CHAPTER – II

EVOLUTION OF CRIME AND CRIMINOLOGY

2.1 INTRODUCTION

Crime is a fundamental aspect of human society, shaping legal systems,

governance structures, and social order across different civilizations. At its core, crime
refers to any act or omission that violates the legal norms established by a governing
authority and is punishable by law. However, defining crime is far more complex than
this simplistic understanding, as it is deeply influenced by historical contexts, cultural
values, moral perceptions, and socio-economic conditions. What is considered criminal
in one society or era may be viewed differently in another. For example, practices such
as witchcraft, dueling, and homosexuality were historically classified as crimes in
various regions, but over time, changing social attitudes and legal reforms have led to
their decriminalization.1 This dynamic nature of crime highlights that it is not merely a
fixed legal category but a social construct that evolves with human civilization. Crime
can be classified into different categories, such as violent crimes (murder, assault, rape),
property crimes (theft, burglary, fraud), white-collar crimes (corporate fraud, insider
trading), cybercrimes (hacking, identity theft), and organized crimes (drug trafficking,
human trafficking, terrorism). Each of these categories presents distinct challenges to
legal enforcement and social control mechanisms.

Theories of crime provide various perspectives on why individuals engage in

criminal activities, helping legal scholars, policymakers, and law enforcement agencies
develop crime prevention strategies. Classical criminologists such as Cesare Beccaria
and Jeremy Bentham emphasized that crime is a result of rational choice, where
individuals weigh the costs and benefits before committing unlawful acts. This theory
laid the foundation for punitive deterrence measures, suggesting that strict punishments
reduce crime.2 In contrast, positivist criminologists like Cesare Lombroso proposed that
crime is influenced by biological and psychological predispositions, arguing that some
individuals are born with criminal tendencies. Sociological theories, including strain

1
Edwin H. Sutherland & Donald R. Cressey , Principles of Criminology 112 (AltaMira Press,
11th edn., 1992).
2
Larry J. Siegel, Criminology: The Core 276 (Cengage Learning, 7th edn., 2021).

27
theory by Robert Merton and social disorganization theory by Clifford Shaw and Henry
McKay, focus on the role of poverty, social inequality, and peer influences in fostering
criminal behavior. Psychological theories examine how mental health disorders,
childhood trauma, and cognitive distortions contribute to criminality, while economic
theories link crime to unemployment, resource scarcity, and financial instability. The
feminist perspective on crime highlights the role of gender dynamics and patriarchal
structures in shaping criminal behavior, particularly in cases of domestic violence,
sexual harassment, and workplace discrimination.

Despite legal frameworks designed to curb criminal activities, crime remains a

persistent and evolving challenge in every society. The advancement of technology has
introduced new dimensions of crime, such as cyber fraud, online harassment, and digital
piracy, which require innovative law enforcement measures. Additionally,
globalization has led to an increase in transnational crimes, including human
trafficking, arms smuggling, and international financial frauds, making crime control a
global issue rather than a localized one. The effectiveness of a criminal justice system
depends not only on the strength of laws but also on their implementation. Many
countries face judicial delays, corruption, inefficient policing, and lack of rehabilitation
programs, which hinder crime prevention and law enforcement efforts.3 Furthermore,
crime disproportionately affects vulnerable groups such as women, children, minorities,
and economically disadvantaged communities, making it essential to adopt a victim-
centric approach in legal proceedings.

As societies progress, the concept of crime continues to evolve with changing

moral values, political ideologies, and socio-economic conditions. Laws that once
seemed rigid are often revisited and amended to align with contemporary human rights
standards and democratic principles. The decriminalization of homosexuality,
legalization of cannabis in some jurisdictions, and evolving cyber laws demonstrate
how legal definitions of crime are not static but are influenced by public discourse,
activism, and judicial interpretations.4 Therefore, the study of crime is not just about
understanding unlawful acts but also about analyzing why they occur, how they impact

3
N.V. Paranjape , Criminology and Penology 398 (Central Law Publications , Allahabad, 18th
edn., 2022).
4
Ibid 399.

28
societies, and what legal measures can be implemented to create safer communities.
Crime control requires a multidimensional approach, combining legal enforcement,
social awareness, rehabilitation efforts, and economic development to prevent
individuals from resorting to unlawful behavior. A just and effective criminal justice
system is not only about punishing offenders but also about addressing the root causes
of crime and ensuring a fair, transparent, and inclusive legal framework for all
individuals in society.

2.2 DEFINITIONS OF CRIME

The concept of crime has been defined in various ways by jurists, legal scholars,
and sociologists, reflecting the dynamic nature of criminal behaviour and its legal,
moral, and social implications. Over time, different legal systems and criminologists
have provided varied definitions to explain the essence of crime. Below are some of the
most recognized definitions of crime from legal, sociological, and criminological
perspectives.

2.2.1 Legal Definitions of Crime

From a legal perspective, crime is an act or omission that is punishable under

criminal law. It is defined based on statutory provisions, which categorize offenses and
prescribe appropriate punishments.

• Blackstone’s Definition: William Blackstone, an English jurist, defined crime

as: “A violation of the public rights and duties due to the whole community,
considered as a community, in its social aggregate capacity.”5
• Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860: While the IPC does not provide a specific
definition of crime, it categorizes offenses into offenses against the state, body,
property, and public tranquility. However, crime under Indian law is generally
understood as: “An act or omission made punishable by law.”
• Kenny’s Definition: C.S. Kenny defined crime as: “A crime is a wrong whose
sanction is punitive and is in no way remissible by any private person, but is
remissible by the state alone if remissible at all.”6

5
William Blackstone , Commentaries on the Laws of England 5 (Clarendon Press , Oxford , 1st
edn., 1765).
6
C.S. Kenny, Outlines of Criminal Law 16 (Cambridge University Press, 19th edn., 1966).

29
2.2.2. Sociological Definitions of Crime

Sociologists view crime as a social construct influenced by cultural, economic,

and political factors. Crime is not just a legal violation but also a reflection of societal
norms and power structures.

• Durkheim’s Definition: Émile Durkheim, a pioneering sociologist,

defined crime as: “An act that offends certain very strong collective
sentiments.”7
• Sutherland’s Definition: Edwin H. Sutherland, known for the
Differential Association Theory, defined crime as: “A behaviour that is
in violation of the criminal law and is subject to punishment by the
state.”8
• Karl Marx’s Definition (Marxist Criminology):Karl Marx and
Friedrich Engels viewed crime as: “A product of class struggle, where
the laws are made by the ruling class to protect their interests, while the
working class is disproportionately criminalized.”9

2.2.3. Psychological and Behavioural Definitions of Crime

Psychologists define crime based on mental health conditions, cognitive

distortions, and personality disorders that influence unlawful behaviour.

• Sigmund Freud’s Perspective: Freud believed that criminal behaviour arises

from unconscious desires and conflicts between the id, ego, and superego.
According to Freudian psychology, individuals with a weak superego (moral
conscience) are more likely to engage in crime.10
• Hans Eysenck’s Definition: Eysenck’s personality theory suggested that
individuals with high impulsivity, neuroticism, and extraversion are more prone
to criminal behaviour due to their inability to conform to social norms.11

7
Émile Durkheim , The Rules of Sociological Method 65 ( Free Press , New York , 8th edn. ,
1982).
8
Supra Note 1 at 35.
9
Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels , The Communist Manifesto 87 ( Penguin Classics , London , 1st
edn., 1848).
10
Sigmund Freud, The Ego and the Id 74 (W.W. Norton & Company, New York , 1st edn., 1923).
11
Hans J. Eysenck, Crime and Personality 112 (Routledge, London, 3rd edn., 1977).

