Criminology Theories India
Criminology is the study of crime, its causes, effects, and social impact. Indian courts and scholars often refer to various criminological theories to understand criminal behavior, guide sentencing, or reform policy.
Major Theories of Criminology Applied in India
Classical Theory
Assumes crime is a result of free will and rational choice. Punishment deters crime.
Positivist Theory
Crime is caused by factors beyond control like biology, psychology, or social environment.
Sociological Theories
Focus on societal factors like poverty, inequality, social disorganization, and cultural conflict.
Strain Theory (Robert Merton)
Crime occurs when there is a disconnect between societal goals and means to achieve them.
Differential Association Theory (Sutherland)
Crime is learned through interaction with others.
Landmark Indian Cases Illustrating Criminological Theories
1. State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Yakub (1980) — Application of Classical Theory
Facts:
The accused was convicted for murder. The court focused on whether the act was deliberate and intentional.
Analysis:
The Supreme Court applied principles consistent with Classical Theory — crime as a rational act with free will. The court held that the accused made a conscious decision, thus criminal liability was clear.
Significance:
Reinforced the idea that crime results from voluntary choice and that punishment serves as deterrence. This is consistent with the classical approach underpinning Indian Penal Code.
2. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) — Positivist Theory & Social Context
Facts:
This was a landmark death penalty case where the Court discussed when capital punishment can be imposed.
Analysis:
The Court recognized the influence of social and psychological factors on crime. It adopted a “rarest of rare” doctrine, emphasizing individualized sentencing — considering mental condition, social background, and circumstances.
Significance:
Reflects positivist thinking — crime causation linked to individual and social factors. The judgment incorporated social science insights into legal principles.
3. M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu (1997) — Strain Theory
Facts:
A case involving industrial pollution leading to health hazards and death.
Analysis:
The court addressed systemic failures causing social strain. The ruling emphasized social responsibility and held corporations accountable for creating conditions that could foster crime or harm.
Significance:
Demonstrates strain theory — when legitimate means to achieve goals are blocked (e.g., safe environment), harmful acts can arise. It expanded criminology beyond individual crime to social structures.
4. State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram (2006) — Differential Association Theory
Facts:
The accused was involved in a gang-related murder.
Analysis:
The court examined the social environment and influence of criminal peers on the accused. It noted that criminal behavior is often learned in groups through communication and association.
Significance:
Reflects Sutherland’s differential association theory — crime as a learned behavior. Courts recognize social networks’ role in criminal conduct.
5. People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India (1997) — Labeling Theory
Facts:
The case dealt with police brutality and wrongful labeling of individuals as criminals.
Analysis:
The Supreme Court acknowledged that stigmatizing individuals with criminal labels can worsen social alienation and lead to further crime, echoing labeling theory.
Significance:
Emphasized the importance of fair treatment and the damaging effects of societal labels on rehabilitation.
Summary Table:
| Case | Theory Applied | Key Principle |
|---|---|---|
| State of Maharashtra v. Yakub | Classical Theory | Crime as rational choice; deterrence |
| Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab | Positivist Theory | Individualized sentencing; social factors |
| M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu | Strain Theory | Social strain & systemic causes of harm |
| State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram | Differential Association | Crime as learned behavior through peers |
| PUCL v. Union of India | Labeling Theory | Impact of stigmatization on offenders |
Conclusion:
Indian courts have increasingly incorporated criminological theories to understand and adjudicate crime more effectively, moving from purely retributive justice to a more nuanced approach considering individual and social factors.
RELATED Blog
0 comments