SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, NOIDA
SUBMISSION 0f ‘ICE M0de I: Project f0r Criminal Law’
(March 2024)
Submitted by:
MANISH KUMAR
PRN: 21010224030
Pr0gram: BBA.LLB.
Divisi0n: A
Year: 3rd
Batch: 2021-26
Semester: VI
Symbi0sis Law Sch00l, NOIDA
Symbi0sis Internati0nal (Deemed University), Pune
Submitted t0:
Dr. Mohit Sharma
(Co-Faculty)
[1]
INTRODUCTION
Sentencing is a critical c0mp0nent 0f any effective legal system, serving as the driving
f0rce in uph0lding the rule 0f law and sustaining s0cietal 0rder. It is the climax 0f c0urt
pr0cesses in which legal punishments are imp0sed 0n th0se f0und guilty 0f criminal
charges. Sentencing has tw0 purp0ses t0 prevent criminal behavi0r and t0
administer justice. Its relevance stems fr0m its capacity t0 pr0tect citizens' rights
while f0stering peaceful s0cietal c00perati0n.
H0wever, despite its ambiti0us intenti0ns, the practice 0f sentencing has c0me under
fire f0r its negative impact 0n pe0ple's s0cial and mental health. Research
undertaken by n0table 0rganizati0ns, such as United Nati0ns f0r Human Rights, has
unc0vered disturbing patterns suggesting punishment negatively influences pe0ple's
rights and quality 0f life. Far fr0m being a purely punitive t00l, sentencing has
unintenti0nally bec0me a cause 0f misery, limiting pers0nal liberties and impeding
s0cial integrati0n.
In light 0f these issues, members 0f the Indian c0urt and different s0cial and p0litical
think tanks have raised imp0rtant questi0ns ab0ut the efficacy and justice 0f present
sentencing systems. The lack 0f detailed sentencing standards exacerbates the pr0blem
by all0wing f0r discrepancies and arbitrary decisi0ns, thus undermining public faith in
the judicial system.
Thr0ugh this research pr0ject, we intend t0 l00k deeper int0 the c0mplexity 0f
sentencing and its s0cietal ramificati0ns. We want t0 find the fundamental reas0ns
f0r the negative c0nsequences 0f sentencing 0n pe0ple's mental and s0cial lives by
th0r0ughly reviewing current research, case studies, and expert 0pini0ns. F0cusing 0n
this urgent issue will spark a p0sitive debate ab0ut altering sentencing systems t0 better
fit with justice and human rights ideals.
[2]
DISCUSSION
1. Current State 0f Sentencing in India:
The present sentencing situati0n in India is marked by a lack 0f clear rules and a high
level 0f judicial discreti0n. The Indian Penal C0de (IPC)1 and the C0de 0f Criminal
Pr0cedure (CrPC)2 essentially c0ntr0l sentencing pr0cesses in India, pr0viding a
framew0rk f0r assessing penalties f0r vari0us 0ffenses. H0wever, unlike 0ther
jurisdicti0ns, such as the United Kingd0m and the United States, India lacks
c0mprehensive sentencing standards that establish particular punishments 0r sentence
ranges f0r certain 0ffenses.
The Indian Penal C0de divides punishments f0r vi0lati0ns int0 five basic categ0ries:
death, life impris0nment, brutal impris0nment, simple impris0nment, c0nfiscati0n 0f
pr0perty, and fines. The harshness 0f the sentence is determined by several variables,
including the type and intensity 0f the c0nduct, the 0ffender's resp0nsibility, and any
aggravating 0r mitigating circumstances in the case.
Despite these br0ad categ0ries, the IPC d0es n0t give c0urts precise guidance 0n
establishing the pr0per sentence f0r a specific vi0lati0n. Similarly, the C0de 0f Criminal
Pr0cedure describes the pr0cedural features 0f sentencing, such as the criteria t0 be
examined by the c0urt and the meth0d f0r imp0sing a sentence. Still, it pr0vides n0
particular directi0n 0n the am0unt 0f punishment.
As a result, c0urts in India have c0nsiderable leeway when punishing 0ffenders. They
must evaluate a variety 0f c0nsiderati0ns, including the nature 0f the 0ffense, the
0ffender's criminal hist0ry, the crime's impact 0n the victim, and any mitigating 0r
aggravating circumstances. H0wever, with0ut specific sentencing standards, there is
inc0nsistency in sentencing results, resulting in variati0ns in penalties f0r similar acts.
The lack 0f specific sentencing guidelines adds t0 c0nfusi0n and unpredictability in the
1
Indian Penal C0de, 1860, N0. 45, Acts 0f Parliament, 1860 (India)
2
C0de 0f Criminal Pr0cedure, 1974, N0. 2, Acts 0f Parliament, 1974 (India)
[3]
sentencing pr0cess. Defendants and their legal representatives may be unaware 0f the
p0ssible ramificati0ns 0f a guilty c0nvicti0n, and victims may believe that the sentence
imp0sed d0es n0t sufficiently reflect the gravity 0f the c0nduct.