30
2.2.4. Modern and International Definitions of Crime

• United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC):Defines crime

as: “An act punishable by law and deemed socially harmful or
dangerous.”12
• Feminist Criminology Definition: Feminist scholars argue that crime
should be understood in the context of gender, power dynamics, and
structural inequalities. For example, crimes such as domestic violence
and workplace harassment were historically overlooked but are now
recognized as criminal offenses.

2.3 MEANING OF THE TERM CRIME

The legal meaning of crime primarily focuses on the breach of laws that are
enacted by the state to maintain order and protect citizens. Under this perspective, crime
is defined as an act that is prohibited by law, punishable by the state, and involves harm
to an individual, community, or state interest. The Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, does
not explicitly define crime but lays down various categories of offenses, such as
offenses against the state (treason, sedition), offenses against the human body (murder,
assault, rape), property crimes (theft, robbery, fraud), and offenses against public
tranquility (rioting, unlawful assembly). This legal categorization helps in classifying,
prosecuting, and punishing criminal acts, ensuring that they are addressed within a
structured judicial system.13

Beyond its legal framework, crime also has sociological and psychological
dimensions. From a sociological perspective, crime is viewed as a deviation from
societal norms and accepted behaviors. Émile Durkheim, a pioneer in sociology, argued
that crime is a normal part of any society and plays a role in reinforcing social norms.
He believed that crime occurs when individuals or groups violate the shared values and
expectations of their community. Similarly, Robert Merton’s strain theory suggests that
crime arises when individuals are unable to achieve socially accepted goals through
legitimate means, leading them to resort to illegal activities. This is often observed in

12
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime , The Globalization of Crime : A Transnational
Organized Crime Threat Assessment 14 (UNODC, Vienna, 1st edn., 2010).
13
Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code 42 (LexisNexis, Gurgaon, 37th edn., 2023).

31
cases of financial fraud, burglary, drug trafficking, and organized crime, where
economic disparity and social exclusion push individuals towards criminal behavior.
Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay’s social disorganization theory further explains that
crime flourishes in communities with weak social institutions, poverty, and lack of
education, making law enforcement difficult.14

From a psychological viewpoint, crime is often linked to mental health

conditions, personality traits, and behavioral disorders. Some theories suggest that
aggression, impulsivity, and antisocial tendencies contribute to criminal actions.
Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalytic theory explains that crime may result from unresolved
childhood conflicts, suppressed emotions, or the dominance of the ‘id’ over the
‘superego’ (which regulates moral behavior). Similarly, Hans Eysenck’s personality
theory identifies criminals as individuals with high extroversion, neuroticism, and low
levels of social conditioning, making them more likely to engage in unlawful acts.
Psychological research on crime has led to important advancements in criminal
profiling, rehabilitation programs, and forensic investigations, helping law enforcement
agencies understand criminal behavior more effectively.15

The economic perspective on crime suggests that poverty, unemployment, and

financial instability are significant factors contributing to criminal behavior. Gary
Becker’s economic theory of crime argues that individuals engage in criminal activities
after conducting a cost-benefit analysis, weighing the potential gains against the risks
of being caught and punished. This is particularly relevant in cases of white-collar
crime, corporate fraud, embezzlement, and corruption, where individuals in powerful
positions exploit loopholes for financial gain. Economic crimes are often more difficult
to detect and prosecute because they involve complex transactions, digital anonymity,
and high-profile individuals who can manipulate legal systems to evade punishment.16

Crime also has a gendered dimension, as highlighted by feminist criminology,

which examines the role of patriarchy and gender discrimination in shaping criminal
behavior. Historically, crimes such as domestic violence, marital rape, and workplace

14
Supra note 1 at 65.
15
Supra note 3 at 92.
16
Supra note 7 at 69.

32
harassment were not taken seriously in many societies due to deep-rooted gender biases.
Feminist scholars argue that crime laws have traditionally been written from a male-
centric perspective, often neglecting the experiences of women and other marginalized
groups. Over time, legal reforms have sought to address these gaps, leading to the
introduction of laws such as the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace
(Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013, the Domestic Violence Act, 2005,
and amendments to rape laws under the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013.

In the modern world, crime has expanded beyond traditional forms of theft,
violence, and fraud to include cybercrime, terrorism, and transnational offenses. The
rise of digital technology has led to an increase in hacking, identity theft, online scams,
and digital piracy, requiring new legal measures and international cooperation to
combat cyber offenses. Additionally, globalization has contributed to cross-border
criminal activities such as human trafficking, drug smuggling, money laundering, and
organized crime syndicates, making crime control a global issue rather than just a
national concern.17

Crime is not just an issue of law enforcement and punishment; it also has a
profound impact on economic growth, social stability, and individual well-being. High
crime rates lead to increased policing costs, judicial delays, prison overcrowding, and
a loss of public trust in the justice system. Furthermore, communities affected by
persistent criminal activity experience economic decline, reduced investment
opportunities, and psychological trauma among residents. Governments worldwide are
now adopting a combination of strict legal measures, community policing, public
awareness campaigns, and rehabilitation programs to create a balanced approach to
crime prevention.18

2.4 CONCEPT OF CRIME

Crime is one of the most fundamental aspects of human civilization, shaping

the laws, governance, and moral values of societies throughout history. At its core,
crime refers to any act or omission that is considered unlawful and punishable under

17
David S. Wall , Cybercrime : The Transformation of Crime in the Information Age 156 (Polity
Press, Cambridge, 1st edn., 2007).
18
Id. at 159.

33
the legal framework of a given jurisdiction. However, crime is not a fixed or absolute
concept; rather, it is deeply influenced by social, political, religious, and economic
factors. What is considered criminal in one society may not necessarily be a crime in
another. For instance, acts such as gambling, same-sex relationships, and alcohol
consumption are legal in some countries but punishable offenses in others. This
variation in the definition of crime demonstrates that laws evolve alongside societal
norms, reflecting the changing priorities and moral standards of different cultures.19

The concept of crime has been interpreted differently across disciplines,

including law, sociology, psychology, and economics. Legal scholars define crime as
an act that violates the laws enacted by the state, while sociologists view crime as
behavior that deviates from established social norms. Psychologists, on the other hand,
explore criminal behavior in terms of mental health conditions, personality traits, and
cognitive distortions, whereas economists analyze crime through the lens of financial
incentives, unemployment, and resource distribution. These varying perspectives
illustrate that crime is a multidimensional phenomenon that cannot be understood in
isolation but must be examined through an interdisciplinary approach.20

From a legal standpoint, crime is primarily classified based on the severity of

offenses and their impact on society. The Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, serves as the
foundation of criminal law in India, categorizing crimes into different sections such as
offenses against the state (sedition, treason), offenses against the human body (murder,
assault, rape), offenses against property (theft, robbery, fraud), and offenses against
public order (rioting, unlawful assembly). These classifications help in determining the
nature of punishments, legal procedures, and enforcement mechanisms required to
address different types of crimes. However, legal definitions alone do not fully capture
the essence of crime, as many socially harmful acts may not always be legally
recognized as crimes, while certain legally defined crimes may not always be
considered morally wrong by society. For example, whistleblowing may be illegal in
some jurisdictions but is often viewed as an ethical act of exposing corruption.21

19
Supra note 3 at 179.
20
Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 955.
21
Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India, (2018) 17 SCC 324.

