SENTENCING POLICY IN INDIA

Introduction 

In a world which today notices an alarming increase in crime rates, the need to
regulate the domain of criminal justice system in every country is the need of the
hour. Crime and punishment have today formed a very crucial and delicate aspect of
the society; it can no longer be guided by customs and precedents. A fixed regime
needs to be brought into force and the subjective element needs to be reduced as much
as possible. However a fact that cannot be ignored that no fixed penalties can be
induced over the accused because of it being too harsh and too ignorant on the rights
of the accused. The accused has the right to avail certain basic human rights which the
fixed penalty regime violate. Also, giving discretion to the judges on deciding
penalties will also result in violation of fundamental right.1

An underlying rationale can be adopted, a significant improvement to the existing. A

balance between the rights of both the victim needs to be achieved before defining a
sentencing policy. The Indian criminal justice delivery system lacks a pronounced
sentencing policy as in the countries of the United States and United Kingdom. The
article also opines that certain principles and policies need to introduce at the part of
the legislature, to introduce a certain level of coercive power to stand strong on its
rights and also international obligation. 

The current sentencing policy in India, the rationales and goals of sentencing, the
nature and role of aggravating and mitigating factors, the sentences awarded to
various types of crimes and offender. It also takes into consideration the role of
sentencing policy after the trial has been done. 

Sentencing is that stage of criminal justice system where the actual punishment of the
convict is decided by the judge. Sentencing is about the imposition of punishment on
individuals who have been found guilty of criminal behavior. 2 This being said, no
further explanation is required to understand how much of attention needs to be paid

1
https://blog.ipleaderSectionin/criminal-justice-sentencing-policy-india/
2
Alfred Blumstein and David P., Farrington Research in Criminology, 1st ed., (New York Inc.: Springer-
Verlag, 1989), p 3
to this stage. This stage reflects the amount of condemnation the society has for a
particular crime.3

Sentencing in India is governed by substantive criminal laws,2 special legislations

creating special offence, procedural laws, major among which is Criminal Procedure
Code 1973, Constitution of India judicial interpretation and guidelines6 laid down by
the superior courts etc.

There is great interplay between judiciary and other organs in respect of sentencing in
India. Judiciary proceeds on the basis of parameters set for the crime. The legislature
defines offences and prescribes the punishment for the same. 4 It lays down ingredients
to be fulfilled before the courts sentence. However, once the ingredients of the
offences are fulfilled, the courts have enough flexibility to- select appropriate
punishment for the crime. In the absence of sentencing guidelines, judges in India
enjoy considerable discretion to fix the crimes in the range of punishments provided.
Judges in India enjoy sentencing discretion at two level Section Firstly, whether to
invoke or not the benefits of welfare legislation where alternative sentencing is
provided is decided by the judge Section As for example the Probation of Offenders
Act, 1958 should be invoked or not for certain crimes is decided by the judge. The
second level discretion is when the judge does not invoke the benefits of welfare
legislation but proceeds to punish him with traditional punishment Section There the
judge has again a considerably choice between minimum to maximum punishments or
to decide what punishment when only maximum is prescribed. 5 The sentencing policy
in India is thus mainly based on the individualisation of punishment.

PUNISHMENT

Punishing the offender is a primary function of all civil states. The incidence of crime
and its retribution has always been an unending fornication for human mind. The
object of criminal justice is to protect the society against criminals by punishing them
under the Existing penal law. The punishment can be used as a method of Reducing
the incident of criminal behaviors either by deterring the offender or by incapacitating

3
Nirupama "Need for Sentencing Policy in India" available at www.mcrg.ac.in/Spheres
/Niruphama.doc
4
http://judiSectionnic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=42876
5
http://www.mha.nic.in/hindi/sites/upload_files/mhahindi /files/ pdf/ criminal_justice_
system.pdf
and preventing them from repeating the offence or by reforming them into Law-
abiding citizens. According to oxford Dictionary, punishment means to make an
offender suffer for an offence. According to H.L.A. Hart, Punishment is means of
social control and it has 5 elements6.

i) It must involve pain or other consequence normally considered unpleasant.

ii) It must be for an offence against legal rules.

iii) It must be an actual or supposed offender for his offence.

iv) It must be intentionally administered by human being other than the offender.

v) It must be imposed and administered by an authority constituted by a Legal

System the offence is committed.

Ingredients ior icomponents iof iPunishment

i) Punishment iis iapplied iby iemploying icoercion iand ican ibe ienforced ieven
i against ithe iwill iof ithe ipunished.

ii) Punishment iis ia imeasure iadopted iand ienforced iby ithe iState. iPrivate
i punishment imeted iout iby iparents, iteachers, iemployers, ithe icommunity, ietc. iis
i outside ithe iscope iof ipenalogical iconsequences iof ia icrime.

iii) Punishment ior ithe ilimits iof ipunishment iare istipulated iin iadvance iby ithe iState.
i Punishment ivery iclearly iembodies ithe iprinciple iof inullapoena isine ilega, ithere
i is ino ipunishment iwithout ithe ilaw.

iv) Punishment iis iapplied iby icompetent iorgans iof ithe iState iin ia iproperly
i constituted ilegal iprocedure. iDue iprocess iis ithe iname iof ithe igame. iThus iif ia
i murderer iis ilynched iby ithe ipeople, ithen isuch ia ipunishment iis inot ipunishment
i in ithe icriminological isense.7

v) Punishment iis igenerally ibelieved ito ibe idirectly ienforced ion ieach iindividual
i personally. iAny isort iof i'collective ipunishment' iis ioutside ithe iscope iof
i penalogical ipunishment.

vi) Punishment iis ithe iconsequence iof icrime. iThe iprohibited iact imust ibe ilisted iand
i defined ias ia icrime iin ithe ilaw ibooks.

6
H. Ponnian, “Criminology and Penology”, Allahabad Law Agency, Faridabad, 2013,pp.14-18
iibid
7
 vii) Punishment iis iapplied iin ithe iname iand idefence iof ithe isociety.

viii) Punishment iis idisapproval iand iexpresses icondemnation iby ithe iState8. i

ix) Prevention iof icrime iis imain ireason ifor ithe iexistence iof ipenal iprovisions iin ilaw
i books.

Purpose iof iPunishment

i) Retribution iis iprime ireason ifor ipunishment. iPunishment ifor ireform iis iintended
i to ibenefit ithe ioffender iand isociety iby ichanging ithe ioffender iinto ia icontributor
i to isociety. iPunishment ias ideterrence iintended ito ibenefit isociety iby
i discouraging iwould ibe ioffenders9.

ii) Maintain ipeace iand iharmony iin iSociety. iIn iretaliation ifor iwrong-doing,
i society iseeks ito ipunish iindividuals iwho iviolate ithe irules. iThus igoal iof
i determining ipunishment iis ito imaintain ipeace i& iharmony iin ithe isociety.

iii) One iof ithe ipurposes ito iaward isentence iis ideterrent. iThe iHon'ble iGujarat iHigh
i Court iheld ithat ione iof ithe ipurposes iof ipunishment iis ito ihave iits ideterrent
i effect ion ioffender iand ion iother imembers iof isociety. i

iv) Community imust ibe ibeneficiary iof ithe icriminal ijustice isystem, ithe ibasic
i object iof icriminal iLaw iis ithe isuppress icriminal ienterprise. iTo iachieve ithis
i end, ithere imust ibe icorrespondence ibetween icrime icommitted iand ithe
i punishment iimposed.10 i

v) Assurance ito ithe ivictim iand ithe isociety, ithe ineed ifor iimposing ipenal isanction
i in iadequate imeasures iwas ihighlighted iin ino. iof icases iand iobserved ithat ijustice
i to ithe ivictim iand ithe icommunity imust ibe iassured iby icriminal ijustice isystem. i

vi) Protection iof iSociety, iThe ipurpose iand ijustification iof ia isentence iof
i Imprisonment ior ia isimilar imeasure iis iultimately ito iprotect isociety iagainst
i crime11. i

