INTRODUCTION
The article deals with the life of an accused person who suffers throughout their life after being given the “evil” tag of ‘accused’. Once a person, whether wrongly or rightly, receives this label, they are often considered guilty for the rest of their life, even if they have done nothing wrong. This stigma cannot be easily washed away, and not only the accused but their entire family suffers for a lifetime. Society tends to view the accused and their family differently, often assuming the commission of a serious crime, even if the person has been released from jail without conviction.
The article also highlights that such labeling can contribute to an increase in crime in society. The increasing rate of crime in society cannot be explained solely through individual culpability or moral failure. Drawing upon Labelling Theory, the study argues that once an individual is branded with the identity of a “criminal,” the stigma attached to such a label rarely disappears, even after acquittal or release from custody. This stigma is further intensified in cases of undertrial prisoners, who, despite being legally innocent, remain incarcerated for prolonged periods due to a corrupt, inefficient, and unequal criminal justice system.
CRIME AS SOCIAL LABEL, NOT AN INHERENT ACT
Crime is not merely an act committed by an individual; rather, it is deeply shaped by societal perceptions and reactions. The idea that “crime is a product of society, not just individual will” is best explained through labelling theory. Labelling theory was developed by Howard Becker and others in the 1906. According to this theory, once a person is labelled as a “criminal,” that label tends to dominate their identity, regardless of whether they actually committed the crime or not. This process is often accompanied by intense social stigma, psychological distress, and marginalisation, not only for the individual but also for their family members.[9]
A compelling illustration of this phenomenon can be observed in the popular web series Criminal Justice: Season 1.[8] The protagonist, Aditya, portrayed by the famous actor Vikrant Massey, is accused of the rape and murder of a young woman named Sanaya Rath. Due to insufficient evidence to establish his innocence, coupled with judicial delays and investigative shortcomings, he is subjected to prolonged incarceration. The failure of administrative authorities to conduct a thorough and impartial investigation further undermines the principles of fairness and natural justice.
As the available evidence appears to implicate him, society hastily concludes that Aditya is guilty. Consequently, he is subjected to solitary confinement for a period of one year. However, it is later revealed that Sanaya Rath was a drug addict and a volunteer at a rehabilitation centre, where a larger criminal nexus involving child exploitation was being operated by Naresh Lakani and his wife, Kanika Lakani. The truth eventually emerges through the testimony of Pallavi, a former employee of the centre, leading to Aditya’s release.
Although Aditya emerges from prison with greater resilience, the ordeal inflicts profound suffering upon him and his family. His sister loses her employment, and his parents are socially ostracised by their community. This reflects the enduring impact of the “criminal” label, which persists irrespective of actual guilt or innocence. Society, in such instances, often disregards the truth and continues to perceive the individual through the lens of the imposed label.
This narrative closely mirrors the condition of undertrial prisoners in India. According to data from the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), India has approximately 5.3 lakh individuals in prison, out of which 3.9 lakh are yet to be convicted and remain under trial.[1]
The prolonged detention of such individuals, coupled with delays in the judicial process and pervasive societal stigma, compels many to internalise the identity of a criminal despite the absence of a formal conviction.
Thus, crime should not be understood solely as an individual act. It is deeply influenced by societal reactions, institutional deficiencies, and systemic delays. The process of labelling itself plays a crucial role in the construction of a “criminal identity,” thereby demonstrating that crime is as much a product of societal dynamics as it is of legal determination.
ROLE OF CORRUPT AND BIAS LEGAL SYSTEM
According to the Status of Policing in India Report 2025, policing in India continues to be significantly influenced by bias, use of force, and systemic weaknesses. The report highlights that, in many instances, law enforcement authorities do not adequately consider whether an individual has actually committed a crime. Instead, in order to expedite investigations and close cases, innocent individuals are sometimes wrongfully accused and labelled as criminals.[2]
This process of wrongful criminalisation is often shaped by caste, religion, and social identity, leading to discriminatory practices. Such tendencies are particularly prevalent in states like Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Haryana, and Rajasthan, especially in rural areas where awareness of fundamental constitutional rights remains limited. Many individuals are unaware of the “golden triangle” of the Indian Constitution, Articles 14, 19, and 21, which guarantee equality, freedom, and the right to life and personal liberty.[6]
The report further reveals troubling insights into the mindset of police personnel. A significant number of officers justify the use of third-degree methods, extrajudicial killings, and other coercive measures to instil fear and extract confessions. These practices stand in direct violation of constitutional safeguards, particularly Article 20(3), which guarantees the right against self-incrimination. This provision ensures that no accused person shall be compelled to be a witness against themselves, thereby prohibiting any form of coercion by authorities.
However, the legal framework presents certain complexities. While Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (now reflected under Section 23(2) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) allows for the admissibility of information leading to the discovery of a material fact, this provision is often misused. Police authorities may resort to coercion to obtain confessions and subsequently justify such actions under the guise of discovery.[7] The Supreme Court, in State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad, clarified that any confession obtained through coercion is invalid, even if it leads to the discovery of material evidence.