34
2.4.1 Sociological Concept of Crime

The sociological concept of crime suggests that crime is not merely a legal
violation but also a social construct that varies across time and culture. According to
Émile Durkheim, crime exists in every society and serves an important function in
reinforcing moral boundaries and driving social change. He argued that what is deemed
criminal is determined by collective societal sentiments, meaning that laws evolve
based on the dominant values and beliefs of a given period. For example, acts such as
witchcraft, dueling, and blasphemy were once considered serious crimes but are no
longer seen as criminal offenses in most modern societies. 22Similarly, issues such as
domestic violence and marital rape, which were previously ignored by legal systems,
are now recognized as serious crimes due to changing social attitudes and activism.
Robert Merton’s strain theory explains that crime occurs when individuals face barriers
to achieving socially approved goals through legitimate means, leading them to resort
to illegal activities such as theft, fraud, and drug trafficking. Furthermore, Clifford
Shaw and Henry McKay’s social disorganization theory suggests that communities
with weak social institutions, poverty, and unemployment experience higher crime
rates, highlighting the role of structural factors in shaping criminal behavior.23

The sociological approach to crime seeks to explain why individuals commit

crimes, how society reacts to crime, and how criminal laws are shaped by social
institutions. Unlike legal perspectives that focus on punishment and deterrence,
sociologists study crime as a social construct influenced by poverty, education, peer
groups, family structure, urbanization, unemployment, discrimination, and power
struggles. Several sociological theories have emerged to explain crime, each offering a
distinct perspective on criminal behavior, deviance, and law enforcement. The
sociological concept of crime views criminal behavior as a product of societal
structures, economic conditions, peer influences, and power struggles rather than
merely an individual choice. Crime is not static; it evolves as society’s values, laws,
and economic systems change. 24Theories such as Durkheim’s anomie, Merton’s strain,
Shaw & McKay’s social disorganization, Sutherland’s differential association,
Becker’s labeling theory, and Marxist criminology provide insights into why crime

22
Supra note 3 at 199.
23
Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma, (2013) 15 SCC 755.
24
State of Gujarat v. Bharatbhai Rameshbhai Gadhvi, (2014) 7 SCC 162.

35
occurs, who commits crime, and how society reacts to criminal behavior. Addressing
crime, therefore, requires not just stronger legal enforcement but also social reforms,
economic equality, better education, and community development to prevent crime at
its root cause.

2.4.2 Psychological Concept of Crime

The psychological perspective on crime examines the mental and emotional

factors that contribute to criminal behavior. Some psychological theories suggest that
impulsivity, aggression, and lack of empathy are key traits found in many criminals.
Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalytic theory proposed that crime may result from
unresolved childhood conflicts and the dominance of the id (primitive desires) over the
superego (moral conscience).25 Hans Eysenck’s personality theory suggested that
criminals often exhibit high levels of extroversion, neuroticism, and psychoticism,
making them more prone to antisocial behavior. Psychological studies have also linked
crime to mental health disorders such as psychopathy, schizophrenia, and antisocial
personality disorder, which affect an individual’s ability to distinguish right from wrong
or control their impulses. This has led to a growing emphasis on rehabilitation and
mental health interventions in criminal justice systems, recognizing that punishment
alone may not always be effective in reducing recidivism.26

The psychological concept of crime seeks to understand criminal behavior

through the lens of mental processes, personality traits, cognitive functioning,
emotions, and behavioral patterns. Unlike legal and sociological perspectives, which
focus on laws, social structures, and environmental influences, the psychological
approach to crime explores the individual mind and its underlying motivations.
Psychologists argue that crime is not merely a rational choice or a social construct, but
often a result of deep-seated psychological factors, such as personality disorders,
childhood trauma, aggression, impulsivity, and cognitive distortions.27

Many criminal behaviors can be linked to abnormal psychological conditions,

including antisocial personality disorder (ASPD), psychopathy, schizophrenia, and

25
Supra note 2 at 291.
26
Id. at 298.
27
Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale v. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 7 SCC 748.

36
impulse control disorders. Some crimes are committed due to mental instability, while
others arise from learned behaviors and emotional dysfunctions. Psychologists analyze
why individuals commit crimes, how their thought processes differ from law-abiding
citizens, and what psychological interventions can be used to prevent criminal
tendencies. The psychological concept of crime provides valuable insights into why
individuals commit crimes, how their minds work, and what interventions can prevent
28
criminal behavior. Freud’s psychoanalysis highlights the role of unconscious
conflicts, Eysenck’s personality theory identifies genetic and psychological risk factors,
cognitive theories explain criminal thinking patterns, and Bandura’s social learning
theory emphasizes the impact of role models and environment. Additionally, mental
illnesses like ASPD, psychopathy, and schizophrenia play a role in some criminal cases.

Understanding the psychology of crime helps in developing rehabilitation

programs, psychological interventions, and preventive strategies to reduce criminal
tendencies. Rather than solely relying on punishment and incarceration, modern
criminal justice systems increasingly focus on behavioral therapy, counseling, and
social support to rehabilitate offenders and reduce recidivism, ultimately creating a
safer and more just society.

2.4.3 Economical Concept of Crime

Economists analyze crime from the perspective of cost-benefit analysis,

financial motivations, and economic conditions. Gary Becker’s economic theory of
crime suggests that individuals engage in crime after weighing the potential rewards
against the risks of punishment. This is particularly evident in white-collar crimes such
as fraud, embezzlement, and tax evasion, where offenders calculate their actions based
on financial incentives and the likelihood of getting caught. Economic factors such as
poverty, income inequality, and unemployment have also been found to influence crime
rates. Studies have shown that financial desperation often pushes individuals towards
property crimes like theft and burglary, while corporate crimes are driven by greed and
loopholes in regulatory frameworks.29 The economic impact of crime extends beyond
individual offenders, as high crime rates lead to increased government spending on law

28
Dilip Premnarayan Tiwari v. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 1 SCC 775.
29
Supra note 7 at 191.

37
enforcement, judicial proceedings, and correctional facilities, diverting resources from
essential public services such as education, healthcare, and infrastructure.