Theories iof iPunishment

8
Id. ip. i19
i

iN. iV. iParanjape, i“Criminology iand iPenology”, iCentral iLaw iPublications, iNew iDelhi,ed.14, i2010,
9

ipp.27

iDeipa iSingh, i“Criminology, iPenology iand iVictimology”, iThe iBright iLaw ihouse, iNew iDelhi,
10

i2013,p.67

iIbid.
11
To ipunish icriminals iis ia irecognized ifunction iof iall icivilized istates ifor icenturies. iBut
i with ithe ichanging ipatterns iof imodern isocieties, ithe iapproach iof ipenologists itowards
i punishment ihas ialso iundergone ia iradical ichange. iThe ipenologists itoday iare iconcerned
i with icrucial iproblem ias ito ithe iend iof ipunishment iand iits iplace iin ipenal ipolicy itheories
i of ipunishment iare:

i) iDeterrent iTheory i

This itheory iis ibased ion ithe iprinciple ithat ipunishment ishould ibe iof isuch inature ias ito
i prove ideterrent ifor ithe iwrong idoer iand ifor ithe irest iof ithe iSociety ias iwell. iIn ithis
i punishment ipresupposes iinfliction iof isevere ipenalties ion ioffender iwith ia iview ito
i deters ithem ifrom icommitting icrime iand iin ithe isame itime iit ialso iseeks ito icreate isome
i kind iof ifear iin ithe imind iof iother iby iproviding iadequate iand ipunishment ito ioffender
i which ikeeps ithem iaway ifrom icriminality12. i

Deterrent iis iundoubtly ione iof ithe ieffective ipolices i iwhich ialmost ievery ipenal isystem
i accepts idespite ithe ifact ithat iit iinvariably ifails iin iits ipractical iapplication. iDeterrence ias
i a imeasure iof ipunishment ifails iin icase iof ihardened icriminals ias iseverity iof ipunish
i hardly ihas iany ieffect ion ithem. iIt ialso ifails ito ideter iordinary icriminals ibecause imany
i times ioffence iis icommitted iin ispur iof imoment iwithout iany iprior iintention13. iIn iearlier
i days icapital ipunishment iwas ibeing ipublicly iawarded iby ihanging ithe iperson ito ideath iin
i public iplaces.

ii) iRetributive itheory

This itheory iis ibased ion iretributive ijustice iwhich isuggests ithat ievil ishould ibe ireturned
i for ievil iwithout iany iregard ito iconsequences. iThus ibased ion iprinciple iof ieye ifor ieye,
i tooth ifor itooth. iThe isupporters iof ithis itheory idid inot itreat ipunishment ias ian iinstrument
i for isecuring ipublic iwelfare ibut iunderline ithe iIdea iof irevenge. iThe ipain ito ibe iinflicted
i on ithe ioffender iby iway iof ipunishment iwas ito iout iweight ithe ipleasure iderived iby ihim
i from ithe icrime. iThe imodern iview ihowever, idoes inot ifavour ithis icontention ibecause iit
i is ineither iuse inor idesirable. i

iii) iPreventive itheory

This itheory iis ibased ion ithe iproposition i'not ito iavenge icrime ibut ito iprevent iit'. iThis
i theory ibasically idisables ithe icriminal ifrom idoing iwrong. iIt ipre isuppose ithat ineeds ifor
12
Prof. iT. iBhattacharya, i“the iIndian iPenal iCode”, iCentral iLaw iAgency, iAllahabad,2012, ip. ixxxiv
iibid
13
i punishment iof icrime iarises isimply iout iof isocial inecessities. iIn ipunishing ia icriminal ithe
i community iprotects iitself iagainst ianti isocial iacts iwhich iendanger iSocial iorder iin
i general ior iperson ior iproperty iof iits imembers. iIn iancient itime istate iused ito ichop ioff ithe
i hands iof ithief iPublicity iDeath ipenalty ietc. i iBut inow iin imodern itime iwith iscenarios iof
i human irights ithese iin ihuman iform iof ipunishment iare iabolished. iBut ithis idoes inot
i means ithat ipreventive itheory ihas ino iApplication icancellation iof iLicense, iexpulsion iof
i wrong idoer, iPrevention iDetention iLaws i iare ibased ion ipreventive itheory14. iThus iin
i modern itimes ithis itheory iaims ito ipresent ithe iwrong idoor iand inot ito ipunish ihim.
i Chapter iVIII, iIX i& iX iof iCode iof icriminal iprocedure, i1973 ideals iwith ivarious
i Preventive inature iProvisions15.

iv) iReformative itheory i

Against ideterrent, iretributive iand ipreventive ijustice, ithe ireformative iapproaches ito
i punish iseek ito ibring iabout ia ichange iin ithe iattitude iof ioffender iso ias ito irehabilitate ihim
i as ia iLaw iabiding imember iof iSociety. iThe ipunishment iis iused ias ia imeasure ito ireclaim
i the ioffender iand inot ito itorture ior iharass ihim. iIndividualized itreatment ibecomes ithe
i cardinal iprinciple ifor ireformation iof ioffenders. iThis itheory iis ibased ion ithe ithought iof
i modern icriminologist, iwhich, istate ithat iultimate iobject iof icriminology iis ithe itreatment
i and irehabilitation iof ioffender iin ithe iSociety. iThe imajor iemphases iof ithe ireformist,
i movement iare irehabilitation iof iinmates iin icorrectional iInstitution iso ithat ithey iare
i transformed iinto igood icitizen.

The iAgencies isuch ias iparole iand iprobation iare irecommended ias ibest imeasures ito
i reclaim ioffenders ito iSociety. iOpen iprison isystem ialso ihelps iin ireformation. iProbation
i of ioffenders iAct i1968, iSec i360 i iCode iof icriminal iprocedure i(Release ion iprobation iof
i good iconduct) iSec. i27 iof iCode iof icriminal iprocedure iJurisdiction iin ithe icase iof
i Juveniles iare isome iof ithe iLaws iProviding ireformative imeasures ithe ioffenders16.

v) iExpiatory iTheory

This itheory iis iclosely iassociated iwith iRetributive itheory. iIt isays ithat iblotting iout iof ithe
i guilt iby isuffering iis ian iappropriate ipunishment. iThis itheory iholds ithat ithe ipunishment

14
J.P.S. iSirohi, i“Crime iprevention iand iAdministration iStrategies”, iNew iEra iLaw iPublications, iDelhi
i2005,p.28
15
S.N.Mishra, i“The iCode iof iCriminal iProcedure” i,Central iLaw iPublications, iAllahabad,
ied.16,2009,p.34

16
P.M. iBakshi, i“The iConstitution iof iIndia”, iUniversal iLaw iPublishing iCo, iNew iDelhi, i2012,p.82
i wipes iaway ithe isin iand ithe ioffender ibecomes iinnocent. iGuilt iplus ipunishment iis iequal
i to iinnocence. iThis itheory iis inot iapplicable iin iall isystem iof iLaws. iBut iAncient iHindu
i Law istates ithat ithe iExpiation imeans ithat ithe isin iis iwashed iaway17. i

Punishment iin iIndia

The iquantum iof ipunishment iin iIndia iis iessential idecided iby isubstantive ilaws
i depending iupon ithe igravity iof ithe icrime. iIndian iPenal iCode, i1860 iis ia ikingpin iin ithis
i respect. iSection i53 iof iIPC iprescribes ifive itypes iof ipunishments inamely,

1. Death ipenalty,
2. Imprisonment ifor ilife, i
3. Imprisonment: i
a) Rigorous iimprisonment i
b) Simple iimprisonment i
c) Solitary iimprisonment
4. Forfeiture iof iproperty i
5. Fine i

Death isentence iis iimposable iin itwelve ioffence. iMandatory ideath isentences ihave ibeen
i either iread idown ior ideclared iunconstitutional. iLife iimprisonment iis iimposable ias
i highest ipunishment iin iterm iimprisonment ior ias ialternative ito ideath isentence iwith
i exception ibeing isection i311 iof iIPC, iwhere ilife iimprisonment iis istand ialone
i imprisonment. iImprisonment iother ithan ilife iimprisonment iunder ithe iIPC iis i20 iyears.
i Imprisonment imay ibe isimple ior irigorous ior iboth. iCertain ioffences iunder ithe iIPC iare
i punishable iwith ifine ialone18 isome iare ipunishable iwith ifine ias iwell ias iimprisonment;19
i and isome iare ipunishable iwith iimprisonment ior ifine ior iboth. iIf ifine iis inot iso ispecified,
i the ifine iis iunlimited, ias iper isection i63, ibut iit ishould inot ibe iexcessive. iThe iage iold
i provisions irelating ito ifine ineed iimmediate irevisions. iSolitary iconfinement iis ialso ia
i part iof iimprisonment. iHowever, iprocedural isafeguards ihave ibeen iintroduced iby ithe
i judiciary iin ithe iimposition iof isolitary iconfinement. iThe isame ifour ipatterns iof
i punishments iare icontinued iin iother ispecial ilaws iwith ivariations iin idegrees. iTherefore
i the iabove ifour ipunishments ican ibe iconsidered ias iset iof ipunishments iIndia ibelieves iin.
i Though isuggestions iwere imade ito iinclude iother iform iof ipunishments iin ithe iexisting
17
H. iPonnian, i“Criminology iand iPenology”, iAllahabad iLaw iAgency, iFaridabad, i2013.,pp.14-18
18
Sections i171-G, i171-H, i171-1, i278 iand i283 iIndian iPenal iCode, i1860
i
19
Sections i153-A, iI53-B, i302, i376, iand i494 iof iIndian iPenal iCode, i1860
i
i structure, ino isuch isuggestions ihave ibeen ilegislatively iincorporated. iVictim
i compensation, iwhich ihas ibeen iconferred iby ithe iprocedural ilaw, ihas ialso inow ibeen
i included iin isubstantive ilaws.20

