Punishment and sentencing: The good, the bad, and the ugly.

Abstract

This article aims to explore in detail the flagrant inconsistencies and lack of structure that plague the sentencing process followed by the Indian judiciary, with a focus on the sentencing practices under Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, i.e., Sections 304(1) and 304(2) of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code by various High Courts. By way of a detailed analysis of cases from the High Courts of Madras, Madhya Pradesh, Bombay and Punjab & Haryana within the span of 10 years (2010-2020), the author seeks to establish the lack of coherence and predictability in the Indian sentencing framework. This lacuna establishes glaring disparities in the treatment and consequences faced by similarly placed offenders. Further, it negatively impacts the credibility in the exercise of judicial discretion while determining the punishment to be meted out to an offender. The study undertaken by the author on the aforementioned case law unveils the fact that while a marginal number of cases involve the furnishing of reasoning behind sentencing decisions by the courts, a majority of the cases is marred by arbitrary and unstructured decision making. Courts often ignore the aggravating and mitigating factors that govern the offending conduct and the offender while deciding on a sentence. The author aims to highlight that these inadequacies imbibe the development of jurisprudence which is rooted in randomness, instead of establishing a methodical and principled approach towards sentencing. The article aims to furnish the urgent need for the Indian judiciary to adopt a uniform sentencing policy that creates a much-needed balance between the punishment imposed and the nature of the offence committed, while mandating the provision of clear reasoning for every act of exercise of judicial discretion regarding sentencing matters.