Vaishakh Krushna Panchami
New Delhi: Do contrasting punishments awarded by courts to the accused in identical crimes spring questions in your mind – Why is it that in rape cases, sentences range from 2 years to 10 years? Why is it that in identical cases, an accused gets bail and the other does not?
Acknowledging, for the first time, the growing criticism of non-uniformity in sentences awarded by courts, SC admitted that the anamoly in quantum of punishment has arisen mainly because "we have not been able to develop legal principles as regards sentencing".
A Bench comprising justices S. B. Sinha and V. S. Sirpurkar blamed the SC and HCs for non-development of a legal principle regarding sentencing after going through numerous SC judgments and the research on this subject done in the US, UK and other countries to identify the grey area.
"The superior courts except making observations with regard to the purport and object for which punishment is imposed upon an offender, had not issued any guidelines," it said, and admitted that other developed countries had done so.
Justice Sinha, writing for the judgment, noted that the law – Indian Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code – had laid down several considerations for the courts to consider several aspects to arrive at the correct punishment that should be awarded to a convict.
Whether the court in awarding a sentence is to take recourse to the principle of deterrence or reform or invoke the doctrine of proportionality, would depend on facts and circumstances of each case, nature of offence, effect on public health, etc, all of which confer a wide discretion on the judge, which should be exercised judiciously, the bench said.
However, the law does not tell the courts or the judges what would be the right punishment in cases that affect society, the bench said.
To what extent should the judges have discretion to reduce the sentence prescribed under the statute has remained a vexed question, the SC said.
Source: timesofindia.indiatimes.com