Absence iof iSentencing iGuidelines

Currently iIndia idoes inot ihave istructured isentencing iguidelines ithat ihave ibeen iissued
i either iby ithe ilegislature ior ithe ijudiciary. i iIn iMarch i2003, ithe iCommittee ion iReforms iof
i Criminal iJustice iSystem i(the iMalimath iCommittee), ia ibody iestablished iby ithe
i Ministry iof iHome iAffairs, iissued ia ireport ithat iemphasized ithe ineed ito iintroduce
i sentencing iguidelines iin iorder ito iminimize iuncertainty iin iawarding isentences, istating:

“The iIndian iPenal iCode iprescribed ioffences iand ipunishments ifor ithe
i same. i iFor imany ioffences ionly ithe imaximum ipunishment iis iprescribed
i and ifor isome ioffences ithe iminimum imay ibe iprescribed. i iThe iJudge ihas
i wide idiscretion iin iawarding ithe isentence iwithin ithe istatutory ilimits. i
i There iis inow ino iguidance ito ithe iJudge iin iregard ito iselecting ithe imost
i appropriate isentence igiven ithe icircumstances iof ithe icase. i iTherefore
i each iJudge iexercises idiscretion iaccordingly ito ihis iown ijudgment. i

i There iis itherefore ino iuniformity. i iSome iJudges iare ilenient iand isome
i Judges iare iharsh. i iExercise iof iunguided idiscretion iis inot igood ieven iif iit
i is ithe iJudge ithat iexercises ithe idiscretion. i iIn isome icountries iguidance
i regarding isentencing ioptions iis igiven iin ithe ipenal icode iand isentencing
i guideline ilaws. i iThere iis ineed ifor isuch ilaw iin iour icountry ito iminimise
i uncertainty ito ithe imatter iof iawarding isentence. i iThere iare iseveral
i factors iwhich iare irelevant iin iprescribing ithe ialternative isentences. i

i This irequires ia ithorough iexamination iby ian iexpert istatutory ibody”.21 i

The iCommittee iadvised ifurther ithat, iin iorder ito ibring i“predictability iin ithe imatter iof
i sentencing,” ia istatutory icommittee ishould ibe iestablished i“to ilay iguidelines ion
i sentencing iguidelines iunder ithe iChairmanship iof ia iformer iJudge iof iSupreme iCourt ior
i a iformer iChief iJustice iof ia iHigh iCourt iexperienced iin icriminal ilaw iwith iother
i members irepresenting ithe iprosecution, ilegal iprofession, ipolice, isocial iscientist iand

20
iG.Kameswari iand iV. iNageswara iRao“The iSentencing iProcess i- iProblems iand iPerspectives”

Journal iof iThe iIndian iLaw iInstitute, iVol. i41, i1999, ip i455
i
21
ihttp://www.mha.nic.in/hindi/sites/upload_files/mhahindi/files/pdf/criminal_justice_ isystem.pdf.
i women irepresentative.” i iIn i2008, ithe iCommittee ion iDraft iNational iPolicy ion iCriminal
i Justice i(the iMadhava iMenon iCommittee), ireasserted ithe ineed ifor istatutory isentencing
i guidelines. i iIn ian iOctober i2010 inews ireport, ithe iLaw iMinister iis iquoted ias ihaving
i stated ithat ithe igovernment iis ilooking iinto iestablishing ia i“uniform isentencing ipolicy”
i in iline iwith ithe iUnited iStates iand ithe iUnited iKingdom iin iorder ito iensure ithat ijudges ido
i not iissue ivaried isentence.22

In i2008, ithe iSupreme iCourt iof iIndia, iin iState iof iPunjab iv. iPrem iSagar i& iOrs.23, ialso
i noted ithe iabsence iof ijudiciary-driven iguidelines iin iIndia’s icriminal ijustice isystem,
i stating, i“in iour ijudicial isystem, iwe ihave inot ibeen iable ito idevelop ilegal iprinciples ias
i regards isentencing. i iThe isuperior icourts, iexcept ifor imaking iobservations iwith iregard
i to ithe ipurport iand iobject ifor iwhich ipunishment iis iimposed iupon ian ioffender, ihad inot
i issued iany iguidelines.” i iThe iCourt istated ithat ithe isuperior icourts ihave icome iacross ia
i large inumber iof icases ithat i“show ianomalies ias iregards ithe ipolicy iof isentencing,”
i adding, i“whereas ithe iquantum iof ipunishment ifor icommission iof ia isimilar itype iof
i offence ivaries ifrom iminimum ito imaximum, ieven iwhere ithe isame isentence iis iimposed,
i the iprinciples iapplied iare ifound ito ibe idifferent. i iSimilar idiscrepancies ihave ibeen
i noticed iin iregard ito iimposition iof ifines” i iIn i2013 ithe iSupreme iCourt, iin ithe icase iof
i Soman iv. iState iof iKerala24, ialso iobserved ithe iabsence iof istructured iguidelines: i

Giving ipunishment ito ithe iwrongdoer iis iat ithe iheart iof ithe icriminal ijustice idelivery, ibut
i in iour icountry, iit iis ithe iweakest ipart iof ithe iadministration iof icriminal ijustice. i iThere
i are ino ilegislative ior ijudicially ilaid idown iguidelines ito iassist ithe itrial icourt iin imeting
i out ithe ijust ipunishment ito ithe iaccused ifacing itrial ibefore iit iafter ihe iis iheld iguilty iof ithe
i charges. i

However, iin idescribing iIndia’s isentencing iapproach ithe iCourt ihas ialso iasserted ithat
i “the iimpossibility iof ilaying idown istandards iis iat ithe ivery icore iof ithe iCriminal ilaw ias
i administered iin iIndia, iwhich iinvests ithe iJudges iwith ia ivery iwide idiscretion iin ithe
i matter iof ifixing ithe idegree iof ipunishment.”25

22
iGovt ifor ia iUniform iSentencing iPolicy iby iCourts, iZeeNews i(Oct. i7, i2010),

http://zeenewSectionindia.com/news/nation/ igovt-for-a-uniform-sentencing-policy-by-
i

courts_660232.html.
23
iState iof iPunjab iv. iPrem iSagar i& iOrSection, i(2008) i7 iSECTIONC.C. i550
24
i(2013) i11 iSECTIONC.C. i382
25
iJagmohan iSingh iv. iState iof iUttar iPradesh, i(1973) i2 iSECTIONC.R. i541,
Sentencing iprocedure iis iestablished iunder ithe iCode iof iCriminal iProcedure, iwhich
i provides ibroad idiscretionary isentencing ipowers ito ijudges. i iIn ia i2007 ipaper ion ithe ineed
i for isentencing ipolicy iin iIndia, iauthor iR. iNiruphama iasserted ithat, iin ithe iabsence iof ian
i adequate isentencing ipolicy ior iguidelines, iit icomes idown ito ithe ijudges ito idecide iwhich
i factors ito itake iinto iaccount iand iwhich ito iignore. i iMoreover, ihe iconsidered ithat ibroad
i discretion iopens ithe isentencing iprocess ito iabuse iand iallows ipersonal iprejudices iof ithe
i judges ito iinfluence idecisions.26 i