Further, the Supreme Court in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal laid down detailed guidelines to prevent custodial abuse and safeguard the rights of arrested individuals. These include rights such as the right to be informed of grounds of arrest, the right to legal counsel, and protection against unlawful detention. Similarly, in Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Court emphasised that arrest should not be made arbitrarily and that the rights of the accused must be protected.
These safeguards are now reflected in various provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), including Sections 36, 37, 38, 46, 47, 48, 56, 57, and 58, which deal with rights such as being informed of arrest, production before a magistrate without delay, right to bail, legal representation, medical examination, and protection against unlawful detention. Despite these legal protections, their implementation remains weak, and violations by law enforcement authorities persist.
Such violations often lead to custodial violence and even custodial deaths, with police authorities justifying these actions as necessary for maintaining law and order. However, these practices directly infringe upon fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 20(3), 21, and 22 of the Constitution of India.
The problem is further aggravated by delays in the judicial process. According to the National Judicial Data Grid, approximately 5.4 crore cases are pending in courts across India. This backlog, combined with a shortage of judges, procedural loopholes, and instances of corruption, results in prolonged detention of accused persons. In many cases, magistrates rely heavily on police reports and incomplete evidence, leading to assumptions of guilt even before a fair trial is conducted.
This systemic failure contributes to the social construction of crime. When an individual is labelled as a criminal and remains in prison for extended periods as an undertrial, sometimes for years, the prison environment, social stigma, and psychological trauma compel them to internalise this imposed identity. Over time, this may lead to deviant behaviour, often driven by resentment and a sense of injustice against a corrupt and biased system.
Thus, crime cannot be understood solely as an individual act. It is deeply influenced by institutional bias, societal perception, and systemic inefficiencies. The labelling process, reinforced by flawed policing and delayed justice, plays a crucial role in transforming individuals into “criminals,” thereby demonstrating that crime is as much a product of society as it is of law.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, it can be said that crime cannot be viewed merely as an outcome of individual intention or moral failure. The discussion clearly shows that societal reactions, institutional bias, and systemic inefficiencies play a significant role in shaping what is identified as “crime.” The labelling theory effectively explains how once an individual is branded as a criminal, that identity tends to persist, irrespective of actual guilt or innocence.
The situation of undertrial prisoners in India further strengthens this argument. When a large number of individuals remain in prison without conviction, and are treated as criminals by society, the criminal justice system itself contributes to their marginalisation. The stigma attached to the label of “accused” not only affects the individual but also destroys the social and economic stability of their family.
Moreover, flaws in policing, misuse of legal provisions, custodial violence, and delays in the judicial process weaken the principles of fairness and natural justice. Instead of ensuring justice, the system, at times, ends up reinforcing inequality and injustice.
Therefore, there is a need for a more accountable, transparent, and rights-oriented criminal justice system. Ensuring proper investigation, preventing misuse of power, protecting the rights of the accused, and promoting awareness of constitutional safeguards are essential steps. Only then can the system move towards true justice, where individuals are judged on evidence and not on societal labels.
Thus, crime must be understood not only as a legal wrong but also as a social product, shaped by the way society and institutions respond to individuals.
REFERENCES
National Crime Records Bureau, Prison Statistics India 2025.
State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad
D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal
Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Constitution of India, Articles 14, 19, 20(3), 21 and 22.
Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 27; Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, Section 23(2).
Criminal Justice Season 1 Review: Vikrant Massey and Pankaj Tripathi make it worthwhile.
Society and Crime: Sociological Perspectives on Criminal Behavior
Disclaimer
This article is published by CLEAR LAW (clearlaw.online) strictly for educational and informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, legal opinion, or any form of professional counsel, and must not be relied upon as a substitute for consultation with a qualified legal practitioner. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as creating a lawyer-client relationship between the reader and the author, publisher, or CLEAR LAW (clearlaw.online).
All views, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and represent independent academic analysis. CLEAR LAW (clearlaw.online) does not endorse, verify, or guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or reliability of the content, and expressly disclaims any responsibility for the same.
While reasonable efforts are made to ensure that the information presented is accurate and up to date, no warranties or representations, express or implied, are made regarding its correctness, adequacy, or applicability to any specific factual or legal situation. Laws, regulations, and judicial interpretations are subject to change, and the content may not reflect the most current legal developments.
To the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, CLEAR LAW (clearlaw.online), the author, editors, and publisher disclaim all liability for any direct, indirect, incidental, consequential, or special damages arising out of or in connection with the use of, or reliance upon, this article.
Readers are strongly advised to seek independent legal advice from a qualified professional before making any decisions or taking any action based on the contents of this article. Reliance on any information provided in this article is strictly at the reader's own risk.
By accessing and using this article, the reader expressly agrees to the terms of this disclaimer.