Lack of uniformity in Sentencing in India

• The criminal justice system of a nation will subject to contempt and mockery if the punishment imposed for committing a crime is unjust and disproportionate. Indian statutes and judicial precedents provide for sentencing mechanism nevertheless, we currently lack a formal framework of standardized sentencing guidelines. Governments have named various panels to suggest recommendations to reduce the ambiguity existing in the sentencing but all has gone in vain.

• Supreme Court also in Ambi Ram vs. State of Uttarakhand held that determining the adequacy of sentence is as difficult as evolving a uniform sentencing policy. In general prudence, punishment should be equivalent to the crime. One way of ensuring equality is to repeat what the offender has done with roles reversed. The courts must ensure proper and proportionate sentencing because the implementation of insufficient penalties will drive the victim to private vengeance having no faith in the judicial system.

• Life of a person cannot be scooted to the judicial discretion without legislative backing. Supreme Court also has observed that the desire to curb the sentencing discretion of a judge within exhaustive standards is impractical but it is not impossible to lay down standardized framework of sentencing guidelines to minimize uncertainty. 

INSUFFICIENT MECHANISM FOR SENTENCING:-

• In 2003, the Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice System headed by Justice Malimath outlined the need for sentencing rules to reduce ambiguity in the award of sentences. The penal code provides forth only maximum punishment or only minimum punishment for many offences. This leads to uncertainty in mind of judge delivering the sentence.

•  Further, in 2008, the Committee on Draft National Policy on Criminal Justice headed by Mr. Madhava Menon reaffirmed the need for substantive sentencing rules. Supreme Court of India has also observed the non-establishment of the fundamental standards related to punishment and the inconsistency in sentencing. Factors taken into consideration while sentencing, rest on vague terms. What is aggravating or mitigating for one judge need not to be the same for the other judge. The disparity in the efficiency in the sentencing procedure of the criminal justice system contributes to substantial difference in the outcome of case. The courts have held that the punishment should be corresponding to the crime and should act as soothing balm to suffering of the victim and its family.

•  In some countries like USA and UK, guidance regarding sentencing is given in the penal code or in the sentencing guideline laws.

• In Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, the Apex Court stressed upon the need of sentencing guidelines and considered the provisions in other countries regarding sentencing, which could be incorporated by legislature in India to oust the existing non-uniformity and ambiguity.

• The Supreme Court later in Soman v. State of Kerala reaffirmed the absence of structured sentencing guidelines and held that though granting punishment is fundamental aspect of the criminal justice system yet we lack proper management owing to the absence of procedural or judicial standards. Too much of discretion can lead to misconduct and can open the room for judges to manipulate personal preferences.

 FACTORS CONSIDERED WHILE SENTENCING:

• In order to establish the guilt of accused several factors play a very vital role. The report of 47th Law Commission specifically talked about the factors such as the nature of offence, the mitigating or aggravating facts, the prior criminal antecedents of the offender, the age and mental condition of the offender and the prospect for the rehabilitation of the offender playing a very vital role in reaching to a decision.

• In Dhananjay Chatterjee vs. State of West Bengal, the court ruled that the quantum of punishment depends upon the atrocity of the crime, the conduct of the criminal and the unprotected state of the victim. Justice demands that courts should impose punishment fitting to the crime.

• In Alister Anthony Pareira vs. State of Maharashtra, the court held that sentencing a criminal to reasonable and equitable punishment is the very genesis of criminal law.

• In Lehna vs. State of Haryana, the Supreme Court held that without a straight jacket formulation, a strong degree of continuity and uniformity in the sentencing process is impossible.

• In Shailesh Jasvantbhai vs. State of Gujarat,the Hon'ble Apex Court held that sentence should be based on factual matrix. Nevertheless, the judge decides the period of the punishment for the given facts of case, which leads to uncertainty in sentencing. However, sometimes in spite of the similarities in the cases, there remains difference in quantum of punishment.

• In State of UP vs. Sanjay, the apex court held, “Undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law”.

• In State of Karnataka vs. Raju,the court opined that while deciding appropriate punishment the offender’s or the victim's socio-economic position, ethnicity, sex, caste or faith are insignificant factors. Hence, it is expected from the courts to provide sentence reflecting the conscience of the society.