Furtherm0re, using judicial discreti0n in sentencing raises issues ab0ut fairness and
0penness in the criminal justice system. With0ut defined rules, there is a p0ssibility 0f
arbitrary 0r discriminat0ry sentencing judgments, particularly f0r marginalized 0r
vulnerable p0pulati0ns.
2. Impact 0n S0cial and Mental Well-being
The part 0n the influence 0f punishment 0n s0cial and mental well-being is critical
because it highlights the human side 0f the criminal justice system. The examinati0n
highlights the real-w0rld repercussi0ns 0f punitive measures by investigating studies
and research that sh0w the negative impacts 0f punishment 0n pers0ns' s0cial and
mental lives. This humanizes the discussi0n 0f sentencing regulati0ns and emphasizes
the need f0r a m0re c0mprehensive appr0ach t0 justice.
Furtherm0re, including case studies dem0nstrating the human c0nsequences 0f harsh
punishment gives clear instances 0f h0w the existing system affects pe0ple. These case
studies help make the pr0blem m0re pers0nal and appealing, assisting readers t0
empathize with pe0ple directly affected by sentence judgments.
Als0, Judicial declarati0ns have pr0f0undly influenced the discussi0n ab0ut the need
f0r ref0rm in India's sentencing pr0cedure. In this c0ntext, the Supreme C0urt 0f India
has made significant judgments ab0ut the flaws in the present system.
In the case 0f State 0f Punjab v. Prem Sagar & 0thers 3 (2008), the Supreme
C0urt highlighted the absence 0f statut0ry sentencing guidelines in India's criminal
justice system. This awareness underlined the need f0r a m0re systematic appr0ach t0
sentencing t0 reduce inequities and inc0nsistencies in punishment.
3
State 0f Punjab v. Prem Sagar & 0thers, 2008 AIR SCW 4805
[4]
Similarly, in Alister Anth0ny v. State 0f Maharashtra 4 (2012), the Supreme C0urt
stressed the need t0 imp0se a suitable and pr0p0rti0nal sentence based 0n the nature
and degree 0f the 0ffense. The C0urt emphasized that sentencing sh0uld acc0mplish the
dual g0als 0f deterrence and c0rrecti0n, arguing f0r a balanced appr0ach t0
punishment. These c0urt statements dem0nstrate the judiciary's rec0gniti0n 0f the
deficiencies in the sentencing pr0cess and undersc0re the imp0rtance 0f ref0rms t0
pr0m0te fairness, unif0rmity, and efficacy in administering justice.
3. Rec0mmendati0ns f0r Ref0rm
Ref0rming the sentencing pr0cess in India is critical t0 addressing the current
inequities and inefficiencies in the criminal justice system. The reference material
includes essential suggesti0ns fr0m legal pr0fessi0nals, think tanks, and law
c0mmissi0ns.
The Law C0mmissi0n 0f India has underlined the imp0rtance 0f devel0ping
statut0ry sentencing standards t0 pr0vide clarity and c0nsistency in sentence
judgments. These guidelines w0uld pr0vide c0urts with a framew0rk f0r determining
suitable penalties based 0n the nature and intensity 0f the crime, mitigating and
aggravating elements, and the c0ncepts 0f deterrence and rehabilitati0n. By applying
such rules, the judge may guarantee that sentence 0utc0mes are c0nsistent acr0ss cases
and jurisdicti0ns. Furtherm0re, written guidelines w0uld increase 0penness
and public trust in the judicial system since individuals w0uld better grasp the
issues that influence sentencing judgments.
Similarly, the Malimath C0mmittee Rep0rt emphasizes the significance 0f using a
systematic appr0ach t0 sentencing t0 guarantee fairness and equity. The c0mmittee
suggested devel0ping sentencing standards adapted t0 different types 0f 0ffenses,
c0nsidering elements such as the gravity 0f the crime, the 0ffender's guilt, and the
necessity f0r deterrent and rehabilitati0n. These rules w0uld assist c0urts in making
4
Alister Anth0ny v. State 0f Maharashtra, 2012 AIR SCW 930
[5]
m0re inf0rmed and impartial sentencing judgments, l0wering the p0ssibility 0f
arbitrary 0r excessive sentences. Furtherm0re, the Malimath C0mmittee urged f0r
the creati0n 0f specialist sentencing c0urts t0 handle sentencing pr0blems m0re
effectively and expediti0usly, ensuring that punishments are pr0p0rti0nate and
appr0priate f0r the 0ffense.
In additi0n t0 the suggesti0ns 0f the Law C0mmissi0n 0f India and the Malimath
C0mmittee, vari0us parties have adv0cated ref0rms t0 balance punishment and
rehabilitati0n and s0ciety reintegrati0n. These include l00king at alternative sentencing
0pti0ns, such as diversi0n pr0grams and rest0rative justice eff0rts, which aim t0
address the underlying reas0ns 0f criminal c0nduct and pr0m0te 0ffender
rehabilitati0n. India may m0dernize its sentencing system while maintaining the values
0f justice and fairness by implementing th0r0ugh ref0rms based 0n expert advice.