The economic concept of crime views criminal behavior as a rational choice

influenced by financial incentives, economic conditions, and cost-benefit analysis.
Unlike legal theories that define crime based on laws or sociological theories that focus
on social structures, the economic perspective examines crime as a response to
economic pressures, inequalities, and opportunities. Economists argue that individuals
commit crimes when the expected benefits outweigh the potential costs, meaning that
crime is often a calculated decision based on economic rationality.30

Economic theories of crime help explain why crime rates fluctuate with changes
in income levels, unemployment, wealth distribution, and financial instability. For
example, during economic recessions, property crimes such as theft, burglary, and fraud
tend to rise, while in times of economic prosperity, white-collar crimes like insider
trading, money laundering, and corporate fraud increase. The economic approach to
crime also studies the financial burden that crime imposes on governments, businesses,
and society, including law enforcement costs, loss of productivity, and damages to
public and private property. 31The economic concept of crime provides a rational, data-
driven approach to understanding why people commit crimes. Crime is not just an act
of deviance or moral failure, but often a calculated response to economic conditions,
financial incentives, and legal risks. Economic theories suggest that reducing poverty,
increasing employment opportunities, and addressing income inequality can play a
significant role in lowering crime rates. A balanced approach combining economic
development, legal deterrence, and corporate accountability is essential for sustained
crime reduction and economic stability in society.32

2.4.4 Modern Concept of Crime

The modern concept of crime has expanded beyond traditional offenses to

include cybercrime, terrorism, environmental crime, and transnational organized crime.
With advancements in technology, hacking, identity theft, online scams, and digital

30
State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal, (1987) 2 SCC 364.
31
Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary, (2014) 9 SCC 614.
32
Dhananjoy Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal, (1994) 2 SCC 220.

38
piracy have become significant threats, requiring new laws and enforcement strategies
to address cybercriminal activities. Additionally, globalization has facilitated human
trafficking, drug smuggling, arms trade, and financial fraud across international
borders, making crime control a global issue rather than just a national concern. The
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) emphasizes the importance of
international cooperation, extradition treaties, and information-sharing agreements to
combat transnational crimes effectively.33

The concept of crime has evolved significantly over time, adapting to changing
social norms, technological advancements, and global developments. While traditional
definitions of crime focused on physical offenses such as theft, murder, and assault, the
modern concept of crime has expanded to include cybercrime, financial fraud,
environmental crimes, human rights violations, and transnational organized crimes.
Crime is no longer restricted to individual acts of wrongdoing; it now involves
corporate, digital, and international dimensions that challenge traditional law
enforcement mechanisms.34

In modern times, crime is understood as a dynamic and evolving phenomenon,

shaped by socio-political conditions, economic factors, technological progress, and
global interactions. Governments, legal scholars, and criminologists now recognize that
crime is not just a violation of law but also a disruption of social harmony, economic
stability, and technological security. The modern approach to crime emphasizes
prevention, rehabilitation, victim rights, and global cooperation rather than just
punishment.35

2.5 EVOLUTION OF CONCEPT OF CRIME

The concept of crime has evolved significantly over the centuries, adapting to
changing legal systems, social structures, cultural norms, and technological
advancements. In ancient societies, crime was primarily viewed as a moral or religious
transgression, while in modern times, it has become a legal and sociological
phenomenon. As civilizations progressed, so did their understanding of crime, shifting

33
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime , The Globalization of Crime : A Transnational
Organized Crime Threat Assessment 27 (UNODC, Vienna, 1st edn., 2010).
34
Syed Asifuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2006) CriLJ 4314 (AP HC).
35
Sahara India Real Estate Corp. Ltd. v. SEBI, (2012) 10 SCC 603.

39
from divine punishments and retributive justice to codified laws, human rights-based
approaches, and global crime prevention strategies.

The evolution of crime can be traced through different historical periods, each
contributing to the development of legal principles, enforcement mechanisms, and
criminological theories. The transformation of crime over time reflects society’s
changing values, economic conditions, technological progress, and the role of
governance in maintaining social order. The evolution of the concept of crime
demonstrates a shift from religious and moral-based punishments to legal, scientific,
and human rights-based justice systems. Crime has transformed from localized and
simplistic offenses to complex, global, and technology-driven criminal activities. The
challenge for modern legal systems is to adapt to emerging crime trends while ensuring
justice, fairness, and protection of human rights in a rapidly changing world.36

2.5.1 Crime in Ancient Societies (Moral and Religious Violations)

In early human civilizations, crime was largely defined by moral and religious
beliefs. Societies operated under customary laws, where criminal behavior was often
viewed as an offense against gods, rulers, or tribal elders, rather than an individual’s
wrongdoing. Justice was administered based on divine authority, customary traditions,
and supernatural beliefs.

Crime, as a concept, has existed since the dawn of human civilization, evolving
alongside the development of societies, governance structures, and moral codes. In
ancient societies, crime was not necessarily defined in legal terms but was often
understood through the lens of morality, religious beliefs, and tribal customs. Early
human communities did not have codified legal systems as we know them today;
instead, they relied on oral traditions, divine commandments, and customary practices
to determine what was considered right or wrong. Crime was perceived as a violation
of divine will, social harmony, or tribal loyalty, rather than simply a breach of legal
statutes.37 Punishments were often severe, rooted in religious doctrine, supernatural
fears, and the desire for retribution, rather than being based on principles of justice,
fairness, or rehabilitation. In these ancient societies, laws were closely intertwined with

36
Gary S. Becker , Crime and Punishment : An Economic Approach 112 (University of Chicago
Press, Chicago, 1st edn., 1968).
37
Id. at 192.

40
religious practices, and rulers or tribal leaders were often seen as divine representatives
responsible for maintaining social order.

Crimes were viewed as sins or offenses against gods, ancestors, or supernatural

forces, and justice was administered based on divine will, omens, or religious
interpretations. For example, in Mesopotamian civilizations, laws were often attributed
to divine origins, and punishments were carried out to appease the gods. Similarly, in
ancient Egypt, the concept of Ma’at (truth, balance, and justice) governed moral
conduct, and criminal acts were seen as disruptions of cosmic order. In many societies,
punishments were designed not just to deter the offender but also to restore spiritual
balance and prevent divine wrath from befalling the community.38

One of the earliest recorded legal codes, the Code of Hammurabi (Babylon,
1754 BCE), provides insight into the nature of crime and punishment in ancient
societies. This set of laws, inscribed on a stone stele, emphasized the principle of lex
talionis (law of retaliation), famously summarized as “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a
tooth”. Crimes such as theft, adultery, false accusations, and disrespect toward rulers
were met with harsh penalties, often involving physical mutilation, death, or exile. The
laws were based on a hierarchical social structure, meaning that punishments varied
depending on the offender’s status. A crime committed by a noble against a commoner
might result in a fine, whereas the same crime committed by a commoner against a
noble could lead to execution or slavery. This inequality in punishment reflected the
rigid social order of the time, where the protection of the elite was prioritized over
fairness or justice for all.39

In ancient India, crime was primarily understood through the lens of Dharma
(righteousness) and Karma (law of moral causation). The Manusmriti, one of the
earliest Hindu legal texts, outlined moral and social laws that governed behavior,
prescribing strict punishments for crimes such as theft, murder, and adultery. The
justice system was highly influenced by the caste system, where Brahmins (priests and
scholars) received more lenient punishments compared to lower castes. The
Arthashastra, written by Kautilya (also known as Chanakya), provided a more

38
Rosalie David , Religion and Magic in Ancient Egypt 142 (Penguin Books , London , 1st edn.,
2002).
39
H.W.F. Saggs , The Greatness That Was Babylon 219 (Sidgwick & Jackson, London, 1st edn.,
1962).

