Law and Psychology
1
Phul Singh V/S State of Haryana (1979-1980)
Rakia Wasif Ali (A23014)
Rishika Mistry (A23441)
Sophia College for Women, Autonomous
SEC- Law and Psychology
Ms. Simi Susan Shibu
08th January 2025.
Law and Psychology
2
INTRODUCTION
Law and psychology explore the intersection of legal systems and psychological insights,
focusing on how human behaviour, cognition, and emotions influence legal processes like
decision-making, jury behaviour, and witness testimony. Forensic psychology involves applying
psychological principles and techniques to legal and criminal justice contexts. It includes
evaluating offenders' mental states, providing expert testimony, assessing competency, and aiding
in criminal profiling.
Theories
Theories incorporated in forensic psychology substantiate the factors that influence
decision-making and cognitive biases in a court setting.
Judicial Bias:
Judicial bias refers to the lack of neutrality or impartiality in a judge's or jury's
decision-making, often stemming from a predisposition against or in favour of one of the parties
involved. This bias is reflected in decisions influenced by stereotypes related to gender, religion,
class, or other factors, rather than being based on evidence and law. It can manifest in various
ways, such as favouring one attorney over another or when a judge is determined to achieve a
particular outcome, negating arguments and evidence. A notable example is the Sahara Birla
Papers case, where the Supreme Court appeared biased in favour of the government. The petition
filed by an NGO included allegations against the government, but the court dismissed it citing a
lack of evidence. It declared the diary entries inadmissible, conveniently aborting the issue and
shielding the government from scrutiny, thus constituting the offence in question.
Gender bias:
Gender Bias in the judiciary arises when judicial conduct, decisions, or the courtroom
environment are influenced by stereotypes, preconceived notions, or systemic inequalities, often
resulting in disadvantages for individuals based on their gender. This bias, whether overt or
subtle, compromises the fundamental principle of equality under the law. Gender bias in the
judiciary manifests through stereotypes and unequal treatment, such as judges relying on
traditional gender roles or interrupting female lawyers more often. Decisions can be influenced
Law and Psychology
3
by the gender of the accused or victim, with leniency toward male perpetrators or blaming
female victims. Sentences may be biased, with men receiving harsher penalties for violent
crimes, while women are judged more harshly for deviating from traditional roles. Bias also
neglects intersectionality, further disadvantaging women from marginalized communities.
Additionally, female judges and lawyers face discrimination and limited opportunities in the
workplace. These biases undermine trust in the legal system and harm its integrity.
Theories of Punishment in Law (Agrawal & The Law Brigade (Publishing) Group, 2018):
Theories of punishment in law provide frameworks for justifying and administering
penalties for wrongdoing, aiming to maintain order and uphold justice in society. These theories,
including retributive, utilitarian, and rehabilitative approaches, address the purposes and
principles underlying the imposition of punishment.
The Retributive Theory:
The Retributive Theory asserts that justice is fundamental to upholding the legal order in
society, emphasising that punishment should correspond to what an individual deserves. This
approach avoids the issues of excessive punishment, insufficient punishment, or punishing the
innocent, distinguishing it from utilitarian rationalisations. While retributivism addresses
wrongdoings such as lying, stealing, or killing by holding individuals accountable for their
actions, it faces challenges, as not all reasonable people condone these acts. Retributive
punishment serves to impose consequences that wrongdoers seem to invite upon themselves,
including extreme measures like execution, and extends to addressing violations of basic
standards of decency and consideration.
The Reformative theory:
The Reformatory Theory of punishment is concerned with the rehabilitation and immoral
reformation of offenders as opposed to revenge or deterrence. Real crimes take place as a result
of specific effects: social, psychological or environmental. Thus, treatment is given to the main
cause that is leading to crime. Objectives of this theory included converting offenders from their
criminal behaviour to becoming law-abiding citizens by training them with the provision of
education, vocational training, and psychotherapeutic counselling. Reformation also includes
Law and Psychology
4
reintegration into society rather than punishment. It has been placed as an advanced and humane
way of punishment, but some critics argue that it does not deter crime or succeed in satisfying
the victim's thirst for justice. However, it remains important in modern criminal justice systems.
