how punishment is decided

1. The Act and the sections therein, prescribes the minimum & maximum Fine /Imprisonment for a convicted person, which is at the discretion of the Trial Judge,

Keep Smiling .... Hemant Agarwal
VISIT: www.chshelpforum.com

....after going into facts of the case and evidence.

What are the facts? Is there any specific issue suggested by those facts?

state facts in a clear and proper manner

In India neither the legislature nor the judiciary has issued structured sentencing guidelines.  Several governmental committees have pointed to the need to adopt such guidelines in order to minimize uncertainty in awarding sentences.  The higher courts, recognizing the absence of such guidelines, have provided judicial guidance in the form of principles and factors that courts must take into account while exercising discretion in sentencing.

 Indian Penal Code prescribed offences and punishments for the same.  For many offences only the maximum punishment is prescribed and for some offences the minimum may be prescribed.  The Judge has wide discretion in awarding the sentence within the statutory limits.  There is now no guidance to the Judge in regard to selecting the most appropriate sentence given the circumstances of the case.

Therefore each Judge exercises discretion accordingly to his own judgment.  There is therefore no uniformity.  Some Judges are lenient and some Judges are harsh

 In some countries guidance regarding sentencing option[s] is given in the penal code and sentencing guideline laws.  There is need for such law in our country to minimise uncertainty to the matter of awarding sentence.  There are several factors which are relevant in prescribing the alternative sentences.  This requires a thorough examination by an expert statutory body.

In 2008, the Supreme Court of India, in State of Punjab v. Prem Sagar & Ors., also noted the absence of judiciary-driven guidelines in India’s criminal justice system, stating, “[i]n our judicial system, we have not been able to develop legal principles as regards sentencing.  The superior courts[,] except [for] making observations with regard to the purport and object for which punishment is imposed upon an offender, had not issued any guidelines.

The Court stated that the superior courts have come across a large number of cases that “show anomalies as regards the policy of sentencing,” adding, “whereas the quantum of punishment for commission of a similar type of offence varies from minimum to maximum, even where [the] same sentence is imposed, the principles applied are found to be different.  Similar discrepancies have been noticed in regard to imposition of fine.

In 2013 the Supreme Court, in the case of Soman v. State of Kerala, also observed the absence of structured guidelines:

Giving punishment to the wrongdoer is at the heart of the criminal justice delivery, but in our country, it is the weakest part of the administration of criminal justice.  There are no legislative or judicially laid down guidelines to assist the trial court in meting out the just punishment to the accused facing trial before it after he is held guilty of the charges

However, in describing India’s sentencing approach the Court has also asserted that the impossibility of laying down standards is at the very core of the Criminal law as administered in India, which invests the Judges with a very wide discretion in the matter of fixing the degree of punishment.

In State of M.P. v. Bablu Natt, the Supreme Court stated that “the principle governing imposition of punishment would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.  An offence which affects the morale of the society should be severely dealt with.