41
structured approach to criminal justice, detailing espionage, economic crimes, and state
administration. Punishments included fines, exile, corporal punishment, and even
capital punishment, depending on the severity of the offense. Unlike later legal systems
that emphasized rehabilitation, ancient Indian justice was primarily retributive, aimed
at maintaining social hierarchy and divine order.40

In ancient China, the concept of crime was closely tied to the philosophy of
Legalism and Confucianism. Under the Legalist doctrine, which was prominent during
the Qin Dynasty (221–206 BCE), laws were strict and punishments were severe to
ensure social discipline. Even minor offenses could result in extreme punishments,
including execution, forced labor, or exile. Confucianism, on the other hand,
emphasized moral rectitude and respect for social hierarchy, promoting a justice system
where laws were seen as secondary to ethical behavior and familial obligations.
Criminals were often expected to repent through acts of service to society or were
punished based on their failure to uphold Confucian virtues.41

In ancient Greece, crime and justice were initially based on customary laws and
community consensus, rather than formal legal codes. However, with the rise of city-
states like Athens and Sparta, crime began to be regulated through structured legal
frameworks. In Athens, the Draconian Laws (7th century BCE) were among the earliest
legal codes, known for their brutality and harsh penalties, including death for even
minor offenses. The later Solonian reforms (6th century BCE) introduced more lenient
laws and established democratic principles of trial and punishment. In Sparta, crime
was often dealt with through military discipline, and punishments were aimed at
reinforcing social cohesion and obedience to the state.42

In ancient Rome, the concept of crime evolved significantly with the

development of Roman Law, which became the foundation of many modern legal
systems. The Twelve Tables (451–450 BCE) were the earliest written Roman laws,
covering a wide range of crimes, including theft, assault, and treason. Roman legal

40
P.V. Kane , History of Dharmasastra (Ancient and Medieval Religious and Civil Law) 348
(Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Pune, 2nd edn., 1968).
41
Derk Bodde & Clarence Morris , Law in Imperial China 214 (Harvard University Press ,
Cambridge, 1st edn., 1967).
42
Douglas M. Mac Dowell , The Law in Classical Athens 145 (Cornell University Press , Ithaca,
1st edn., 1978).

42
philosophy introduced the distinction between public and private crimes, recognizing
that some offenses were against individuals (e.g., theft, property damage) while others
were against the state (e.g., treason, rebellion). The Roman justice system also
introduced trial procedures, evidence-based judgments, and legal representation, setting
the stage for modern criminal law. However, punishments were still harsh, with
execution, crucifixion, and exile being common for serious offenses. Gladiatorial
combat and public executions were also used as a means of reinforcing state power and
deterring criminal activity.43

Crime in ancient societies was not limited to physical harm or property offenses;
it also encompassed ideological, religious, and political transgressions. Many societies
criminalized acts such as heresy, blasphemy, and treason, often punishing offenders
with death or lifelong exile. In medieval Europe, for example, the Inquisition led to the
persecution of individuals accused of witchcraft or religious deviance, often through
torture and public executions. Similarly, in ancient China and India, crimes against the
state, such as rebellion or disrespect toward rulers, were seen as grave offenses
punishable by extreme measures. The idea that rulers were divinely chosen meant that
challenging authority was equivalent to defying the gods, making political crimes
particularly severe.44

Despite their harshness, ancient legal systems laid the groundwork for many
modern legal principles, such as the distinction between intentional and unintentional
crimes, the use of evidence in trials, and the concept of proportional punishment.
However, unlike contemporary legal frameworks that emphasize human rights,
fairness, and rehabilitation, ancient justice systems were often arbitrary, hierarchical,
and retributive, with little concern for the rights of the accused. Over time, as societies
advanced and legal systems became more structured, the focus shifted from religious
morality and divine justice to rational laws based on evidence, fairness, and
45
proportionality. Crime in ancient societies was deeply interwoven with religious
beliefs, moral codes, and social hierarchies, rather than being viewed as a purely legal
violation. Early civilizations relied on divine guidance, retributive justice, and social

43
Andrew M. Riggsby, Roman Law & the Legal World of the Romans 189 (Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, 1st edn., 2010).
44
Henry Charles Lea , A History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages 278 (Harper & Brothers ,
New York, 1st edn., 1887).
45
Id. at 343.

43
stratification to define and punish crimes, often favoring the elite while imposing severe
penalties on lower classes. Over centuries, as societies evolved, crime came to be seen
as a legal and social issue rather than just a moral failing or religious offense, leading
to the development of more rational, codified, and universally applicable laws in
modern times.

2.5.2 Crime in the Medieval Period (Feudal and Monarchical Justice)

During the medieval era (5th to 15th century), crime was largely governed by
feudal laws and monarchical rule. Kings, landlords, and religious authorities controlled
the legal system, and punishments were often brutal, designed to maintain absolute
power and deter rebellion. The medieval period in India (8th–18th century) was
characterized by the rule of various dynasties, feudal structures, and monarchical justice
systems, where crime was largely governed by the whims of rulers, religious laws, and
societal hierarchies. During this era, India witnessed the reign of Rajput kings, Delhi
Sultanate rulers, and the Mughal Empire, each of whom implemented their own justice
systems and legal codes to define and punish crimes. Unlike modern legal frameworks
based on uniform laws and judicial independence, medieval justice in India was often
arbitrary, hierarchical, and influenced by caste, religion, and royal decrees.46

The concept of crime during this period was deeply intertwined with social
structures, feudal obligations, and religious doctrines. Crime was not viewed purely as
a violation of state laws, but also as an offense against the moral, religious, and social
order. Justice was largely retributive and deterrent in nature, aimed at maintaining
social hierarchy and reinforcing the authority of rulers rather than ensuring fairness or
rehabilitation. Punishments were often severe and public, designed to instill fear among
the people and prevent rebellion.47

2.5.2.1 Legal and Judicial System in Early Medieval India

During the early medieval period, before the establishment of Islamic rule, India
was governed by several Rajput dynasties and regional Hindu kingdoms, such as the
Pratiharas, Cholas, Rashtrakutas, and Chandellas. Justice during this period was

46
R.S. Sharma, Indian Feudalism 267 (Macmillan, Delhi, 3rd edn., 2001).
47
Satish Chandra , Medieval India : From Sultanate to the Mughals 278 (Har-Anand Publications,
Delhi, 2nd edn., 2005).

44
primarily based on religious texts (Dharmashastra), local customs, and the authority of
48
kings. Legal and Judicial System in Early Medieval India can be well understood
with the help of following :

(a) Concept of Crime in Hindu Law

• Crime was categorized as an offense against Dharma (moral duty), the King
(state authority), and Society (social order).
• The Manusmriti and other Dharmashastras served as the basis for defining
crimes and prescribing punishments.
• Crimes were divided into civil and criminal offenses, with severe penalties for
crimes against Brahmins, temples, and the ruling elite.
• Caste-based justice system – Punishments varied according to caste, with
Brahmins receiving lighter punishments, while Shudras and Dalits faced harsher
penalties for similar crimes.49

(b) Judicial Administration under Hindu Kings

• The King as the Supreme Judge – The ruler was the final authority on justice,
assisted by royal courts and local assemblies.
• Village Panchayats – Most criminal disputes were resolved at the local level by
village elders and caste councils.50
• Trial by Ordeal – Guilt or innocence was sometimes determined through
ordeals, such as walking on fire, swallowing poison, or drowning tests, based
on the belief that divine forces would protect the innocent.
• Severity of Punishments – Punishments included fines, exile, mutilation, and
capital punishment, with a focus on retribution rather than reform.
• Common crimes during this period included theft, treason, adultery, and
religious blasphemy, all of which were dealt with based on the hierarchical
structure of society.51

48
R.S. Sharma , Early Medieval Indian Society : A Study in Feudalisation 189 (Orient BlackSwan,
Hyderabad, 1st edn., 2001).
49
Id. at 198.
50
Id. at 201.
51
Id. at 204.