CASE OVERVIEW
This case is about an appellant aged 22 who has been accused of raping his cousin’s wife
who was also a neighbour while in broad daylight as well. He was sentenced to four years of
rigorous imprisonment by the sessions judge and the high court also supported the decision while
hearing the appeal. Relating to the arguments put forth by the fellow, the appellant had cited
young age, being a first-time offender and some signs of remorse. In addition, the two families
being blood relatives expressed a desire to overlook the situation. The court however was
strongly of the view that even such a family leniency cannot bind its decision.
On the other hand, the Supreme Court denounced the actions of the appellant the violence
done to the victim and the barbaric atrocities to society. At the same time, however, it was
observed that the appellant was not a repeat offender and did not have a history of any crimes.
He was a youthful responsible man married and had a farm so it was also ruled that he had a
moderate opportunity for rehabilitation.
The judges took issue with the notion that a young offender who served a four-year term
of incarceration without a plan of rehabilitative assistance would be better off served than being
corrected. The decision emphasises that young first-time offenders are to be treated differently
from seasoned criminals, and it suggests that such measures as meditational therapy, stress
release techniques, and self-exploration opportunities be presented to the appellant to overcome
his so-called “erotic aberration” and help him become a more sociable and corrected person.
The court in general has been rather critical of the operations of prisons, particularly for
the role of those who have served their custodial sentences in trying to cope with previously
squandered psychological and cultural aspects of their lives. It also stressed the need to prevent
further degeneration of the appellant and other incarcerated persons by instituting techniques
ensuring the retention of family ties during incarceration periods.
The judgment mandated reforms in the management of the prison, charging the
government and the prison administration to ensure that the period behind bars is meant for
rehabilitation, not punishment. It ended with the addition of directives to the sentence in a view
Law and Psychology
5
of ensuring that the appellant reforms while balancing the scale of justice between the victim and
the possibilities of reform of the offender.
IPC: Probation of Offender Act, 1958
Probation on Good Conduct: This case is related to the Probation of Offenders
Act, 1958 in emphasizing reformative justice, especially towards young-time offenders. The Act
applies to an alternative form of punishment that avoids imprisonment since it gives courts the
discretion to commit offenders on probation or after due admonition upon proof that the offence
committed does not call for severe punishment. Its ultimate goal in rehabilitating such offenders
is to assimilate them back into society rather than embossing further criminality through harsh
imprisonment.
In this case, the court recognized the young age of the appellant, the absence of criminal
antecedents, and the possibility of reform. It brought out the fact that punitive measures alone
may only make the offender more hardened rather than rehabilitated. This is in line with the
Probation of Offenders Act, of 1958, which aims to avoid the adverse consequences of
imprisonment by offering rehabilitative measures, such as counselling, supervision, and
maintenance of family ties, to facilitate moral and social correction.
Although the appellant was not specifically granted probation under the Act, the
judgment reflected its spirit by advocating reformative practices during imprisonment, including
meditational therapy, stress release techniques, and cultural normalisation. This approach echoes
the Act's philosophy of prioritising rehabilitation over retribution for offenders who show a
reasonable prospect of reformation.
Law and Psychology
6
BEHAVIOR PROFILING
Name of Appellant: Phul Singh
Age: 22
Name of Victim: Pushpa
Age: 24
Bench: Krishnaiyer, V.R.
Phul Singh, with no prior criminal record, committed a grave act of sexual violence,
raping his 24-year-old cousin’s wife, Pushpa, in broad daylight. Despite this, he was not a
habitual offender, nor does he possess a history of criminal or malicious behaviour. Married with
a farm to manage, signs of remorse suggest potential for rehabilitation.
"A man like the appellant has a reasonable prospect of shaping into a balanced person, given
propitious social environments, curative and congenial work and techniques of internal stress
release or reformatory self-expression" (Phul Singh v. State of Haryana, 1979).
Experts argue that, with meditational therapy, stress management techniques, and a supportive
environment, his impulsive behaviour may diminish, enabling him to reintegrate into society.
While the act remains heinous, his youth and apparent capacity for reform present a case for
correctional measures over retribution.