Principles iof icriminal ijustice

Every isociety iexists ion ia icertain iamount iof isocial icontrol, iand ia iparticular imoral
i ethical irationale iunderlying iit. iThe iconcept iof isocial icontrol iis iguided iby ithe iprinciples
i of ijustice. iWhen ia iperson iportrays ia icertain itype iof ideviation ifrom ithis iprescribed
i mode iof ibehaviour, ia isocial ihabit ior irule, ihe iis iinflicted iwith ia icertain itype iof ipenalty.
i This iinfliction iwill ivary ifrom isociety ito isociety iand ideviation ito ideviation. iThe ikind
i infliction ior ipunishment iwill idepend ion iboth ithe icrime icommitted iand ithe isociety.
i Some isocieties iare iconcerned ionly iabout ithe ivictim, iwhereas isome iare iconcerned
i about ireforming ithe iconvict irather ithan ipunishing. iThis ischematic iadopted iby ia
i country ito ipunish iits ioffenders ican ibe itermed ias iits isentencing ipolicy. iThe isentencing
i policy ireflects ithe imeasure iof ijudgement iand ithe irationale, ithe isociety ihas ifor ia icertain
i crime. iIt iis ithe iprimary irationale iguiding ithe icriminal ijustice idelivery isystem iof ia
i country. iSentencing iguidelines ican ibe iconsidered ias ia iformula ifor icalculating iwhat iis
i right ifor ia iparticular icrime. iThis iarticle iis inot ifocused iabout ithe itype iof icrime ibut ion
i the itype iof ipunishment iand ithe igenerality iit ipossesses iin ia icriminal ijustice isystem. i

Punishment iand isentencing ithough iform ia iunion iat ithe iend, ibut iare idistinct ientities iand
i are ioften iconfused iwith ieach iother. iThey iare ioften iused iinterchangeably iand ilead ito
i contradictions. iOperationalization iof ithe ipunishment iis ithe isentencing ipolicy. iA
i sentence idoes ithe iwork iof istating iand idefining ithe ipunishment istated iin ithe ilaw iof
i land. iSentences iare ijudgements icontaining ipunishments ifor icriminal imatters. iAs
i nouns, isentence iand ipunishment imean ithat iwhere ithe iformer istands ifor iopinion ithe
i latter istands ifor iimposition, iinfliction iof ipenalty.

The iSentencing iProcedure iunder iCriminal iProcedure iCode, i1973

26
iR. iNiruphama, iNeed ifor iSentencing iPolicy iin iIndia: iSecond iCritical iStudies iConference i– i“Spheres iof

i Justice” iPaper iPresentation i(Sept. i20–22, i2007), ihttp://www.mcrg.ac.in/Spheres/Niruphama.doc.

 i The iCode italks iabout isentencing ichiefly iin iSection i235, iSection i248, iSection i254,
i Section i325, iSection i354, iSection i360 iand iSection361. i

Section235 iis ia ipart iof iChapter i18 idealing iwith ia iproceeding iin ithe iCourt iof iSession. iIt
i directs ithe ijudge ito ipass ia ijudgment iof iacquittal ior iconviction iand iin icase iof ia
i conviction ito ifollow iclause i2 iof ithe isection. iClause i2 iof ithe isection igives ithe
i procedure ito ibe ifollowed iin icases iof isentencing ia iperson iconvicted iof ia icrime. iThe
i section iprovides ia ihearing ito iensure ithat ithe iconvict iis igiven ia ichance ito ispeak ifor
i himself iand igive ian iopinion ion ithe isentence ito ibe iimposed ion ihim. iThe ireasons igiven
i by ithe iconvict imay inot ibe ipertaining ito ithe icrime ior ibe ilegally isound. iIt iis ijust ifor ithe
i judge ito iget ian iidea iof ithe isocial iand ipersonal idetails iof ithe iconvict iand ito isee iif iany iof
i these iwill iaffect ithe isentence.27 iFacts isuch ias ithe iconvict ibeing ia ibreadwinner imight
i help iin imitigating ihis ipunishment ior ithe iconditions iin iwhich ihe imight iwork. iThis
i section iplainly iprovides ithat ievery iconvicted iaccused imust ibe igiven ia ichance ito iput
i forth ihis iviewpoint ipost iconviction iabout ithe ikind iof ipunishment iwhich ideserves ito ibe
i imposed. iThe isection ijust idoes inot istop iat iallowing ithe iconvict ito ispeak ibut ialso
i allows ithe idefence icounsel ito ibring ito ithe inotice iof ithe icourt iall ipossible ifactors iwhich
i might imitigate ithe isentence iand iif ithese ifactors iare icontested ithen ithe iprosecution iand
i defence icounsel imust iprove itheir iplea.28

Section i248 icomes iunder iChapter i19 iof ithe iCode idealing iwith iwarrants icase. iThe
i provisions icontained iin ithis isection iare ivery isimilar ito ithe iprovisions iunder iS.235.
i However ithis isection iensures ithat ithere iis ino iprejudice iagainst ithe iaccused. iFor ithis
i purpose iit iprovides iin iclause i3 ithat iin icase iwhere ithe iconvict irefuses iprevious
i conviction, ithen ithe ijudge ican, ibased ion ithe ievidence iprovided idetermine iif ithere iwas
i any iprevious iconviction.29

Section i354(3) iof ithe iCode iof iCriminal iProcedure, i1973, imakes iit iobligatory iin icases
i of iconviction ifor ioffences ipunishable iwith ideath ior iwith iimprisonment ifor ilife ito
i assign ireasons iin isupport iof ithe isentence iawarded ito ithe iconvict iand ifurther iordains
i that iin icase ithe iJudge iawards ideath ipenalty, i“special ireasons” ifor isuch isentence ishall
i be istated iin ithe ijudgment. iThus, ithe iJudge iis iunder ia ilegal iobligation ito iexplain ihis
27
iK.N. iChandrasekharan iPillai, iR. iV. iKelkar, iCriminal iProcedure, i4th ied., i(Lucknow: iEastern

i Book iCompany, i2001) iPp i500-503

28
iMr. iJustice iMukul iMudgal iand iNitin iMishra i“Need ifor iSentencing iPolicy iin iIndia” iNyaya iKiranVol. iII

Issue iIV, i2008, ip i4

i
29
iIbid
i choice iof ithe isentence. iThe ilegislature iin iits isupreme iwisdom ithought ithat iin isome
i “rare icases” ifor i“special ireasons” ito ibe irecorded iit iwill ibe inecessary ito iimpose ithe
i extreme ipenalty iof ideath ito ideter iothers iand ito iprotect ithe isociety iand iin ia igiven icase
i even ithe isovereignty iand isecurity iof ithe iState ior icountry. iIt, ihowever, ileft ithe ichoice iof
i sentence ito ithe ijudiciary iwith ithe irider ithat ithe icourt imay iimpose ithe iextreme
i punishment iof ideath ifor i“special ireasons”. i

The isentencing icourt ihas, itherefore, ito iapproach ithe iquestion iseriously iand imake ian
i endeavor ito isee ithat iall ithe irelevant ifacts iand icircumstances ibearing ion ithe iquestion iof
i sentence iare ibrought ion irecord. iIt iis ionly iafter igiving idue iweight ito ithe imitigating ias
i well ias ithe iaggravating icircumstances, ithat iit imust iproceed ito iimpose ithe iappropriate
i sentence.30

Section i31(1) iof ithe iCode ivests idiscretion iin ithe iCourt ito idirect ithe ipunishment ito irun
i concurrently ior iconsecutively iwhen ia iperson iis iconvicted iat ione itrial iof itwo ior imore
i offences. iThe iCourt imay isentence ithe iaccused ifor isuch ioffences ito ithe iseveral
i punishments iprescribed ithere iwhich isuch iCourt iis icompetent ito iinflict. iSuch
i punishments iwould iconsist iof iimprisonment ito icommence ithe ione iafter ithe iexpiration
i of ithe iother iin isuch iorder ias ithe iCourt imay idirect isubject ito ithe ilimitation icontained iin
i Section i71 iof ithe iIndian iPenal iCode.

