Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 60
repealedSentence may be (in certain cases of imprisonment) wholly or partly rigorous or simple
In every case in which an offender is punishable with imprisonment which may be of either description, it shall be competent to the Court which sentences such offender to direct in the sentence that such imprisonment shall be wholly rigorous, or that such imprisonment shall be wholly simple or that any part of such imprisonment shall be rigorous and the rest simple.
Why this exists
The IPC of 1860 distinguished between 'simple imprisonment' (confinement only) and 'rigorous imprisonment' (confinement plus hard labour). Many offences were drafted to let courts pick either type based on the facts of the case. Section 60 clarifies that this choice is not all-or-nothing — a judge can mix the two within a single sentence, tailoring punishment to the offender's circumstances and the gravity of the act, rather than being locked into one uniform mode of imprisonment for the entire term.
How courts read it
Courts have generally treated Section 60 as a housekeeping/discretion provision rather than one generating major constitutional controversy. Judgments applying it typically address whether a trial court properly specified the type of imprisonment (simple, rigorous, or split) in the sentencing order, and appellate courts have corrected orders that failed to clearly state which portion was rigorous and which was simple, since ambiguity in a sentence is not permissible.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: Section 60 creates new punishments or offences.
Fact: It doesn't. It only gives courts flexibility in how to structure imprisonment (simple, rigorous, or split) for offences that already allow 'imprisonment of either description.' - Myth: A court must choose either all rigorous or all simple imprisonment — no mixing allowed.
Fact: Section 60 expressly permits splitting the sentence, part rigorous and part simple, within the same term.