45
2.5.1.2 Crime and Justice under the Delhi Sultanate (1206–1526)

With the establishment of Muslim rule in India, starting with the Delhi Sultanate
(1206–1526) under rulers like Qutb-ud-din Aibak, Alauddin Khilji, and Firoz Shah
Tughlaq, the Indian legal system underwent significant changes. Islamic jurisprudence
(Sharia Law) was introduced, influencing how crime was defined and punished.52

(a) Introduction of Islamic Law (Sharia) in Criminal Justice

• The Sharia legal system categorized crimes into:

o Hudood crimes – Fixed offenses like theft, adultery, blasphemy, and
apostasy, which carried harsh punishments such as amputation, stoning,
or execution.
o Tazir crimes – Lesser offenses left to the discretion of the judge (Qazi),
where punishments included whipping, imprisonment, or exile.
o Qisas (retribution) and Diya (blood money) – In cases of murder, the
victim’s family could either demand revenge or accept monetary
compensation.53
• Blasphemy and apostasy became serious crimes, often punishable by death or
exile.
• Hindus and other non-Muslims (Dhimmis) were governed under a separate legal
framework, sometimes facing harsher penalties than Muslims for similar
offenses.54

(b) Law Enforcement and Crime Prevention under the Delhi Sultans

• The Muhtasib (morality officer) was appointed to ensure that people followed
Islamic laws, preventing crimes such as alcohol consumption, gambling, and
public indecency.55
• Spies and secret informers were used to monitor criminal activities and prevent
conspiracies against the ruler.
• Brutal public punishments – Alauddin Khilji, for example, imposed severe
punishments on thieves and rebels, often executing them in public squares.

52
K.S. Lal, Twilight of the Sultanate 198 (Munshiram Manoharlal, Delhi, 1st edn., 1980).
53
Id. at 205.
54
Id. at 219.
55
M.H. Syed, History of the Delhi Sultanate 312 (Anmol Publications, Delhi, 1st edn., 2003).

46
 • Market regulations – Crimes such as hoarding, price manipulation, and black
marketing were strictly punished to control economic stability.56
• The introduction of Islamic criminal law under the Delhi Sultanate created a
dual legal system, where Hindu communities continued to follow their own
customary laws for civil matters, while criminal cases were often decided under
Islamic jurisprudence.57

2.5.1.3 Crime and Punishment under the Mughal Empire (1526–1857)

The Mughal period, beginning with Babur and reaching its peak under Akbar,
Jahangir, and Aurangzeb, marked further developments in the justice system. While
Sharia law remained influential, some Mughal rulers, particularly Akbar, attempted to
harmonize Hindu and Islamic legal traditions.58
(a) Legal Reforms and Crime under Akbar and Jahangir

• Akbar introduced a more secular legal system, reducing religious bias in

criminal justice.
• Abolition of harsh Islamic punishments – Akbar prohibited the execution of
apostates and showed leniency toward Hindu customs.
• Jahangir established a chain of justice (Zanjeer-e-Adl), where citizens could
directly approach the emperor for justice.59

(b) Strict Sharia Enforcement under Aurangzeb

• Reimposition of Islamic laws – Aurangzeb reinforced Hudood punishments,

implementing stricter religious policing.60
• Temple destruction was legalized under the claim that Hindu places of worship
violated Islamic principles.61
• Economic crimes, corruption, and bribery were severely punished, but
enforcement often depended on the governor's loyalty to the emperor.62

56
Id. at 332.
57
Id. at 335.
58
Jadunath Sarkar, Mughal Administration 267 (Orient BlackSwan, Hyderabad, 1st edn., 2010).
59
Id. at 270.
60
Id. at 272.
61
Id. at 274.
62
Id. at 278.

47
(c) Judicial Institutions under the Mughals

• Qazis (Islamic judges) presided over criminal trials, following Sharia principles.
• Kotwals (police officers) were responsible for maintaining law and order in
cities.63
• Faujdars (military officers) handled crimes involving rebellion or violence.
• Criminal justice under the Mughals was still highly hierarchical, with severe
punishments for lower-class offenders while nobles often received favourable
treatment.64

2.5.3 Crime in the Early Modern Period (Codified Laws and Rational Justice)

The 16th to 18th centuries saw the rise of nation-states, legal codification, and
the rule of law. Crime was no longer seen as just a moral offense but as a violation of
state laws. Philosophers and legal scholars began advocating for rational, proportional
punishments, moving away from the extreme brutality of the medieval era. The early
modern period in India (16th–18th century) was marked by the consolidation of
centralized empires, the development of structured legal codes, and a gradual shift
toward a rational justice system. This era, dominated by the Mughal Empire (1526–
1857) and later regional powers such as the Marathas, Rajput’s, and Nawabs, saw the
introduction of codified laws, institutionalized courts, and formal legal procedures that
replaced earlier feudal and religiously driven justice systems.65

During this period, crime was still perceived through a hierarchical and religious
lens, but the Mughals and regional rulers introduced significant reforms, focusing on
uniformity in law, evidence-based trials, and the establishment of judicial institutions.
The Mughal period, in particular, played a crucial role in shaping India's legal
landscape, blending Islamic jurisprudence (Sharia) with customary Hindu laws,
resulting in a hybrid legal system that influenced later colonial-era legal frameworks.
The early modern period in India, spanning from the 16th to the 18th century, witnessed
significant transformations in the legal and judicial system.66 Unlike the medieval

63
Irfan Habib , The Agrarian System of Mughal India 312 (Oxford University Press , Delhi , 2nd
edn., 1999).
64
Id. at 316.
65
Sujan Singh Uban , The Marathas in the 18th Century 212 ( Munshiram Manoharlal, Delhi, 1st
edn., 1971).
66
Id. at 219.

48
period, where justice was often arbitrary and based on feudal customs, this era saw the
emergence of codified laws, structured courts, and rational justice mechanisms. The
most influential legal reforms during this period occurred under the Mughal Empire
(1526–1857), which introduced a hierarchical judiciary, a blend of Islamic and Hindu
laws, and administrative regulations to maintain law and order. Additionally, regional
powers like the Marathas, Rajput’s, and Nawabs developed their own legal frameworks,
further shaping India’s justice system before the onset of British rule.67

During this period, crime was still perceived through a religious and hierarchical
lens, but the growing centralization of governance led to more structured legal
institutions. The Mughals institutionalized Sharia (Islamic law) alongside Hindu
customary laws, while rulers like Akbar (1556–1605) and Jahangir (1605–1627)
promoted justice based on rationality, proportionality, and fairness. The emphasis
shifted from purely retributive justice to procedural law, judicial accountability, and
evidence-based trials, laying the foundation for modern legal systems in India.