AMBIGUITY IN PROVIDING FOR DEATH PENALTY:-

• In regards to capital punishment, courts follow judge-centric sentencing rather than principled sentencing. The Indian judiciary never has been unanimous in incorporating capital punishment. Different judges may have different ideologies. Justice Krishna Iyer once said, “Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future”, which is reflective of his reformative ideology towards the criminal, whereas Justice Arijit Pasayat is known for awarding death penalties. Therefore, absence of guidelines vests life of the criminal in the hands of judge adjudicating the matter.

• Due to lack of consistency, death penalty is imposed in some of the cases of murder while the other having similar nature or gravity are spared from death penalty. This asymmetric pattern of sentencing presents poor reflection of the Criminal justice system, which needs to be remedied with immediate effect.

• In India, around 35,000 cases of rape are filed every year where victims even lose their life but death penalty was awarded only in one such cases, the Nirbhaya case. A question still lingers whether this Death penalty was the result of nationwide protest or the product of criminal justice system, whether it did not result in injustice to the other women, upon whom same offence was committed. Whether it was not injustice to the convicts of Nirbhaya case who were given death penalty unlike their counterparts, who committed the same offence but were not penalized in such stringent manner. This non uniformity in sentencing is not only limited to rape but also to other offences under IPC.

• In Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab, Supreme Court enunciating humanitarian approach held that court could impose death sentence only if there are special reasons. The court held that death penalty could be given only in the rarest of rare cases but it failed to lay down the criteria to determine rarest of the rare case.

• In Macchi Singh vs. State of Punjab, the court dealt with aggravating and mitigating circumstances but it failed to address their identification thus rendering these factors ambiguous.

• In Sangeet vs. State of Haryana, court held that considering mitigating and aggravating factors is outdated as these factors are distinct and hence needs a review. The sentencing process involves a subjective element making it impossible for Courts to lay down a straight jacket judicial formula for imposition of a particular sentence.

VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 AND 21:-

• The equality before law and equal protection of law is not only limited to executive action which enforce law on ground but also it is applicable to courts and tribunals where justice is administered. Article 14 allows reasonable classification based on intelligible differentia, which distinguishes a person or the things grouped together from the rest and it must have achieved. The sentences awarded by judges may be different owing to wide discretion meted on them. Two Persons committing the same offence with similar facts and circumstances may have a drastic difference in sentences. This in itself tantamount the violation of Article 14.

• In Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India, the court held that right to life does not mean mere animal existence but includes every aspect of life that makes life liveable. Further, Supreme Court interpreted “Access to Justice” as facet of right to life under Article 21. Justice Krishna Iyer regarded “access to justice” as the basic human right, which is inalienable and cannot be neglected.

• The Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Ajeet Singh,defined justice as an act of rendering right and equitable towards one who has suffered a wrong. Justice is said to be done when a person is awarded with just and fair sentence for the crime committed. Justice needs to be done not only to the victim and its family but also to convict and its family. The convict should not be sentenced more than what the crime deserves, otherwise it will amount to injustice and would hamper his Fundamental Right under Article 21.

• One of the reasons of providing punishment is to sooth the victim and their family. Thereby, lesser punishment than the required one will be injustice to the victim and his family and will violate their right under Article 21. Hence, the absence of guidelines not only creates ambiguity but also violates fundamental right of the victim and convicts.

CONCLUSION:-

• Currently, neither the legislature nor the courts in India have laid any structured guidelines on criminal sentencing. Sentencing in India poses a big challenge that needs to be solved by encompassing the diverse views of reformative, deterrent and retributive theories of punishment. Owing to the impossibility of law to anticipate the exactness of the punishment, the judges have been vested with greater flexibility for using their discretion.

• Crimes if left unpunished raises question on the inconsistency of criminal justice system. Nevertheless, more efforts should be made towards uniformity in determining responsibility of judges and delivering punishments. The sentencing guidelines should be dependent on the facts and circumstances of the case and rationalised judicial discretion. The apex court has also highlighted the existing irregularities in the sentencing policy while delivering many judgements.

• The requirement of well-defined guidance on awarding of sentences is crucial to reduce inconsistency. The Indian judiciary needs to undergo reformation to remove prevalent inconsistencies in Sentencing. These guidelines if laid down will definitely address individualisation of punishment and minimise the uncertainties in India. Although it may be difficult to draft, such guidelines but the legislature should recognize the obstacles in criminal justice system. Sentencing guidelines is need of the hour to as its absence not only creates uncertainty but also breaches Article 14 & Article 21 of the constitution of India.

=======================