Law and Psychology
7
CRITICAL ANALYSIS
The Phul Singh case underscores significant judicial considerations, including the
presence of bias in sentencing and the delicate balance between societal protection and
individual reform. Central to the case is the court’s focus on sentencing discretion and
rehabilitation. While this approach is laudable in principle, it inadvertently reflects gender bias.
The reduction of Phul Singh’s sentence to two years demonstrates a striking leniency that, critics
argue, diminishes the seriousness of sexual violence and its profound impact on victims. This
leniency, seemingly rooted in sympathy for the offender, highlights a judicial bias favouring
male perpetrators, perpetuating a culture that marginalises the experiences of victims,
particularly women.
The judgment’s emphasis on the offender’s personal context, including his age, rural
upbringing, and family responsibilities, also reveals patriarchal and sexist priorities. By focusing
on Phul Singh’s potential for reform, the court prioritised societal norms such as marriage
prospects and family stability over addressing the victim’s trauma. This reflects ingrained biases
that favour the rehabilitation of male offenders at the expense of acknowledging the societal
implications of sexual violence and ensuring justice for the victim.
A key criticism of the judgment is the absence of the victim’s voice in the narrative.
There is little discussion of the extent of her suffering, highlighting a broader societal tendency
to marginalise women in the pursuit of justice. In patriarchal settings, victims are often silenced
or rendered invisible in legal proceedings, constrained by societal pressures to avoid
confrontation in order to protect family honour or escape stigma. These norms perpetuate a
culture where victims’ experiences are overshadowed, and justice is framed in terms of
maintaining communal harmony rather than addressing the gravity of the crime.
The judgment also conveys an implicit expectation that the victim must “move on” for
the sake of family and community stability. Such unspoken societal pressures discourage many
victims from seeking justice, instead emphasising forgiveness and the preservation of family
image over personal and legal redress. These dynamics lay bare the patriarchal foundations of
the case, where the offender’s reintegration into society is prioritised over the recognition and
justice owed to the victim.
Law and Psychology
8
Finally, the court’s focus on rehabilitating the offender, while commendable in theory,
underscores a judicial framework shaped by societal and gendered biases. Although
rehabilitation is an essential component of the justice system, the disproportionate emphasis on
the offender’s potential for reform undermines the gravity of sexual violence. This imbalance
reflects a systemic tendency to prioritise the future of male perpetrators over the dignity and
rights of female victims, perpetuating entrenched gender inequalities in both society and the
judicial process.
In conclusion, the Phul Singh judgment illustrates both explicit and implicit gender
biases, influenced by patriarchal values that prioritise familial and societal harmony over justice
for victims of sexual violence. By sidelining the victim’s suffering and placing undue emphasis
on the offender’s background and prospects for reform, the decision exposes the enduring impact
of societal norms that favour male offenders, thereby reinforcing gender inequities in the judicial
system.
Critical Case Analysis of the Retributive and Reformative Theories:
The case brought out a Retributive V/S Reformative Theory of Punishment, where it was
decided on the reformative approach by the court. Therefore, this outcome reveals judicial
partiality and indulgence, as in the instant case, of rape, which is considered the most serious
kind of offence which calls for punitive action to protect justice.
Retributive Theory aims at giving a punishment proportionate to the offence. It ensures
that the offender gets what he deserves as a result of the harm he has caused. The theory
emphasizes justice for the victim and accountability of the offender so that the legal order is
maintained through the deterrence of similar acts. In the case at hand, the appellant committed a
grave offence that violated the bodily autonomy and dignity of his cousin's wife. From the
retributive point of view, the four-year sentence initially given by the Sessions Court was an
attempt to balance justice with proportionality. However, the leniency shown by the court later in
considering the appellant's youth and lack of criminal antecedents seems to dilute the principles
of retribution. With all the emphasis laid on his personal circumstances, punishment would seem
rather disproportionate to the crime committed.
Law and Psychology
9
Whereas in Reformative Theory, the concern is to correct or reform the criminal by
concentrating efforts on remedying the core reason for the individual's committing a crime. The
court appealed in this case to the rehabilitative possibility of the appellant. The appellant was
young, remorseful, and without any history of crime. The court suggested meditational therapy,
stress release techniques, and maintaining family ties as rehabilitation measures to rehabilitate
the appellant to reintegrate him into society. Though the reformative approach reflects a humane
and forward-looking philosophy, its application in this instance raises concerns about whether
the emphasis on rehabilitation overlooks the crime's impact on the victim and the need for
justice. Critics argue that overreliance on reformation trivializes serious offences, especially
when the focus of the process shifts from the nature of the offence to the potential for the
offender's change.