2.5.3.1 Evolution of Legal and Judicial Systems in Early Modern India

The Mughal legal system played a crucial role in shaping India's judicial
framework. Under Akbar’s rule, judicial administration became more systematic, with
a structured hierarchy of courts, standardized laws, and reduced reliance on religious
bias in legal proceedings. Unlike previous rulers who imposed harsh and indiscriminate
punishments, Akbar’s policies sought to ensure that penalties were proportional to the
crime. The emperor introduced the Sulh-i-Kul (universal tolerance) policy, which
allowed Hindus and other religious communities to follow their own legal customs,
rather than being forced under Sharia law.68

Jahangir further advanced judicial reforms by introducing Zanjeer-e-Adl (Chain

of Justice), which allowed citizens to appeal directly to the emperor for justice. He also
emphasized eliminating corruption in the judiciary by imposing strict penalties on
officials who misused their power. 69However, this approach changed under Aurangzeb
(1658–1707), who attempted to reinforce strict Islamic laws by compiling the Fatawa-

67
Id. at 228.
68
Supra note 47 at 209.
69
Supra note 52 at 191.

49
e-Alamgiri, a comprehensive codification of Sharia-based criminal laws. During his
reign, crimes such as blasphemy, apostasy, and theft were met with harsher Islamic
punishments, leading to increased religious policing and legal rigidity.

Parallel to the Mughal system, Hindu customary laws continued to function in

many parts of India, particularly in regions where the Mughals allowed local rulers to
retain autonomy. Village Panchayats, caste-based councils, and temple courts played a
role in civil dispute resolution. Hindu law, derived from Dharmashastras and
Manusmriti, continued to govern matters such as marriage, inheritance, and caste-
related offenses. The legal system in many Rajput and Maratha regions retained
traditional Hindu legal principles, but also absorbed aspects of Mughal judicial
administration, especially in criminal cases.70

2.5.2.3 Types of Crime and Punishment in Early Modern India

During the early modern period, crimes were classified into offenses against the
state, crimes against individuals, and social and religious violations. Treason, rebellion,
and corruption were considered the gravest crimes, often punishable by death or exile.
Unlike medieval India, where feudal lords exercised independent judicial power, the
Mughal emperors sought to bring judicial administration under state control, leading to
a more uniform system of punishment.71

Murder, theft, and assault were dealt with through a mix of Sharia and
customary punishments. The Mughal courts allowed for Qisas (retaliation) and Diya
(monetary compensation) in cases of murder, meaning that the victim’s family could
either seek revenge or accept financial restitution. Under Akbar and Jahangir, judicial
decisions began incorporating evidence-based trials, reducing the reliance on ordeal-
based justice (such as trial by fire or drowning tests), which had been prevalent in earlier
periods. However, certain punishments remained brutal and public, such as amputation
for theft, flogging for adultery, and execution for treason.72

Social crimes, including caste violations, adultery, and religious blasphemy,

were governed by both state law and local traditions. In many Hindu kingdoms,

70
Supra note 48 at 386.
71
Supra note 52 at 172.
72
Supra note 58 at 231.

50
violations of caste norms were punished through ostracization, public humiliation, or
even execution in extreme cases. Under Aurangzeb’s rule, Hindu religious practices,
such as idol worship and temple processions, faced restrictions, and non-Muslims were
sometimes subjected to legal discrimination. However, many Hindu rulers, such as
Shivaji in the Maratha Empire (1674–1680), developed independent legal systems that
countered Mughal policies and provided protection to Hindu customs.

2.5.3.3 Judicial Institutions and Law Enforcement

One of the most significant contributions of early modern India to the

development of legal systems was the establishment of structured judicial institutions.
The Mughals created a hierarchy of courts, with different officials responsible for
criminal, civil, and religious matters. The highest judicial authority was the emperor,
followed by provincial governors, city judges (Qazis), and village magistrates
(Kotwals). The Kotwals (police officers) in Mughal cities were responsible for law
enforcement, managing crime prevention, and maintaining public order. 73The Faujdars
(military governors) handled cases related to rebellion, banditry, and organized crime.
Additionally, spies and secret informers were widely used to monitor criminal activities
and political dissent. In Maratha and Rajput territories, judicial administration was
localized, with Nyayadhish (chief judges) presiding over courts, while village Patils
(headmen) handled local disputes. The legal systems of these kingdoms were
influenced by Hindu traditions and Mughal judicial practices, leading to a blend of
customary and codified laws.74

2.5.3.4 The Shift Toward Rational Justice and Codified Laws

The early modern period marked a gradual departure from purely retributive
justice toward a more rational legal framework. Rulers like Akbar and Shivaji
introduced policies that emphasized proportionality in punishment, seeking to reduce
excessive brutality while ensuring strict enforcement of the law. By the 18th century,
the concept of codified laws and institutionalized courts had become deeply embedded
in Indian governance.

73
V.S. Bendrey , The Administration of Justice in the Maratha Empire 214 (Deccan College ,
Pune, 1st edn., 1944).
74
Id. at 219.

51
 Although the legal system was still hierarchical and biased in favour of the
ruling elite, it laid the foundation for later legal developments during British rule. The
Mughal judicial framework significantly influenced Warren Hastings’ legal reforms in
1772, which introduced a dual court system (separate courts for Hindus and Muslims)
under British colonial administration. This period thus represents an important
transition from religiously dictated justice to a more structured, codified legal system
that prioritized administration and governance.75

2.5.4 Crime in the Industrial and Modern Era

The 19th and 20th centuries brought rapid industrialization, urbanization, and
technological advancements, leading to new forms of crime and the emergence of
modern criminology. The Industrial and Modern Era (19th century–present) brought
profound changes in India’s legal, social, and economic structures, directly impacting
the nature of crime and the justice system. The transition from agrarian societies to
industrial economies, along with urbanization, technological advancements, and
globalization, led to the emergence of new forms of crime. Unlike earlier periods, where
crime was largely defined by religious laws, feudal customs, and monarchical decrees,
the modern era saw the introduction of codified laws, institutionalized policing,
forensic science, and rehabilitative justice models.76 The British colonial period (19th–
mid-20th century) played a crucial role in shaping India’s modern legal system by
introducing structured laws, police reforms, and Western-style courts. However,
colonial laws were often designed to suppress dissent rather than ensure justice. Post-
independence, India’s legal system underwent further reforms, with the Constitution
establishing a uniform criminal code and democratic legal principles.77

2.5.4.1 Crime in the Industrial Age (19th and Early 20th Century)

The 19th-century Industrial Revolution and the expansion of British rule in

India led to significant socio-economic transformations, which influenced crime
patterns. Urbanization, factory-based industries, and new economic policies created
both employment opportunities and social inequalities, leading to an increase in

75
B.B. Misra , The Judicial System of the East India Company 267 (Motilal Banarsidass , Delhi,
1st edn., 1959).
76
M.P. Jain , Outlines of Indian Legal and Constitutional History 276 (LexisNexis, Gurgaon, 7th
edn., 2014).
77
Id. at 284.

