Introduction

The word Criminology is deduced from the combination of two Latin words, crimen which
means crime, and logos which means study or knowledge in the time 1890. Criminology is a
socio-legal study that strives to discover the causes of crime and suggests applicable
remedies. Criminological Propositions examine why people commit crimes and are veritably
important in the ongoing debate of how crime should be handled and averted. Numerous
propositions have been developed and delved throughout the times. These propositions
continue to be explored, independently and in admixture, because criminologists pursue the
consummate explications in ultimately reducing types and intensities of crime.

Neo-Classical criminology emerged in the 19th century as a response to the rigid and
universalist principles of the Classical School. While the Classical School, led by thinkers
like Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham, emphasized free will, rationality, and the uniform
application of punishment, the Neo-Classical School introduced the idea that certain external
factors—such as age, mental illness, and situational circumstances—can limit or influence an
individual's ability to make fully rational choices. The theory thus advocates for a flexible
approach to punishment, recognizing that not all offenders are equally culpable.1

This paper critically examines the relevance of Neo-Classical theory in light of the current
Indian criminal justice system, referencing various Indian Penal Code (IPC) provisions,
procedural laws, and relevant case law. We explore how this theory continues to shape legal
thinking in India, particularly regarding individualized justice, proportionality in sentencing,
the balance between retribution and rehabilitation, and challenges related to systemic biases.

1
https://egyankosh.ac.in/bitstream/123456789/38785/1/Unit-1.pdf

1
Literature Review

1. Neo-Classical Criminology: The theory has its roots in the 19th century and remains
influential in modern criminology. Scholars such as Francis Lieber and Raymond
Saleilles introduced the idea that individual circumstances such as age and mental
condition could affect culpability. This created a more nuanced approach to
punishment, where personal and situational factors are taken into account when
determining guilt and sentencing.

2. Indian Legal Provisions: A broad corpus of work has examined the adaptability of
criminological theories within Indian legal contexts, focusing particularly on the IPC
and judicial discretion. Gaur (2020) and Pillai (2019) discuss the Indian legal system’s
tendency to balance Classical deterrent approaches with Neo-Classical ideas of
individualized justice, especially in matters involving juveniles, mental illness, and
reformative justice.

3. Case Law Analysis: Scholars like Prof. M.P. Jain and Dr. B.N. Mani have written
extensively about the evolving nature of Indian jurisprudence, showing how Indian
courts, especially the Supreme Court, have increasingly adopted a more Neo-Classical
perspective in landmark rulings on proportionality and individualized sentencing.

2
Neo-Classical Theory of
Criminology
The Neo-Classical School of Criminology allowed for mollifying factors to be reviewed by a judge and
allowed for discretion to be used. Before the Neo-Classical School, all malefactors have treated the
same no matter what age, internal condition, gender, and so on. This was seen as illegal and unjust and
allowed for chance change. The Neo-Classical School called for judges to have discretion which is
necessary in some cases. The Neo-Classical School was also suitable to blend the Classical School of
Criminology with the Positivist School of Criminology.
According to this proposition, there’s a difference between total free will and determinism and argues
that no person has free will. The neo-classical academy allows for mollifying factors to be reviewed by a
Judge as per his discretion.
Before the arrival of this academy, all the malefactors were treated likewise no matter what age, internal
condition, gender, and so on. Neo-Classicalists saw this as illegal and unjust and therefore allowed for
chance change. This proposition allows for the consideration of mollifying factors like physical and
social terrain where the existent was placed. The main tenets of the neo-classical academe of
criminology can be epitomized as follows:
1. Neo-classists approached the study of criminology on scientific lines by recognizing that certain
extenuating situations or internal conditions deprive a person of his normal capacity to control his
conduct. Thus they justified mitigation of equal discipline in cases of certain psychopathic
malefactors. Editorializing on this point, Prof. Gillin observed that neo-classists represent a
response against the strictness of the classical view of equal discipline for the same offense2.
2. Neo-classists were the first in point of time to bring out a distinction between the first malefactors
and the recidivists. They supported the individualization of culprits a treatment styles which
demanded the discipline to suit the psychopathic circumstances of the criminated. Thus although
the act ‘or the crime’ remained the sole determining factor for adjudging crime without any regard
to the intent, the neo-classical academe concentrated at least some attention on internal occasion
indirectly.
3. The attorneys of this academe started with the introductory supposition that man acting on reason
and intelligence is a tone- determining person and therefore, is responsible for his conduct. But
those lacking normal intelligence or having some internal depravity are reckless in their conduct as
2
https://egyankosh.ac.in/bitstream/123456789/38785/1/Unit-1.pdf