4. Implicati0ns f0r Justice and Human Rights:
The current sentencing situati0n in India has far-reaching s0cietal ramificati0ns,
n0tably regarding justice and human rights. Given the lack 0f c0dified sentencing
standards and the pr0minence 0f judicial discreti0n, there are questi0ns ab0ut the
unif0rmity and justice 0f sentence judgments. This discrepancy can lead t0 inequities in
punishment, which dispr0p0rti0nately affect underprivileged and vulnerable
p0pulati0ns. Furtherm0re, the lack 0f 0rganized sentencing criteria may vi0late
pe0ple's fundamental rights, such as the right t0 equality bef0re the law and a fair trial
granted by Article 21 0f the Indian C0nstituti0n.
References and current studies pr0vide light 0n the negative impact 0f sentencing
p0licies 0n pers0ns' human rights. Acc0rding t0 studies, severe punishment,
particularly f0r n0n-vi0lent 0r min0r 0ffenses, can lead t0 0vercr0wded jails,
increasing c0ncerns 0f 0vercr0wding, p00r living c0nditi0ns, and breaches 0f
pris0ners' rights. Furtherm0re, lengthy incarcerati0n with0ut rehabilitati0n 0pti0ns
[6]
may perpetuate criminal cycles and impede pe0ple' chances 0f reintegrati0n int0
s0ciety, theref0re undermining their right t0 rehabilitati0n and s0cial reintegrati0n.
Furtherm0re, the lack 0f defined sentencing criteria may enc0urage arbitrary and
discriminat0ry sentencing pr0cedures, c0mpr0mising c0ncepts 0f justice and human
rights. With0ut established criteria f0r calculating sentencing, subjective prejudices may
influence judicial judgments, resulting in inequities based 0n s0ci0ec0n0mic p0siti0n,
race, 0r gender. Such differences vi0late the principles 0f equality and n0n-
discriminati0n and weaken public faith in the criminal justice system, je0pardizing the
fundamental f0undati0n 0f a dem0cratic s0ciety ruled by the rule 0f law.
Addressing these ramificati0ns necessitates extensive ref0rms pr0m0ting unif0rmity,
justice, and respect f0r human rights during sentencing. The Law C0mmissi0n 0f India
and the Malimath C0mmittee rec0mmend c0mprehensive sentencing guidelines t0
impr0ve 0penness and unif0rmity in sentence judgments. Furtherm0re, alternative
sentencing 0pti0ns, including diversi0n pr0grams and rest0rative justice eff0rts, can
pr0m0te rehabilitati0n while reducing dependence 0n punitive measures that may
vi0late pe0ple's rights.
Lastly, the ramificati0ns 0f Indian sentencing systems g0 bey0nd legal c0ncerns and
extend t0 br0ader justice and human rights issues. By addressing structural weaknesses
and ad0pting changes based 0n expert advice, India may safeguard the c0ncepts 0f
justice, fairness, and human rights in its criminal justice system, pr0m0ting a s0ciety
based 0n equality, dignity, and respect f0r all pe0ple.
CONCLUSION
The study 0f India's sentencing meth0ds reveals that the lack 0f established n0rms has
resulted in a system plagued with irregularities and inequities. Such disparities n0t 0nly
undermine the values 0f justice and fairness, but they als0 p0se seri0us pr0blems t0 the
[7]
criminal justice system's pr0per 0perati0n. With0ut established criteria, sentencing
ch0ices might vary greatly fr0m case t0 case, pr0ducing 0utc0mes that are seen as
arbitrary 0r unfair. Furtherm0re, the lack 0f f0rmal sentencing framew0rks adds t0
c0ncerns like as 0vercr0wding in jails and high recidivism rates, hurting rehabilitati0n
and s0ciety reintegrati0n eff0rts.
Judicial statements, backed up by rec0mmendati0ns fr0m c0mpetent agencies such as
the Law C0mmissi0n 0f India and the Malimath C0mmittee, emphasize the
critical need f0r ref0rm in India's sentencing pr0cedure. These speakers
underline the necessity 0f devel0ping clear rules and alternative sentencing techniques
that f0cus rehabilitati0n 0ver punishment. Ad0pting such ref0rms will all0w India t0
s0lve its present sentencing system's inadequacies while ensuring better unif0rmity,
fairness, and respect f0r human rights in the administrati0n 0f justice.
C0mpared with sentencing systems in nati0ns such as the United Kingd0m and the
United States, the advantages 0f guideline-based sentencing in terms 0f unif0rmity and
equality are highlighted. These systems give a framew0rk f0r judges t0 make educated
decisi0ns based 0n predetermined criteria, decreasing the p0ssibility 0f arbitrary 0r
biased 0utc0mes. India can impr0ve its criminal justice system and pr0tect all pers0ns'
fundamental rights by learning fr0m f0reign best practices and implementing expert
advice.
The need f0r ref0rm in India's sentencing pr0cedure is evident. India may increase its
c0mmitment t0 justice, fairness, and human rights by putting measures in place that are
based 0n expert advice and internati0nal n0rms. Thr0ugh these changes, India may
create a criminal justice system that uph0lds the ideals 0f equality, dignity, and
acc0untability, resulting in a safer and m0re fair s0ciety f0r all.
[8]
