishments:
(a) Death
(b) Imprisonment for life
(c) Imprisonment: Rigorous or Simple
(d) Forfeiture of property
(e) Fine
(f) Community Service
This classification preserves the traditional structure of punishments under the Indian criminal law while introducing a new reform-oriented sanction: community service.
1. Death Sentence
1.1 Statutory Provision
Death penalty is the highest punishment that may be awarded under the Sanhita. Section 4(a) recognises it as a permissible sentence for the gravest crimes.
1.2 Judicial Approach
The Supreme Court has consistently held that death penalty must be imposed only in the rarest of rare cases.
Key precedent: Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, 1980, SC – The Court upheld the constitutional validity of death penalty but restricted its use to exceptional situations where the alternative of life imprisonment is unquestionably foreclosed.
In Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, 1983, SC, the Court developed detailed criteria for determining when a case falls under the rarest of rare category.
1.3 Principles Considered
Courts examine:
- Nature and brutality of the offence
- Motive and manner of commission
- Victim profile
- Possibility of reformation
- Balancing aggravating and mitigating factors [Bachan Singh, 1980, SC]
1.4 Practical Relevance under BNS
Crimes such as aggravated murder or acts threatening national security may still attract the death penalty, subject to constitutional safeguards.
2. Imprisonment for Life
2.1 Meaning
Section 4(b) recognises life imprisonment, which generally means imprisonment for the remainder of the convict’s natural life unless remission is lawfully granted.
2.2 Judicial Interpretation
In Gopal Vinayak Godse v. State of Maharashtra, 1961, SC, the Court clarified that life imprisonment means imprisonment till the end of the convict’s biological life, unless a specific provision or remission modifies its duration.
This principle has been reaffirmed in Swamy Shraddananda v. State of Karnataka, 2008, SC, where the Court recognised the “special category” of life imprisonment without remission.
2.3 Practical Importance
Life imprisonment remains a common punishment for serious offences such as murder, terrorism-related crimes, or offences causing grave harm to society.
3. Imprisonment: Rigorous or Simple
Section 4(c) classifies term imprisonment into two categories:
3.1 Rigorous Imprisonment
Nature
Involves hard labour as part of the sentence. The type of labour depends on prison rules.
Judicial View
In Mohd. Giasuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1977, SC, the Court emphasised that imprisonment with labour must still respect human dignity.
Typical Use
Applied for serious offences where the law intends additional punitive deterrence.
3.2 Simple Imprisonment
Nature
The convict is not required to perform hard labour. Movement and work requirements are less restrictive.
Common Application
Often imposed for:
- Minor offences
- Economic or regulatory violations
- Offences where deterrence is required without excessive harshness
4. Forfeiture of Property
4.1 Meaning
Section 4(d) authorises the forfeiture of property connected with an offence.
This serves as both punishment and a deterrent against crimes committed for economic gain.
4.2 Judicial Position
The Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gopal Sarkar, 2002, SC held that forfeiture must be connected to an offence or illegally acquired assets; arbitrary deprivation of property is impermissible.
4.3 Relevance
This punishment is significant in offences involving:
- Terror financing
- Organised crime
- Economic offences
- Illicit gains or unlawful enrichment
Under BNS, forfeiture will likely be applied in conjunction with other substantive penalties.
5. Fine
5.1 Statutory Basis
Section 4(e) confirms that fines may be imposed either independently or in addition to imprisonment.
5.2 Judicial Standards
The Supreme Court in Shahejadkhan Mahebubkhan Pathan v. State of Gujarat, 2012, SC held that fines must be reasonable and proportionate to both the offence and the offender’s financial capacity.
Courts must also consider:
- Nature of the offence
- Ability of the offender to pay
- Need to compensate victims (where applicable)
5.3 Enforcement
Failure to pay fine may lead to default imprisonment, which is a separate punishment.
6. Community Service (New Addition under BNS 2023)
6.1 Introduction
Section 4(f) introduces community service as a statutory form of punishment—an important shift towards restorative justice in India.
6.2 Concept
Community service requires an offender to perform unpaid public work for the community, such as:
- Public cleanliness drives
- Assisting municipal functions
- Social welfare activities
- Environment-related work
6.3 Judicial and Legislative Context
Although courts previously used community service in limited contexts (e.g., as a condition for bail or compounding), BNS 2023 recognises it as a formal punishment.
The Supreme Court, in cases such as State of Punjab v. Ramesh Kumar, 2017, SC, has appreciated non-custodial sentencing in appropriate cases as part of a progressive criminal justice system.
6.4 Suitable Situations
This punishment is likely to be applied for:
- Minor offences
- First-time offenders
- Offences where reform is the primary objective
- Cases where imprisonment is unnecessary or disproportionate
It aligns with global trends promoting community-based corrections.
Purpose and Philosophy Behind Section 4 BNS 2023
1. Balancing Deterrence and Reform
The list of punishments reflects a dual commitment:
- Deterrence through severe penalties like death, life imprisonment, and rigorous imprisonment.
- Reformation through simple imprisonment, fines, and especially community service.
2. Flexibility for Courts
Section 4 ensures that courts have a broad spectrum of penalties. This allows judges to tailor punishment based on:
- Gravity of the offence
- Circumstances of the offender
- Social impact
- Possibilities of rehabilitation
3. Continuity with IPC but Modernised
While retaining traditional punishments from the old IPC, BNS adds community service and emphasises proportionality and victim-oriented justice.
Conclusion
Section 4 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 lays the foundation of India’s penal framework. It preserves established forms of punishment while adding a forward-looking sanction through community service. Together, these punishments enable courts to impose sentences that are proportionate, constitutionally sound, and sensitive to both societal protection and individual reform.
Read Also