3
 they do not retain the capacity of distinguishing between good or bad and therefore should be
treated differently by the responsible malefactors.
Thus it would be seen that the main donation of the neo-classical academe of criminology lies in the
fact that it came out with certain concessions in the free will proposition of classical academe and
suggested that an existent might commit lawless acts due to certain extenuating circumstances which
should be duly taken into consideration at the time of awarding discipline.
Therefore, besides the lawless act as analogous, the personality of the lawless as a whole, his
antecedents, motives, former life- history, general character, etc., should not be lost sight of in assessing
his guilt. It may be noted that the origin of the jury system in lawless justice is an outgrowth of the
response of the neo-classical approach towards the treatment of malefactors. As to the failing of the neo-
classical academe of criminology, it must be stated that the interpreters of this proposition believed that
the lawless, whether responsible or reckless, is menace to society and therefore, needs to be barred from
it.

4
Relevance of Neo-Classical
Theory in the Indian Criminal
Justice System
1. Focus on Individual Circumstances

Neo-Classical theory emphasizes that certain individuals are less culpable due to factors like
age and mental illness. This principle is embodied in various Indian legal provisions and case
law.

 Juvenile Justice: The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,
2015 aligns with Neo-Classical principles by treating minors differently from adults
in criminal proceedings. Section 15 allows for special trials for juveniles (aged 16-18)
in heinous offenses, where the Juvenile Justice Board assesses their capacity to
understand the consequences of their actions. This provision reflects the Neo-
Classical view that young offenders, due to their developmental immaturity, deserve
more lenient treatment than adults3. In Salil Bali v. Union of India4, the Supreme
Court upheld the Act, reinforcing the Neo-Classical view that juveniles should be
treated with leniency, given their potential for rehabilitation. This shows how Indian
jurisprudence has evolved to align with Neo-Classical theories, emphasizing the need
for a justice system that differentiates between adult and juvenile offenders.

 Mental Illness: Section 84 of the IPC, which addresses the defense of insanity,
reflects Neo-Classical ideas. It absolves criminal liability if an individual, due to
unsoundness of mind, is incapable of understanding the nature or wrongfulness of
their act. This recognition that mental illness affects culpability directly resonates with
Neo-Classical thought. In Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat 5, the
Supreme Court applied Section 84 to acquit an accused based on insanity,
highlighting the importance of considering the mental state of the accused. This
judgment reinforces Neo-Classical thought by emphasizing that individuals with
diminished mental capacity cannot be held fully responsible for their actions.

3
https://journal.thelawcommunicants.com/neo-classical-school/
4
(2013) 7 SCC 705
5
1964 SCR (7) 361

5
2. Balancing Retribution with Rehabilitation

One of the key tenets of Neo-Classical criminology is that justice should not only be punitive
but also reformative. This is reflected in Indian law’s growing emphasis on rehabilitation over
retribution.

