Sentencing Policy In India: Concept And Understanding
- IJLLR Journal
- Jan 7
- 2 min read
Nikita Begum Talukdar, Assistant Professor-Senior Scale of Law at SOL, UPES, Dehradun
1. Sentencing Policy in India: An Overview
Sentencing is the stage in the criminal justice system where the judge decides the punishment for the convict, following the conviction. This stage is crucial because it reflects society’s condemnation of the crime committed. The type of punishment chosen for a particular crime often reveals the underlying rationale of the criminal justice system.1 However, in a complex system with multiple actors, it is unrealistic to expect everyone to respond to a crime in the same way. For example, the victim may feel a stronger emotional reaction than the judge, who is detached from the situation. Similarly, the accused may believe their actions were justified, considering surrounding factors. It is in this context that judges and legal professionals are appointed to reach a balanced consensus on how to address the crime.
Before imposing a sentence, judges may seek background information about the convicted defendant. While impartiality and objectivity are essential for judges, the sentencing decision is not just about determining whether a wrong was committed but, more importantly, deciding what action should follow. There are several options, with victim-centric systems often prioritizing the restoration of the victim to their original position, typically in cases of economic crimes or torts. However, restoration is not feasible in cases of physical, emotional, or psychological harm. In these instances, the primary approaches are retribution and rehabilitation. Retribution focuses on condemning the crime, while rehabilitation seeks to reintegrate the accused into society. Deterrence, aiming to prevent future offences, is also a significant justification for punishment.
One of the problems with the current system, as outlined in the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) is the inconsistency in sentencing outcomes for similar offences. Judges are allowed to decide on the sentence after hearing the parties involved, but there is no clear guidance on which factors should influence the decision and which should be avoided.2 This gap allows judges to exercise personal discretion, which can lead to abuse in some cases, with irrelevant factors or personal biases affecting the sentence. This inconsistency is why many advocate for sentencing policies or guidelines to standardize the process and ensure fairness.