This judgment also brings forth the inherent difficulties of the application of the
Reformative Theory to such serious crimes. Although his good character and rehabilitative
potential have been taken into account in this case, there is a tendency here to set aside the
retributive need to punish him because of his prospects. The suggestion that his "erotic
aberration" can be treated by therapy and training, shows that it was an emphasis given by the
court for reform at the cost of retribution which can undermine the seriousness of the offence
committed.
Finally, while the Retributive Theory believes in accountability with due proportionate
punishment, the Reformative Theory believes in rehabilitation and reform of the criminal. The
soft approach of the court in the case at hand reveals a biased approach towards reform, which in
fact questions whether justice is being bullied. In this regard, a balanced application of both the
theories, to ensure that sufficient punishment is administered while offering avenues for
rehabilitation for the offender, will better serve justice and reform alike.
Law and Psychology
10
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, this criminal justice system must change, allowing justice, rehabilitation of
individual criminals, and the need for the rights of the victim to all stay in balance and making
punishment not just fair but adequate. Retributive forms of punishment typically apply punitive
actions such that their motive is merely giving the punishment out in proportion to whatever
crime they committed. These really help in sustaining balance in society by deterring other
crimes in society. However, it does not always reach the root causes of criminal behaviour, and it
does not rehabilitate the offender. Punitive actions, mostly in the cases of young offenders or first
offenders, isolate them further into a cycle of reoffending.
The modern justice system, therefore, should have rehabilitative strategies that are meant
to reform offenders and address the root causes of criminal behaviour. This could be through
various therapeutic interventions, vocational education, and educational activities that prepare
the offender with appropriate skills to become responsible citizens once more. From this point of
view, emphasizing rehabilitation in the system would provide an opportunity for the offenders to
be responsible again and decrease the chances of reoffending. However, rehabilitation should not
triumph over justice for the victim. The legal process has to ensure that it does not compromise
accountability and disregard the rights of victims.
Besides that, there must be involvement in the concern of victims whereby a system
affords them the perception of justice and closure. For example, victim-offender mediation and
compensation schemes are some of the ways through which harm caused by crime can be
restored and allow healing for the victim in question. To the victims, therefore, it helps in giving
the perception of exercising a voice for one's needs to be presented to the law for justice while
regaining what one lost: their sense of control.
Very crucial to shaping the effectiveness of the justice system is the societal context.
Social, psychological, and environmental factors contribute to criminal behavior, and addressing
these factors with community-based interventions and social support systems will help prevent
crime in the earlier stages. Moreover, the criminal justice system must be committed to the
meaningful efforts of rehabilitation by making sure that offenders are strengthened in
reintegrating into society.
Ultimately, a balanced approach combining punishment with rehabilitation in
consideration of the needs of both the wrongdoer and the victim will lead to a criminal justice
Law and Psychology
system that is both fairer and more effective. Integrate all these elements, and society can do
little else but build safer communities, lower recidivism, and ensure that justice is both fair and
restorative.
11
Law and Psychology
12
REFERENCES
a. Phul Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1980 SC 249. (1979). Retrieved from
https://jajharkhand.in/wp/wp-content/judicial_updates_files/07_Criminal_Law/50_senten
cing/Phul_Singh_vs_State_Of_Haryana_on_10_September,_1979.PDF
b. Charman, S., Douglass, A. B., & Mook, A. (2019). Cognitive bias in legal decision
making. In N. Brewer & A. B. Douglass, Psychological science and the law (pp. 30–53).
The Guilford Press.
c. Agrawal, A. & The Law Brigade (Publishing) Group. (2018). THEORIES OF
PUNISHMENT IN INDIA- a BRIEF ANALYSIS. JOURNAL OF LEGAL STUDIES
AND RESEARCH, 4(4).
https://thelawbrigade.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Anubha.pdf