 Probation of Offenders Act, 1958: Section 3 of the Act allows for probation rather
than imprisonment for minor offenders, underscoring the idea that rehabilitation can
be more appropriate than punishment in certain cases. This reflects the Neo-Classical
focus on reforming individuals rather than solely punishing them. In Sushil Murmu v.
State of Jharkhand6, the Supreme Court noted that first-time offenders and those
convicted of minor offenses should be given a chance to reform. This judicial stance
illustrates how Indian courts are increasingly leaning toward the Neo-Classical view,
where individualized sentencing accounts for the potential of rehabilitation.7

 Restorative Justice: Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) allows
courts to order compensation for victims as part of sentencing. This reflects a shift
towards restorative justice, focusing not only on punishing the offender but also on
addressing the harm done to the victim. This form of justice aligns with Neo-Classical
theory by balancing punishment with reparation. In Hari Singh v. Sukhbir Singh8, the
Supreme Court emphasized the importance of victim compensation, moving toward a
more holistic approach to justice. This aligns with Neo-Classical criminology’s focus
on the broader impacts of crime and the need for reconciliation.9

3. Proportionality in Sentencing

Neo-Classical theory’s emphasis on proportionality—punishing offenders based on their

intent and circumstances rather than applying uniform punishment—finds strong resonance in
Indian criminal law.

 IPC Sections 302 (Murder) and 304 (Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to
Murder): The differentiation between murder and culpable homicide not amounting
to murder reflects the Neo-Classical view that crimes should be judged based on
intent and circumstances. Section 302 (Murder) calls for life imprisonment or death,
while Section 304 allows for lesser sentences if mitigating factors, like lack of
6
(2004) 2 SCC 338
7
https://journal.thelawcommunicants.com/neo-classical-school/
8
(1988) 4 SCC 551
9
https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-2776-schools-of-criminology.html#google_vignette

6
 premeditation or provocation, are present. In K.M. Nanavati v. State of
Maharashtra10, the Supreme Court carefully distinguished between murder and
culpable homicide, holding that provocation must be considered in determining
criminal liability and sentencing. This reflects the Neo-Classical view that individual
circumstances should determine the degree of punishment.

 Sentencing Guidelines and Judicial Discretion: In Bachan Singh v. State of

Punjab11, the Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty should only be applied in the
"rarest of rare" cases. The Court held that sentencing should consider factors like the
offender's mental condition, motive, and possibility of reformation. This ruling aligns
with Neo-Classical thought, advocating for proportionality in punishment based on
individual circumstances.

4. Plea Bargaining and Sentencing Discretion

The introduction of plea bargaining under Sections 265A-265L of the CrPC in India also
reflects Neo-Classical principles. Courts can consider the willingness of an accused to
cooperate with law enforcement and admit guilt as factors in determining reduced
punishment.12 In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Chandrika13, the Supreme Court acknowledged
that plea bargaining can help reduce the burden on courts and offer offenders reduced
sentences. However, it also cautioned that justice must not be compromised, reflecting the
Neo-Classical tension between leniency and maintaining deterrence.

5. Challenges in the Indian Context

While the Neo-Classical theory promotes individualized justice, the Indian criminal justice
system faces challenges in its practical application, particularly concerning systemic biases
and social inequalities.

 Caste and Economic Disparities: Structural inequalities often lead to the unequal
application of laws, especially for marginalized communities. For example, the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
addresses caste-based violence but is often criticized for inadequate implementation
due to systemic biases. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India14, the Supreme Court

10
AIR 1962 SC 605
11
AIR 1980 SC 898.
12
https://journal.thelawcommunicants.com/neo-classical-school/
13
(1999) 8 SCC 638.
14
AIR 1978 SC 597

7
 underscored the importance of due process and the fair application of law, recognizing
that justice must account for both individual circumstances and broader societal
inequalities.

Conclusion
Neo-Classical criminology remains highly relevant in the Indian criminal justice system.
Provisions like the Juvenile Justice Act, Section 84 of the IPC, and plea bargaining
mechanisms demonstrate how Indian law incorporates the theory’s emphasis on
individualized justice, proportional punishment, and the balance between retribution and
rehabilitation. However, systemic challenges—such as caste and economic disparities—
highlight the limitations of the Neo-Classical approach in addressing broader societal factors
influencing criminal behavior. Thus, while Neo-Classical principles guide many aspects of
Indian penal policy, they must be complemented by measures that address structural
inequalities.