India: Discretion In sentencing – A Critique

Last Updated: 20 May 2004
Article by Ruchika Sukh

Today, I am strongly of the opinion that criminal courts have achieved greater success in its fact-finding and law applying ability than its sentence inflicting function. Excellence in the former functions springs primarily from its unemotional, painstaking and objective approach, and its relative failure in choosing appropriate punishment, in the new context of the penology, arises from its emotional, expeditious and subjective reaction to the established offence and to the convicted criminal.

This approach to punishment did not matter in Blackstonian age. In the new developing ideas, the functioning of the court as a punishing authority, as distinct from its guilt finding authority, is a complicated art requiring the proper balancing of the several purposes of the criminal law such as retribution, deterrence, prevention, reformation and social rehabilitation of the offender. Traditional sentencing practices are not well suited to deal with crimes when they are regarded as behavioural problems and when a casual attitude replaces reliance on fear, blameworthiness and deterrence.

Judges can no longer afford to give to give only a few minutes to fixing the sentence; this demands now as much devotion and thought as guilt finding part of their function. "Thus for some offenders one purpose predominates, for other offenders other purposes will be in the forefront of the judge’s mind. In my view the essence of the aim of punishment is the concept of individualisation. Some criminals will hope to treat, some to deter, some to put in warehouse (for protective segregation); but to all we will seek to apply individually appropriate punishment. It is the blending of the means of expressing all these purposes into the punishment of the individual criminal that is the courts extremely difficult task". This can no longer be achieved by little attention being paid to this side by the court.

Illogical variations in punishments and non-attachment of importance to all relevant factors in determination of sentence have brought the courts under criticism. It is considered that the bench frequently lacks sufficient information and knowledge of the personality of the offender and the social group in which he lives, to be able to impose a rational sentence on him.

This involves two propositions - firstly; that the bench has at its disposal very little information regarding the offender, and secondly that it does not make the best use of such information as is available. One of the factors responsible is that we are all prisoners of our own personalities and one piece of evidence that the judge comes to attach greater importance in deciding what sentence to impose is his own reaction to the prisoner observed during the trial. Once an Additional Sessions Judge remarked that the whole bearing of the accused in the court indicates whether there is a chance for his reformation or not. Demeanour of the accused in the courtroom is given significant importance. It is however submitted that one piece of information which should, so far as possible, be excluded from the judge’s decision is the prisoners demeanour in the court. The more training and experience that one may acquire in psychology and sociology, the less one would rely on such deductions. But the judges rely upon these deductions with no formalised training in the assessment of personality. Thus illogical variations in punishments under these circumstances are more or less bound to be there.

If the discretion given to the judge in the matter of individualising punishment is to be effectively exercised, additional fact finding processes have to be resorted to by the judge. On theory, the problem of this pre-sentence examination of offenders was discussed in 1847 at Brussels, Congress of the International Penal and Penitentiary Commission. None dissented from the proposition that pre-sentence examination was an essential preliminary to a rational sentence for many types of criminals. The matter came up before the Indian Jail Committee also and it was stated: "Objection to this is that apart from duplication of the work which is involved, it would be too early to judge of the effect of conviction and of the yet unpronounced sentence on the accused." In some states of America an attempt has been made to get this over this difficulty by appointing in every court an officer. His duty is, after the prisoner’s guilt has been established to make inquiries and to furnish the judge with information including a report on his mental condition, which will enable to award punishment wisely and equitably.

The system is said to work satisfactorily in the USA although even there it was admitted attempts had been made, though unsuccessful, to influence the courts officers in favour of or against the prisoner. In this country I do not think that such a system would have any chance of success. The many religious and social cleavages that exist in India would inevitably lead to unevenness in the officer’s reports even if direct corruption could be guarded against, and I do not think that it would be wise to imitate the American system in this respect. At the same time, it does seem possible that more might be done seem possible that more might be done specially through the instrumentality of the public prosecutor, generally a vakil of long standing position to lay before the court after the question of the prisoners guilt has been determined such reliable information as would enable the court to adjust its sentence to needs of the case.

I feel that another criticism of this system is that the judge lacks sufficient information and knowledge of the penal system, which carries out its sentence, and of the effects of different types of punishments on different types of offenders. They have no liaison with prison authorities and there is no system of their regular visits to jails to see as to what facilities are available there and how the offenders are being treated and with what results. Accordingly no knowledge of the actual working of punishments and their effectiveness is available to courts. It is therefore necessary that some system of closer liaison between the judiciary and the penal authorities should be developed to meet with the criticism.