CRIMES iAND iJUDICIAL iSENTENCING iGUIDANCE

In ithe iSupreme iCourt’s ijudgment iin iSoman iv. iKerala31, ithe iCourt icited ia inumber iof
i principles ithat iit ihas itaken iinto iaccount i“while iexercising idiscretion iin isentencing,”
i such ias iproportionality, ideterrence, iand irehabilitation. i iAs ipart iof ithe iproportionality
i analysis, imitigating iand iaggravating ifactors ishould ialso ibe iconsidered, ithe iCourt
i noted. i

In iState iof iM.P. iv. iBablu iNatt32, ithe iSupreme iCourt istated ithat i“the iprinciple igoverning
i imposition iof ipunishment iwould idepend iupon ithe ifacts iand icircumstances iof ieach
i case. i iAn ioffence iwhich iaffects ithe imorale iof ithe isociety ishould ibe iseverely idealt

30
Jashubha iBharatsinh iGohil iv. iState iof iGujarat i(1994) i4 iSCC i353
i
31
(2013) i11 iSECTIONC.C. i382
i
32
(2009) i2 iSECTIONC.C. i272,
i
i with.” i iMoreover, iin iAlister iAnthony iPareira iv. iState iof iMaharashtra33, ithe iCourt iheld
i that i

Sentencing iis ian iimportant itask iin ithe imatters iof icrime. i iOne iof ithe iprime iobjectives iof
i the icriminal ilaw iis iimposition iof i[an] iappropriate, iadequate, ijust iand iproportionate
i sentence icommensurate iwith ithe inature iand igravity iof i[the] icrime iand ithe imanner iin
i which ithe icrime iis idone. i iThere iis ino istraitjacket iformula ifor isentencing ian iaccused ion
i proof iof icrime. i iThe icourts ihave ievolved icertain iprinciples: i[the] itwin iobjective iof ithe
i sentencing ipolicy iis ideterrence iand icorrection. i iWhat isentence iwould imeet ithe iends iof
i justice idepends ion ithe ifacts iand icircumstances iof ieach icase iand ithe icourt imust ikeep iin
i mind ithe igravity iof ithe icrime, imotive ifor ithe icrime, inature iof ithe ioffence iand iall iother
i attendant icircumstances. i

A. i iMurder

The ipunishment ifor imurder iunder iIndia’s iPenal iCode iis ilife iimprisonment ior ideath iand
i the iperson iis ialso iliable ito ia ifine.34 i iGuidance ion ithe iapplication iof ithe ideath isentence
i was iprovided iby ithe iSupreme iCourt iof iIndia iin iJagmohan iSingh iv. iState iof iUttar
i Pradesh35, iwhere ithe iCourt ienunciated ian iapproach iof ibalancing imitigating iand
i aggravating ifactors iof ithe icrime iwhen ideciding ion ithe iimposition iof icapital
i punishment. i iHowever, ithis iapproach iwas icalled iinto iquestion ifirst iin iBachan iSingh iv.
i State iof iPunjab36 iwhere ithe iCourt iemphasized ithat isince ian iamendment iwas imade ito
i India’s iCode iof iCriminal iProcedure, ithe irule ihas ichanged iso ithat i“the ioffence iof
i murder ishall ibe ipunished iwith ithe isentence iof ilife iimprisonment. i iThe icourt ican idepart
i from ithat irule iand iimpose ithe isentence iof ideath ionly iif ithere iare ispecial ireasons ifor
i doing iso.” i iThe iCourt ialso iemphasized ithat idue iconsideration ishould inot ionly ibe igiven
i to ithe icircumstances iof ithe icrime ibut ito ithe icriminal ialso. i iHowever, imore irecently ithe
i Court iin iSangeet i& iAnr. iv. iState iof iHaryana37, inoted ithat ithe iapproach iin iBachan ihas
i not ibeen ifully iadopted isubsequently, ithat i“primacy istill iseems ito ibe igiven ito ithe inature
i of ithe icrime,” iand ithat ithe i“circumstances iof ithe icriminal, ireferred ito iin iBachan iSingh
i appear ito ihave itaken ia ibit iof ia iback iseat iin ithe isentencing iprocess.” iThe iCourt iin
i Sangeet iconcluded ias ifollows:
33
(2012) i2 iSECTIONC.C. i648
i
34
Section i302 iof iIPC
i
35
i(1973) i2 iSECTIONC.R. i541,
36
i(1980) i2 iSECTIONC.C. i684,
37
i(2013) i2 iSECTIONC.C. i452
 1. This iCourt ihas inot iendorsed ithe iapproach iof iaggravating iand imitigating
i circumstances iin i[the i1971 icase iof] iBachan iSingh. i iHowever, ithis iapproach ihas
i been iadopted iin iseveral idecisions. i iThis ineeds ia ifresh ilook. i iIn iany ievent, ithere
i is ilittle ior ino iuniformity iin ithe iapplication iof ithis iapproach.

2. Aggravating icircumstances irelate ito ithe icrime iwhile imitigating icircumstances

i relate ito ithe icriminal. i iA ibalance isheet icannot ibe idrawn iup ifor icomparing ithe
i two. i iThe iconsiderations ifor iboth iare idistinct iand iunrelated. i iThe iuse iof ithe
i mantra iof iaggravating iand imitigating icircumstances ineeds ia ireview.

3. In ithe isentencing iprocess, iboth ithe icrime iand ithe icriminal iare iequally
i important. i i We ihave, iunfortunately, inot itaken ithe isentencing iprocess ias
i seriously ias iit ishould ibe iwith ithe iresult ithat iin icapital ioffences, iit ihas ibecome
i judge-centric isentencing irather ithan iprincipled isentencing.

4. The iConstitution iBench iof ithis iCourt ihas inot iencouraged istandardization iand
i categorization iof icrimes iand ieven iotherwise iit iis inot ipossible ito istandardize
i and icategorize iall icrimes.

5. The igrant iof iremissions iis istatutory. i iHowever, ito iprevent iits iarbitrary iexercise,
i the ilegislature ihas ibuilt iin isome iprocedural iand isubstantive ichecks iin ithe
i statute. i iThese ineed ito ibe ifaithfully ienforced. i

B. iTheft

The ipunishment ifor itheft iis iup ito ithree iyears’ iimprisonment, ia ifine, ior iboth.38 i iNo
i judicial iguidance iwas ifound iregarding isentencing ifor itheft. i

C. i iManslaughter i

Causing ideath iby inegligence iis ipunishable iby iimprisonment iof iup ito itwo iyears, ia ifine,
i or iboth.39 i iOther icrimes isimilar ito imanslaughter iinclude ipunishment ifor iculpable
i homicide inot iamounting ito imurder, iaddressed iin isection i304 iof ithe iPenal iCode:

Whoever icommits iculpable ihomicide inot iamounting ito imurder ishall ibe ipunished iwith
i [imprisonment ifor ilife], ior iimprisonment iof ieither idescription ifor ia iterm iwhich imay
i extend ito iten iyears, iand ishall ialso ibe iliable ito ifine, iif ithe iact iby iwhich ithe ideath iis
38
Section i379 iof iIPC
i
39
Section i304A iof iIPC
i
i caused iis idone iwith ithe iintention iof icausing ideath, ior iof icausing isuch ibodily iinjury ias
i is ilikely ito icause ideath, ior iwith iimprisonment iof ieither idescription ifor ia iterm iwhich
i may iextend ito iten iyears, ior iwith i[a] ifine, ior iwith iboth, iif ithe iact iis idone iwith ithe
i knowledge ithat iit iis ilikely ito icause ideath, ibut iwithout iany iintention ito icause ideath, ior
i to icause isuch ibodily iinjury ias iis ilikely ito icause ideath.40 i

The iSupreme iCourt ilooked iat ithe iquestion iof isentencing iinvolving isections i304 iand
i 304A iin ia idrunken idriving icase iand ifound ithat ipunishment imust ibe icommensurate
i with ithe icrime iand ithat ideterrence iwas ia iprimary iconsideration iwhen ideciding ion ithe
i severity iof ithe isentence iwhere irash ior inegligent idriving iwas iinvolved.41 i i

D. i iRape

Recent ichanges ihave ibeen imade ito ithe icrime iof irape iin iIndia’s iPenal iCode. i iAbsent
i any iaggravating ifactors, ithe isection istipulates ia iminimum ipunishment iof
i imprisonment ifor iseven iyears iup ito ia imaximum iof ilife, iand ia imandatory ifine. i iIn
i situations iwhere icertain iaggravated isituations ioccur, ipunishment iis ifor ia iminimum
i term iof iten iyears iup ito ia imaximum iof ilife iimprisonment, iand ia imandatory ifine. i iThe
i new iamended isection ion irape ireads ias ifollows:

Punishment ifor irape.

iiiiiiiiiii 376. i(1) iWhoever, iexcept iin ithe icases iprovided ifor iin isub-section i(2), icommits
i rape, ishall ibe ipunished iwith irigorous iimprisonment iof ieither idescription ifor ia iterm
i which ishall inot ibe iless ithan iseven iyears, ibut iwhich imay iextend ito iimprisonment ifor
i life, iand ishall ialso ibe iliable ito ifine.

iiiiiiiii (2) iWhoever,—

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (a) ibeing ia ipolice iofficer, icommits irape—

 (i) iwithin ithe ilimits iof ithe ipolice istation ito iwhich isuch ipolice iofficer iis
i appointed; ior

 (ii) iin ithe ipremises iof iany istation ihouse; ior

40
iSection i304 iof iIPC
41
iAlister iAnthony iPareira iv. iState iof iMaharashtra, i(2012) i2 iSECTIONC.C. i648
  (iii) ion ia iwoman iin isuch ipolice iofficer's icustody ior iin ithe icustody iof ia ipolice
i officer isubordinate ito isuch ipolice iofficer; ior

i i i (b) ibeing ia ipublic iservant, icommits irape ion ia iwoman iin isuch ipublic iservant’s
i custody ior iin ithe icustody iof ia ipublic iservant isubordinate ito isuch ipublic iservant; ior

(c) ibeing ia imember iof ithe iarmed iforces ideployed iin ian iarea iby ithe iCentral ior ia iState
i Government icommits irape iin isuch iarea; ior

i (d) ibeing ion ithe imanagement ior ion ithe istaff iof ia ijail, iremand ihome ior iother iplace iof
i custody iestablished iby ior iunder iany ilaw ifor ithe itime ibeing iin iforce ior iof ia iwomen’s ior
i children's iinstitution, icommits irape ion iany iinmate iof isuch ijail, iremand ihome, iplace ior
i institution; ior

(e) ibeing ion ithe imanagement ior ion ithe istaff iof ia ihospital, icommits irape ion ia iwoman iin
i that ihospital; ior

(f) ibeing ia irelative, iguardian ior iteacher iof, ior ia iperson iin ia iposition iof itrust ior iauthority
i towards ithe iwoman, icommits irape ion isuch iwoman; ior

(g) icommits irape iduring icommunal ior isectarian iviolence; ior

(h) icommits irape ion ia iwoman iknowing iher ito ibe ipregnant; ior

(i) icommits irape ion ia iwoman iwhen ishe iis iunder isixteen iyears iof iage; ior

(j) icommits irape, ion ia iwoman iincapable iof igiving iconsent; ior

(k) ibeing iin ia iposition iof icontrol ior idominance iover ia iwoman, icommits irape ion isuch
i woman; ior

i (l) icommits irape ion ia iwoman isuffering ifrom imental ior iphysical idisability; ior i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

(m) iwhile icommitting irape icauses igrievous ibodily iharm ior imaims ior idisfigures ior
i endangers ithe ilife iof ia iwoman; ior

(n) icommits irape irepeatedly ion ithe isame iwoman, i

shall ibe ipunished iwith irigorous iimprisonment ifor ia iterm iwhich ishall inot ibe iless ithan
i ten iyears, ibut iwhich imay iextend ito iimprisonment ifor ilife, iwhich ishall imean
i imprisonment ifor ithe iremainder iof ithat iperson’s inatural ilife, iand ishall ialso ibe iliable ito
i fine.42 i

In ithe iprevious isection ion ithe icrime iof irape, ithere iwas ia iproviso ithat iempowered ithe
i Court ito iaward ia isentence ithat iwas iless ithan ithe iminimum ifor iadequate iand ispecial
i reasons istipulated iin ithe ijudgment. i iThe iSupreme iCourt iprovided idirection iin iseveral
i cases ion ihow isuch idiscretion ishould ibe iexercised.43 i

E. i iTrafficking iof iPersons

The ilevel iof ipunishment iunder ithe inew itrafficking iof ipersons icrime iset iforth iin isection
i 370 iof ithe iPenal iCode idepends ion ithe inumber iof ipersons ithat ihave ibeen itrafficked,
i whether ithe ivictim iwas ia iminor, iand iwhether ithe iassailant iwas ia ipublic iofficial: i

 (2) iWhoever icommits ithe ioffence iof itrafficking ishall ibe ipunished iwith irigorous
i imprisonment ifor ia iterm iwhich ishall inot ibe iless ithan iseven iyears, ibut iwhich
i may iextend ito iten iyears, iand ishall ialso ibe iliable ito ifine.

 (3) iWhere ithe ioffence iinvolves ithe itrafficking iof imore ithan ione iperson, iit ishall
i be ipunishable iwith irigorous iimprisonment ifor ia iterm iwhich ishall inot ibe iless
i than iten iyears ibut iwhich imay iextend ito iimprisonment ifor ilife, iand ishall ialso ibe
i liable ito ifine.

 (4) iWhere ithe ioffence iinvolves ithe itrafficking iof ia iminor, iit ishall ibe ipunishable
i with irigorous iimprisonment ifor ia iterm iwhich ishall inot ibe iless ithan iten iyears,
i but iwhich imay iextend ito iimprisonment ifor ilife, iand ishall ialso ibe iliable ito ifine.

 (5) iWhere ithe ioffence iinvolves ithe itrafficking iof imore ithan ione iminor, iit ishall
i be ipunishable iwith irigorous iimprisonment ifor ia iterm iwhich ishall inot ibe iless
i than ifourteen iyears, ibut iwhich imay iextend ito iimprisonment ifor ilife, iand ishall
i also ibe iliable ito ifine.

 (6) iIf ia iperson iis iconvicted iof ithe ioffence iof itrafficking iof iminor ion imore ithan
i one ioccasion, ithen isuch iperson ishall ibe ipunished iwith iimprisonment ifor ilife,
i which ishall imean iimprisonment ifor ithe iremainder iof ithat iperson’s inatural ilife,
i and ishall ialso ibe iliable ito ifine.

42
Section i376 iof iIPC
i
43
State iof iM.P. iv. iBablu iNatt, i(2009) i2 iSECTIONC.C. i272,
i
  (7) iWhen ia ipublic iservant ior ia ipolice iofficer iis iinvolved iin ithe itrafficking iof
i any iperson ithen, isuch ipublic iservant ior ipolice iofficer ishall ibe ipunished iwith
i imprisonment ifor ilife, iwhich ishall imean iimprisonment ifor ithe iremainder iof
i that iperson’s inatural ilife, iand ishall ialso ibe iliable ito ifine.44 i

Other isections iof ithe iCode imay ialso ibe iused ito iprosecute itraffickers, iincluding
i sections i366A iand i372. i iSection i5B iof ithe iImmoral iTrafficking iPrevention iAct i(ITPA)
i also ipunishes itrafficking iin ipersons iwith i“rigorous iimprisonment ifor ia iterm iwhich
i shall inot ibe iless ithan iseven iyears iand iin ithe ievent iof ia isecond ior isubsequent iconviction
i with iimprisonment ifor ilife.”45 i

Need ifor isentencing ipolicy iin iIndia

“Sentencing” iis ithe ifinal istage iof idelivering iJustice ito ithe iconvict iand ivictim. iIn iIndia,
i punishment iis igiven iaccording ito iown iapplied ithoughts iof iJudges iand iwithin istatutory
i limit. iFor isome ioffences, ithe imaximum ipunishment iis iprescribed iand ifor isome, iit iis
i minimum. iIn isome icases, iJudges ilower idown ithe ipunishment iusing ithe iretributive
i principle. iHowever, ion ithe isame icases iof isimilar ifacts iJudges igive ideath ipenalty
i setting ias ia ideterrent ifor ithe iothers iin ithe isociety. iSome iJudges itend ito ibe ilenient iwhile
i others itend ito ibe iharsh. iThis ihas ieventually iled ito iimproper iconvictions, idue ito
i irrelevant iconsideration iand ipersonal ibias. iThis ihas ialso iled ithe isociety ito iquestion
i what iJudiciary ishould ido iin ia iparticular istate iof iaffairs.46

Though, iIPC iin iChapter iIII iof iSec. i53 iprovides ifor ibroad igradation iof ipunishment isuch
i as:

1. iDeath ipenalty, i

2. iImprisonment ifor ilife,

3. iImprisonment, i

4. iForfeiture iof iproperty iand i

5. iFine i

44
Section i370 iof iIPC
i
45
Immoral iTrafficking i(Prevention) iAct i(ITPA), iNo. i104 iof i1956
i
46
ihttps://lexquest.in/need-for-sentencing-policy-in-india/
But, iagain iit isuffers ifrom icertain ilimitations. iThe iproblem iis ithat ithe ihighest
i punishment iconsidered iis iDeath ipenalty iwhile ithe isecond ihighest iis iimprisonment ifor
i life. iNo ipunishment iis iprovided ibetween ithem ias iprovided iin iUS isuch ias
i “imprisonment ifor ilife iwithout icommutation ior iremission”. i i

Another iproblem iis ithat ifrom iearly i1860, ifine iimposed ion ithe ioffences ihas inot ibeen
i reviewed. iIn imost iof ithe ioffences, ithe iCourt irequires ithe iprosecution ito iprove ibeyond
i reasonable idoubt. iTherefore, iin imany icases, ithough ithe iCourt iis iconvinced ibut iconvict
i is imade ito iescape ion ithe ireason iof iprosecution ifailing ito iprove ibeyond ireasonable
i doubt. iThis imakes ithe igeneral isociety ilose itrust iin ithe iJustice isystem iand igives ithe
i accused ia ichance ito iescape itaking ithe ibenefit.47

However, ithe iEngland iCriminal iCourt iSentencing iAct, i2000 iprovides ifor isupervision
i during isuspension, icommunity isentences, icommunity irehabilitation iorder, ifinancial
i penalties iand ireparation iorders, iparenting iorders ifor ichildren,48 iconfiscation iorder,
i curfew iorder, idisqualification iorders iof ipublic iservant ifor icriminal imisappropriation,
i rehabilitating isexual ioffender ior idrug iaddict ietc. iAlso, iSection i78 iof ithe iEnglish iAct
i imposes ilimits ion iimprisonment iand idetention iof iyoung ioffender’s. iSections i79 i& i80
i provide ifor igeneral irestrictions ion idescription iand icustody iof isentences iand ilength iof
i sentences. i iSection i83 i ihelps iout ipersons iwho iare inot ilegally irepresented. iFinancial
i compensation ifor iyoung ioffenders, ithe iregular ioffenders, ietc. iis ifixed iunder ithe istatute.
i

Taking ithe iUS isystem iinto iconsideration, ithe itwo ibroad iguidelines iare igiven ii.e. ithe
i conduct iassociated iwith ithe ioffence iand i ithe idefendant’s icriminal ihistory. iThough ithe
i discretion ihas ibeen iprovided ibut iJudges ineed ito iadhere ito icertain istandards iwhile
i giving ithe idecisions. iIf iany isentence iis igiven ibeyond ithe iscope, iwritten iexplanation iis
i required ito ibe iprovided ito ithe iCommission ito icheck iand ireview ithe idecision imaking
i process. i

Therefore, iin iorder ito iprovide iCriminal iJustice iSystem, iit ineeds ito iaddress ion ia icritical
i premise. iFor iinstance, icasualties iof iassault, irape iand iso iforth irequire iinjury iguiding,
i psychiatric iand irehabilitative iadministrations iseparated ifrom ilegal iaid. iAs
i recommended iby ithe iLaw iCommission, ioffenders ishould ialso ibe iclassified ias icasual
i offender, ian ioffender iwho icasually icommits ia icrime, ia ihabitual ioffender i, ia
47
Ibid
i
48
http://www.pucl.org/Topics/Law/2003/malimathrecommendationSectionhtm
i
i professional49 ioffender ior ione iwho ibelongs ito iMafia. iChanges ineed ito ibe imade iin iIPC
i to itake iinto iconsideration inew iand iserious icrimes isuch ias icyber icrime, ihijacking,
i terrorism, ipornography, idomestic iviolence. iThese icrimes ineed ito ibe ilooked iat istretch
i and ilaws ishould ibe ireformed ifor imeeting ithe iabove ichallengeSection iFines iimposed
i on ithe icommitment iof icrime ineed ito ibe irevised, ias ivalue iof imoney ihas iincreased i50
i times icompared ito ithe iyear i1860 iand iit isets ian iambiguous iterm ifor ithe ione iwho iis
i genuinely iincapable iof ipaying. i‘Proof ibeyond ireasonable idoubt’ ishould ibe iamended
i with ithe iproof iwhich iis ienough ito iprove ithe itruth. iParticipation iof ithe iaccused ishould
i be iincreased ito iachieve ithe iultimate igoal. iThe iaccused ishould ibe imade ito ifile ia
i statement ito ithe iprosecution idisclosing ihis istand.

To iconclude, iit iis iunrealistic ito iget irid iof idiscretion ialtogether. iHowever, iwhat ione
i needs ito iremember iis ito ihave ia ispecific iframework iwhich iregards ia ispecific ifactor ias
i either iaggravating ior imitigating. iImposition iof ipunishment ishould ibe iin ia imanner
i which iis icorrect ifor iresponding ito ithe isociety’s icry ifor ijustice iagainst ithe icriminals.
i The iCourt imust ikeep iin iview ithe irights iof ithe ivictim ias iwell ias iaccused. iJustice
i demands ithat, iunder ithe ifall iof isympathy, iinadequate isentence ishould inot ibe igiven ias iit
i would ido imore iharm ito ithe isociety iand iundermine ithe ipublic iconfidence iin ithe
i efficacy iof ilaw iand isociety.

At ilast, ilaw iis iimportant ifor icurbing icrime. iTherefore, inot ionly ishould inew ilaw ibe
i implemented ibut ialso iflaws iin ithe iexisting ilaw iwhich iaffects ithe isociety ias ia iwhole
i should ibe irectified.

Challenges iin iSentencing iPolicy iin iIndia i

Given ithe ifact ithat ithe iphrase isentencing ipolicy icovers iarray iof isentencing idimensions
i ranging ifrom ilegislature ito iexecutive ivia ijudiciary, ihundreds iof iproblems iaffront iwhen
i one icharts ithe iproblems iof isentencing ipolicy iin iIndia. iThe iscope iof ithis iresearch iis
i however ilimited ito ifew iareas iof ithe isentencing ipolicy ionly. iRight ifrom ithe
i appointment iof ijudges ito ithe iintegrity iof ia ijudge, ifrom ilegislative imalice ito ithe
i executive iinefficiency, ieverything ican ibe icontributing ifactor iin ithe iquality iof isentence
i dispensed. iHowever ias imentioned iin ithe ifirst ichapter, ionly ifew iareas iof ithe iborder
i arena iare iintended ito ibe icovered. iThe ichoices iof ithese iareas iare isupported iby ithe
i convincing ievidence. iThe iproblem iof idisparity iin isentencing iis ichosen ifor ia ireason
49
http://jhalsa.org/pdfs/Reading_Materials/RM_19_09_2015/volume_4.pdf
i
i that iright ifrom ithe ijudiciary ito ilegislature iand ifrom ithe icriminal ito icommon,
i everybody ihas iacknowledged ithat isentencing idisparity iis ihunting ithe ijustice idelivery
i system iand itherefore ichecks iand ibalances ishould ibe iintroduced iat ithe iearliest. iOther
i jurisdictions ihave idone ithis ior iare iin ithe iprocess iof. iIndia, ihowever, ilacks icoherent
i sentencing ipolicy icoupled iwith ilegislative ior ijudicial iregulations. iTherefore ithis iarea
i has ibeen ichosen ito iexplore ithe iexisting imechanism iwhich ican ibe iconveniently iadopted
i or iat ileast iexperimented iupon iin iIndia.

The iproblem iand idebate iof ideath ipenalty iis inot ibasically iresting ion iretention iversus
i abolition istand. iThe ireal iwood ithat iis imissed ifor ithe itree iis: iif icomprehensive
i sentencing ipolicy iis ifollowed iin irespect iof ideath ipenalty, ithere iis ino ineed ito iengage iin
i futile iand iunproductive iexercises iof iretentionist iversus iabolitionist iarguments.
i However, ias ithe iresearch iwould iunfold, iIndia ilacks icomprehensive isentencing ipolicy
i in irespect iof ideath ipenalty iin iabsolute isense ibringing ithe ihighest iimpartial iinstitution
i into iembarrassment iof ihighest iorder! iDeath isentences ihave ibeen itotally iread ito ibe
i Judge icentric, ileast iregard ibeing ihad ito iits iown istandards iof ihighest icare ilaid idown iby
i the isame iinstitution. i

The ialternative iof ilife iimprisonment ito ideath ipenalty ican ibe iassumed isafe iwhen ithe
i disparity iin ideath isentence iis iso iapparent. iHowever, ithe ishift ifrom ideath ipenalty ito ilife
i imprisonment ialso ishifted ithe icontroversy iwhen ijudiciary istarted ifixing ithe imeaning
i of ilife iimprisonment. iTraditionally, ilife iimprisonment iin iIndia iis itaken ito ibe
i indeterminate iwhere iexecutive iwould iremit ithe isentence inormally iafter i14 iyears ion ithe
i basis iof irehabilitative ijurisprudence. iThis iprerogative iof iexecutive ihas ibeen
i circumscribed iby ithe ijudiciary iwherein iit ifixes ithe i‘term’ ifor ilife iconvicts iwho icannot
i be ireleased ibefore iactually iserving isuch iterm! iThis ihas iled ito ia inew ichapter iin
i sentencing ipolicy ibeing iargued ias i‘judicially ifashioned’ ibut i‘executively ishunned’! i

The iexecutives ihave ia igreater icontrol iover isentencing ipolicy. iThis icontrol iis itwo isided.
i Weather ito iprosecute ior inot, iweather ito iagree ifor iplea ibargaining ior ito ibargain ifurther
i is ileft iwith ithe iprosecution iin iIndia, ihowever, ithis icontrol iis inot iunbridled iand
i sufficient ichecks iand ibalances iare iavailable. iThe ibone iof icontention iis, ihowever, ithe
i post isentencing icontrol ithe iexecutive iexercise iover ithe iconvicts. iBenefits iof iremission
i and ishort isentencing iare iat ithe icommand iand imercy iof ithe iexecutive iwhich iexercise
i can ialso ibe isubject imatter iof idisparity iin ithe isame iway ithe ijudiciary ihas ibeen iaccused
i of. iRestoration iand irehabilitation iare ithe iemerging ifacets iof ithe isentencing ipolicy. iIn
i the iabsence iof istated isentencing ipolicy, ijudiciary iwould iroam iwildly iin iperusing
i justice iwhich iroaming imay ifurther ilead ito iand iappear ias idisparity iin isentencing ipolicy.
i Bearing ithis idrawback, iIndian ijudiciaries ihave ished itheir itraditional isentencing
i policies iand iexperimenting imilder iforms iof isentences isuch ias icommunity isentences.
i However, iwe ido inot ifind iuniformity iin ithis iexercise ieither. iFurther, ithe isentencing
i policy iin irespect iof ijuveniles ihas ikept ichanging ievery idecade iroughly iwhich ifact iis
i evident ifrom ithe irecent ienactment iof iJuvenile iJustice iAct i2015. iThe ibenefits iof
i probation ialso ihave inot ibeen imade iuse iof iincreasingly ithough ithat iis ithe ipurpose iof
i that ilegislation. iEven ithis ibenefit iis ialso ijudge icentric iwhich iis iwitnessed iacross ithe
i judicial iinstitutions. iThe icrux iof ithe isentencing ipolicy ilies iin iits ieconomics iapart ifrom
i the ideterrence iand irehabilitation. iThe isomber iinterpretation iof isection i357 iof iCriminal
i Procedure iCode i1973 iin irecent ipast ihas irekindled ithe icompensatory ijurisprudence iin
i India. iThe iproblem, ihowever, ilies iwith ithe iuse iof isalutary iprovision. iJudicial
i reminders iand ilegislative isupplements iin ithe iform iof irecent iamendments ihave ibrought
i different idimensions ito ithis iexercise iwhich ineeds ito ibe isystematically isynthesized.

Problem iStatement/ iResearch iQuestion

Though ithe ijudiciary ihas ihighlighted ithe idearth iof iuniform isentencing ipolicy iin
i sentencing, iwhich iis ifurther iunderscored iby ithe iLaw iCommission iReports, inothing
i substantial iappears ito ihave ibeen idone iby ithe ilegislature. iJudiciary ihas itried iits ihand iin
i bringing iconsistency iin isentencing iin ithe iform iof ijudicial idecisions. iThis iattempt iof
i the ijudiciary ihas iput ithe ivery iinstitution iin iquestion, isince iin ithe iprocess iof
i individualisation iof ipunishment, ijudiciary ihas ibleeded idisparity iand iinconsistency. iIt
i is ithis iattitude ithat iis iin iquestion ifor iresearch. iThe ideath ipenalty iregime iis iplagued iby
i disparity ithough irecent ipronouncements ihave itried ito ibring itransparency iin iit. iThis
i inconstancy iand idisparity iis ithe isubject imatter iof iresearch. iThe iotherwise isettled
i meaning iof ilife iimprisonment ihas ireceived idifferent idimensions iprovoking ijudiciary
i to iimport iits iown imeaning isidelining ithe iexecutives. iThis idimension iof itug iof iwar
i between ijudiciary iand iexecutive iin iterms iof iclemency iand iconcessionary isentencing iis
i under istudy iin ithis iresearch. iThe iemerging iconcepts iof ivictim icompensation iand
i alternative isentencing iwhich iare ijudicial iinnovations isupplemented iby ilegislative
i response iare isubject imatter iof iproblem istatement iin ithis iresearch.
All ithese iaspects iof isentencing iprompted ithe iresearcher ito iundertake ia ithorough
i investigation iin ito ithese iaspects iculminating iin ipossible isolutions

Hypotheses

The ifollowing ihypotheses iare iformed ifor ithe ipresent iresearch

1. That ithe iunstructured idiscretion iin isentencing ijudges ihas iresulted iin
i unwarranted idisparity, idiscrimination iand iinconsistency iin isentencing

2. That ithe ideath ipenalty iin iIndia ihas ibecome ijudge icentric iand ithe irarest iof irare
i doctrine ihas ibeen ia irolling isnowball iof ibleeding idisparity

3. That ithe ijudiciary ihas irewritten ithe imeaning iof ilife iimprisonment iwith
i structured ilife isentences

4. That ithe iclemency ijurisdiction iand iremission iand icommutation ipowers icoupled
i with ishort isentencing ischemes ihave ifailed ito icreate ia iuniform ipattern iin iIndia
i brining ithe idisparity iin ithis ijurisdiction itoo.

5. That ithe ialternate isentencing iand ialternatives ito iimprisonment ihave ibeen
i sufficiently iprovided iin ithe isentencing ipolicy iin iIndia

6. That ithe ivictim icompensation iin iall icriminal icases ihas ibecome iindispensible iin
i sentencing ipolicy iin iIndia

Objectives iof ithe iStudy

The iprimary iobjective iof ithis istudy iis ito iexamine ithe isentencing ipolicy iand ilaw iin
i India iand iabroad. iThe iother iobjectives iof ithis istudy iare:

1. To istudy ithe isentencing ipolicy iand idiscretion iin iIndia iand iother iadvanced
i countries ilike ithe iUnited iStates iof iAmerica iand iUnited iKingdom iand isuggest
i modalities ito iarrest iarbitrariness iby isuggesting ia ipossible iexperimentation iof
i sentencing icouncils iin iIndia.

2. To istudy ithe iproblems iand iperspectives iof ideath ipenalty iand iever igrowing
i judicial imisinterpretation
 3. To ibring iout ithe icritical ianalysis iof iinconsistent iinterpretation iof i'life
i imprisonment' iand ithe itussle ibetween ilegislature iand ijudiciary iin iassuming ithe
i final iauthority iover isentencing ithe ioffenders ito ilife iimprisonment

4. To iunderline ithe iinterrelationship ibetween iclemency, iconcessionary iand ishort

i sentencing ion ithe ione ihand iand itheir ieffect iof ijudicial isentences ion ithe iother
i hand.

5. To istudy ithe idevelopments iin ialternative isentencing ijurisprudence iat inational

i and iinternational iconspectus iand iits ipercolation iin iIndian isentencing ipolicy.

Methodology

The imethodology iadopted ifor ithe istudy iis ipurely idoctrinal. iThe iwhole iwork iinvolves
i primarily ithe icontent ianalysis iof ithe iprovisions iof iCode iof iCriminal iProcedure, i1973,
i Indian iPenal iCode, i1860, iconstitution iof iIndia, isubstantive ilaws, ispecial ilaws iand
i judicial ipronouncements. iSurveys iof ijudicial idecisions iwhich iare igame ichangers iin
i sentencing ipolicy ihave ibeen iextensively ianalyzed. iSubstantial ifocus iof ithis iresearch
i being i'sentencing iattitude iof ithe icourts', iit igoes iwithout isaying ithat icase ilaws iby iapex
i courts iare icynosure iin ithis iresearch. iThe iresearcher ihas itaken ithe iaid iof ithe iLaw
i Commission iof iIndia iReports, iReport iof iother iCommissions ion icriminal ilaw, ileading
i text ibooks, ijournals, ibare iacts, inews ipaper, imagazines, iperiodicals iand iinternet isources
i etc.

Importance iof ithe iStudy

This istudy iwill ibe iuseful ito iacademics, iadministrators, ipolicy-makers, ipolicy-
controllers, iplanners, ilegislators, ilawyers, iresearch istudents, isocial iactivists iand iothers.
i It iis iexpected ito ibe iuseful ifor ithe ijudges ialso ias ithe istudy iinvolves icritical ievaluation
i of isentencing ipolicy iin iIndia. iThe iimportance iof ithe istudy ilies iin iits ipristine ipurpose
i viz., ito imake ian ioriginal icontribution ito ithe idiscipline iof ilaw.