"Sentencing Policy Cannot Be Judge-Centric": Supreme Court Urges Centre To Consider Introducing Comprehensive Sentencing Policy
The Supreme Court has urged the Central Government to consider introducing a comprehensive sentencing policy.
The Court said that it should never be judge-centric as the society has to know the basis of a sentence.
The Bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice SVN Bhatti observed that "A decision of a Judge in sentencing, would vary from person to person. This will also vary from stage to stage. It is controlled by the mind. The environment and the upbringing of a Judge would become the ultimate arbiter in deciding the sentence. A Judge from an affluent background might have a different mindset as against a Judge from a humble one. A female Judge might look at it differently, when compared to her male counterpart. An Appellate Court might tinker with the sentence due to its experience, and the external factors like institutional constraints might come into play. Certainly, there is a crying need for a clear sentencing policy, which should never be judge-centric as the society has to know the basis of a sentence."
In a case involving the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, the trial was completed in a single day, and the judgment was delivered on the same day. The accused was not given sufficient time to prepare a defense. Two days after the judgment, a sentencing hearing was held, and the accused was awarded the death penalty.
The High Court reviewed the records thoroughly and found non-compliance with Sections 207, 226, 227, and 230 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973. Consequently, the High Court set aside the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court and ordered a de novo trial. The High Court also criticized the approach adopted by the trial court.
Following the High Court's decision, two criminal appeals were filed before the Supreme Court: one by the informant challenging the merits of the High Court's decision and the other by the trial court judge contesting the High Court's observations about the judge's conduct.
The Apex Court observed that the concept of intuitive sentencing is against the rule of law. In that context, the Court further said that, "A Judge can never have unrestrictive and unbridled discretion, based upon his conscience formed through his understanding of the society, without there being any guidelines in awarding a sentence. The need for adequate guidelines for exercising sentencing discretion, avoiding unwanted disparity, is of utmost importance."
It was subsequently observed that since the issue of sentencing is an extremely complex one, there must be conscious discussion and debate, which might require constituting an appropriate Commission on Sentencing consisting of various experts and stakeholders.
Cause Title: Sunita Devi vs The State of Bihar & Anr.
Click here to read/download the Judgment