52
property crimes, financial fraud, labour exploitation, and organized criminal
activities.78

(a) The Impact of British Colonial Rule on Crime and Law

The British colonial government introduced a Western legal framework in India,

replacing many traditional justice systems. Some key developments included:

• Codification of Laws:
o The Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, drafted by Lord Macaulay, created
a uniform criminal law that remains the foundation of India’s legal
system today.
o The Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1861, and the Indian Evidence
Act, 1872, standardized judicial procedures.
• Introduction of Modern Policing:
o The Indian Police Act, 1861, established a structured police force,
primarily aimed at controlling uprisings rather than addressing crime
efficiently.
o Police stations were set up in major cities, leading to systematic crime
registration and investigation.79
• Economic and Labour Crimes:
o The exploitation of Indian labour in factories and plantations led to
labour unrest, strikes, and protests, which the British often criminalized
under sedition and public order laws.
o The Indentured Labour System and the criminalization of debt default
led to widespread financial exploitation.
• Rise of Organized Crime:
o The Thuggee and Dacoity Suppression Act (1836) targeted groups like
Thugs and Dacoits, who engaged in organized robbery and highway
crimes.
o Smuggling networks flourished under British taxation policies on salt,
opium, and liquor.80

78
Supra note 75 at 312.
79
David Wall , Cybercrime : The Transformation of Crime in the Information Age 198 (Polity
Press, Cambridge, 1st edn., 2007).
80
Id. at 392.

53
 • Political Crimes and Sedition:
o The British introduced harsh sedition laws (Section 124A of IPC) to
suppress Indian nationalist movements.
o Revolutionary groups such as the Anushilan Samiti, Ghadar Party, and
Hindustan Socialist Republican Army (HSRA) were labelled as
criminals, and their leaders were arrested or executed.
o While the British legal system helped in institutionalizing criminal
justice, it was largely designed to serve colonial interests, leading to
widespread human rights abuses and the criminalization of political
dissent.81

2.5.4.2 Crime in Post-Independence India (1947–1980s)

After gaining independence in 1947, India retained the British legal framework but
introduced reforms to align criminal laws with constitutional rights and democratic
values. The abolition of feudal privileges, land reforms, and industrialization led to new
forms of crime, including white-collar crime, corruption, and political violence.82

• Corruption and Political Crimes:

o With the expansion of bureaucracy, political corruption and bribery
became widespread.
o Scandals such as the Jeep Scandal (1948), Nagarwala Scam (1971), and
Bofors Scandal (1980s) highlighted high-level financial crimes.
• Economic and Industrial Crimes:
o The growth of factories and businesses led to labour exploitation, black
marketing, and tax evasion.
o Hawala transactions and illegal wealth accumulation by politicians and
businessmen increased.83
• Communal Violence and Riots:
o The partition of India (1947) triggered large-scale communal riots,
leading to murders, rapes, and property destruction.

81
Supra note 79 at 212.
82
Upendra Baxi , The Crisis of the Indian Legal System 234 (Vikas Publishing, New Delhi, 1st
edn., 1982).
83
Id. at 255.

54
 o Riots in Delhi (1984), Mumbai (1992), and Gujarat (2002) showed the
persistent link between politics and religious violence.
• Terrorism and Insurgency:
o The rise of extremist groups such as the Naxalites (1960s), Khalistan
movement (1980s), and insurgencies in Kashmir and the Northeast led
to a surge in terrorist activities, kidnappings, and political assassinations.
o The post-independence period saw crime shift from feudal and colonial
suppression to politically and economically motivated offenses,
requiring legal adaptations to address these challenges.

2.5.4.3 Crime in the Contemporary Era (1990s–Present)

With economic liberalization in the 1990s, India witnessed rapid globalization,

technological advancements, and urban expansion, leading to new crime challenges.
Cybercrime, financial fraud, organized crime, drug trafficking, and terrorism became
major concerns in the 21st century. The post-liberalization era thus marked a paradigm
shift in India's crime landscape, requiring modern policing strategies, international
cooperation, and transnational crimes in a globalized world.84

• Cybercrime and Digital Fraud:

o The rise of internet banking, e-commerce, and digital transactions led to
an increase in hacking, identity theft, phishing, and online scams.
o The Information Technology Act (2000) was enacted to combat
cybercrime, but digital offenses continue to rise.85
• Terrorism and Cross-Border Crimes:
o The 1993 Mumbai Blasts, 2001 Parliament Attack, 2008 Mumbai
Attacks, and Pulwama Attack (2019) demonstrated the role of terror
networks and international criminal organizations.86
o Laws like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and
National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act were enacted to tackle
terrorism.87

84
S.K. Ghosh , The Politics of Crime and Corruption 189 (Ashish Publishing House, New Delhi,
1st edn., 1990).
85
Id. at 195.
86
Id. at 212.
87
Id. at 232.

55
 • Human Trafficking and Drug Cartels:
o India remains a hub for human trafficking, child labour exploitation, and
forced prostitution.
o Drug smuggling across borders has increased, with Punjab facing a
severe narcotics crisis.
• White-Collar and Financial Crimes:
o The Harshad Mehta Scam (1992), Satyam Scam (2009), and Nirav Modi
PNB Scam (2018) exposed weaknesses in financial regulations.
o The introduction of anti-money laundering laws and economic offense
wings aimed to curb corporate fraud.
• Environmental Crimes and Climate Offenses:
o Illegal mining, deforestation, pollution violations, and wildlife poaching
have increased.
o Laws like the Environmental Protection Act (1986) and Wildlife
Protection Act (1972) address these concerns.
o The modern era of crime in India reflects the complexities of a digital,
interconnected world, requiring advanced legal frameworks,
international cooperation, and technological interventions to combat
emerging threats.

2.6 CONCLUSION

The concept of crime has evolved significantly over the centuries, shaped by
legal, moral, religious, and social interpretations across different civilizations. The
definition and meaning of crime have never been static; rather, they have transformed
in response to cultural values, governance systems, economic conditions, and
technological advancements. In ancient societies, crime was often perceived as a moral
or religious transgression, with justice administered based on divine will, customary
laws, and monarchical authority. The historical background of crime reveals that early
justice systems were primarily retributive, hierarchical, and often brutal, with
punishments designed to instil fear and maintain social order rather than rehabilitate
offenders. Over time, legal systems became more codified and structured, particularly
with the development of written laws, judicial institutions, and rational justice models
during the medieval and early modern periods. The introduction of codified laws under
colonial rule, such as the Indian Penal Code (1860), further shaped crime definitions

56
and legal responses in India, marking a transition from traditional customs to uniform,
evidence-based legal frameworks. In the modern era, crime has expanded beyond
physical and territorial boundaries, influenced by globalization, digitalization, and
economic liberalization, leading to the emergence of cybercrimes, financial fraud,
transnational organized crime, and digital terrorism. Despite these transformations, the
fundamental nature of crime remains rooted in its violation of legal norms and
disruption of societal harmony, making it an ever-evolving challenge for law
enforcement, judiciary, and policymakers. Understanding the historical evolution of
crime not only provides insight into the changing nature of legal systems but also
highlights the need for continuous adaptation of laws to address emerging threats and
complexities in an increasingly interconnected world.

57