Share :
SENTENCING PATTERNS IN INDIA’S LEGAL SYSTEM
Punishing the wrongdoer and treating him appropriately is one of the vital functions of the criminal justice administration. Penal statutes prescribe punishment for an offence, leaving the discretion to the courts to determine the quantum of sentence that can be imposed on the offender. In India, the legislation governing the legal code and the system of sentencing and punishment is the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”). It was replaced by Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita in December 2023.
SENTENCING PATTERN IN INDIA
In India, there is no uniform policy for sentencing, but the sentencing depends upon the individual philosophy of the judges. Section 53 of the IPC has divided punishments into various kinds based on the theories of punishment that a court of law can give to a wrongdoer while awarding punishment which includes death penalty, imprisonment for life, rigorous imprisonment or simple imprisonment, forfeiture of property and fine.
The theories of punishment suggest that there are four possible goals for punishment: retribution, prevention, reformation, and deterrence. But every offence under the IPC only provides for maximum and minimum punishment and not an adequate amount of punishment.
RULES AND REGULATIONS APPLIED AT THE TIME OF PUNISHMENT
- In the case of an offender apart from a juvenile, a Magistrate, under section 29 of The Code of Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C”). may pass a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or fine not exceeding ten thousand rupees or both.
- It is important to note that under the categories of offence, the punishment prescribed is more than the above prescribed limit. However, while passing sentences in such cases, the magistrate cannot exceed the sentencing limits, but he has an option under section 325P.C. to forward the accused to the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
- Under section 235 of C.r.P.C., the Court may hear the accused on the question of sentence before passing judgement and section 235(2) provides for the consideration of factors such as the nature of the offences and the character of the offender while determining the sentence.
- Section 361 of the code contains the principles to be observed in sentencing juvenile offenders and the court must record a special reason in its judgement if it has dealt with an accused person under section 360.
These sections play a crucial role in guiding the sentencing process and ensuring that justice is administered fairly and in accordance with the law.
In the case of Gurbachan Singh vs. Satpal Singh the court stated that by relying more on the benefit of the doubt and setting the suspect free, it would not be right to say that justice is served to the victim. It is true that it is better to let a hundred guilty escape than to award the punishment to an innocent.
INCONSISTENCY IN AWARDING PUNISHMENTS
In the case of Shivaji Chintappa Patil v. State of Maharashtra the accused was convicted by both the Sessions Court and High Court under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code based on a flawed medical examination. The Supreme Court of India reviewed the case and found that the prosecution had not proven the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court noted that homicidal hangings usually involve more than one person, except in specific circumstances like the victim being very weak or drugged. Consequently, the Supreme Court overturned the lower courts’ convictions and acquitted the accused of all charges.
In the Kathua rape case, an 8-year-old minor girl was raped in a temple periodically and after she was abducted. The heinous crime, in this case, was nowhere less than the Nirbhaya rape case. However, in the Nirbhaya rape case, the court awarded the accused with death sentence, while in this case, the court allowed only a life sentence.
The Supreme Court affirmed the reality that the superior court often comes across several cases which display irregularities regarding the sentencing policy. It is likewise mentioned that ninety percent of the trial court judgments are overturned by the superior courts and the reason behind this is the absence of a consistent approach to sentencing.
The three different approaches by the three courts show the ambiguity and uncertainty in the sentencing policy of India.
SUMMARY
Imposing appropriate punishments on criminals is the way adopted by the courts to respond to society’s demand for justice. Serving justice means that the court should impose punishment in a way that should reflect public abhorrence of the crime. The courts, while imposing punishment, keep in mind a lot of factors, i.e. rights of the accused, the rights of the victim, and the public at large. Also, giving undue sympathy to any of the parties to the case would harm the criminal justice system. Therefore, it becomes the duty of the court to impose appropriate sentences on the accused, keeping in mind the gravity of the offence, and other relevant factors used to determine the quantum of punishment.
HOW WE CAN HELP?
- Our legal team decodes India’s legal system to formulate effective strategies for every unique circumstances.
- Our advocates defend rights, challenging disparities and advocating for equitable sentencing outcomes.
- Our experts offer empathetic guidance, ensuring that one can understand every option and feel supported.
For more information or queries, please email us at
[email protected]