The next shortcoming, I believe is that the individual personality of the judge or the magistrate plays too large a part in the assessment of punishment; for example whether a given offender goes to jail for a protracted or retributive sentence or receives remedial treatment while living in the community often depends on the chance of which court happens to sentence him. There is, in other words, too great an illogical and fortuitous variation between sentences. It is undeniable that the courts have failed to develop any definite theory bearing on the task of sentencing. Reasons are rarely given for the sentences, which are imposed. If these were articulated it would have led to a rationalisation of sentencing since the sentencers would have to indicate the considerations, which in their view justified their decisions. This would have prevented them from being influenced by emotional reactions to the offender. This would also have lead to more consistency in sentencing policy.

In such a state of affairs of dissimilarities in the awards and illogicalities of punishments, bound, as these are to create distrust in the public and bickering and frustration in the mind of the offender, two types of suggestions have come to my mind for remedying the situation. First is that the judge should decide only guilty part of the offence and sentencing part should be attended to by a Sentencing Board comprising of Experts. This suggestion has not only been given by some of our modern day learned judges but is also said to be one which was known to our ancient law-givers and which has been quoted in Mrichhakatika, namely that the decision of the guilt or innocence is the function of the judge and the determination of sentence is for the king or the State.

Determination of sentence by ‘Board of Experts’ after making thorough checks of the offender and his back history is surely placing the offender in better hands from rehabilitative angle. However, being an administrative board, it cannot always be relied upon for objectivity of purpose and impartiality and unemotionality, which the public has come to expect from the judicial bodies. The danger of abuse of power by this executive body cannot be ruled out. Though the courts have developed means of protecting the individual who stands charged before them against the power of the State, they have not yet built up effective techniques of supervising administrative tyranny when that individual is a criminal. Shifting of this work from courts to sentencing Board is not yet readily acceptable proposition. Otherwise also, volume of work will require many boards and we have not so many experts for constituting them. The scheme does not therefore remain practicable at this stage on account of dearth of experts needed for it.

The other suggestion I put forward is one, which is also in line with views of some criminologists. Which is that there should be indeterminate sentence and cases should be reviewed from time to time and release ordered on the basis of progress achieved by the offender. At international level, the matter of indeterminate sentences came up before Cincinnati Conference 1870 and it was concluded that instead of pre-emptory sentences there should be indeterminate sentence. It was also recommended in Second international Congress of Comparative Law held at Hague in 1937 by a resolution "That the time of detention should be capable of being shortened or prolonged as a result of the consideration of a report on the progress of the recidivist made by some competent authority".

The indeterminate sentence is an effort to make punishment truly reformative. Its theory is that one who has been guilty of serious infraction of the criminal law should be imprisoned for such time as is necessary to cure him of his anti-social tendencies and should then be conditionally released on parole, with adequate supervision for such time as is necessary to restore him to the normal life of law abiding citizens of the community. Since it is impossible to forecast what term of imprisonment and supervision may be necessary to accomplish this result, sentence is not to be for a definite term but for such time as may necessary to rehabilitate the offender and to restore him to his place in the society.

In order, however, not to lose the beneficent effect which indeterminate sentence offers, and at the same time availing of the sprit of impartiality which the courts have and to which the public opinion attaches much value, I am of the view that when it is felt by the court that an accused deserves imprisonment, it should call for pre-sentence report through probation authorities and on basis thereof fix the maximum period of sentence considered necessary. By requiring pre-sentence report before the courts order maximum term of imprisonment, old system of arbitrary orders without having adequate knowledge of the personality and circumstances of the offender vanishes. The information furnished will be sufficient to justify decision as to whether there should be sentence of imprisonment; it may not be sufficient to take decision about exact date of release and that does not matter as the court is being expected only to fix the maximum period of detention and not the exact date of discharge. In so far as the court fixes maximum period, the object of deterrence would also be sufficiently served by this original sentence. The protection of the society will be secured by the indeterminate nature of sentence, termination being adjusted to reformative needs and response in the individual case. As the court shall do sentencing, the public’s demand about the sentencer’s impartiality too will be met.

Further, in this case, determination of exact period of detention has been left to a tribunal having a judge as its member, and since this is to be done on a reference made to a tribunal having a judge as its member, fear of tyranny of the executive body is properly safeguarded against. As this reference is to be after a certain specified period, this time should be sufficient for training or treatment and will enable collection of adequate information about all factors of personality of the offender as also about his response to the prison programme chalked out for him. This will enable the Tribunal to take a rational and calculated decision about correct period of imprisonment.

The court itself will determine sentence of fine and probation under the scheme. Since in cases not calling for imprisonment for specified time or more imprisonment is not to be imposed, a large number of cases will be disposed of by the court and the Tribunal will not be required to deal with rush of cases. Therefore, many Tribunals wouldn’t be required in a state. Problem of available experts also wouldn’t come in the way of work. The load of work not being very heavy, dealing will not become just a routine; proper individualisation will become a reality and quantum of punishment required for an individual prisoner will no more find illogicalities. This will pacify much of the criticism, which is today being put at the door of the court.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions