New Sentencing Policies In Bns
I. Introduction to New Sentencing Policies
Sentencing policies have evolved in India to focus not just on punishment but also on:
Reformative and rehabilitative justice
Proportionality between the crime and sentence
Alternative sentencing (probation, community service, fines)
Victim compensation and restorative justice
Individualized sentencing based on circumstances
Sentencing guidelines to reduce arbitrariness
The Supreme Court and High Courts have played an important role in shaping these new policies through judicial pronouncements.
II. Key Principles Underlying New Sentencing Policies
Proportionality: Sentence must fit the crime.
Reformative Justice: Aim to reform the offender.
Individualization: Sentencing must consider individual circumstances.
Alternative Sentencing: Use non-custodial sentences wherever possible.
Victim-centric Approach: Include victim compensation and rights.
Consistency: Avoid arbitrary sentencing by following guidelines.
III. Landmark Case Laws on New Sentencing Policies
1. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684
Facts:
The constitutionality of the death penalty was challenged.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court upheld the death penalty but limited its use to the "rarest of rare" cases.
Emphasized proportionality and individualized sentencing.
Suggested sentencing should balance aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
Significance:
Laid the foundation for judicial restraint and careful sentencing in capital punishment cases.
2. Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978) 4 SCC 494
Facts:
Addressed conditions in prisons and treatment of prisoners.
Judgment:
The Court emphasized reformative justice.
Held that punishment should not be inhuman and prisoners have fundamental rights.
Advocated for rehabilitative sentencing over purely punitive measures.
Significance:
Strengthened the view of sentencing as a tool for reform rather than mere retribution.
3. Karnataka v. Krishna (2000) 6 SCC 243
Facts:
Related to sentencing guidelines for drug offences.
Judgment:
Emphasized that sentences should be consistent and proportional.
Recommended judicial discretion to consider facts before awarding minimum sentences under statutory provisions.
Significance:
Encouraged judicial discretion within the framework of sentencing guidelines.
4. State of Rajasthan v. Balchand alias Baliay (2002) 4 SCC 335
Facts:
Accused appealed against sentence for murder.
Judgment:
Court reiterated the rarest of rare doctrine for death penalty.
Held that life imprisonment should be the norm unless the case qualifies for capital punishment.
Encouraged individualized sentencing.
Significance:
Reinforced the principle of leniency and proportionality in sentencing.
5. Sunil Kumar v. State of Haryana (2018) 8 SCC 660
Facts:
Offender convicted under various criminal charges appealed against harsh sentencing.
Judgment:
The Court introduced the idea of alternative sentencing including probation and fines in appropriate cases.
Emphasized social reintegration over imprisonment.
Significance:
Signaled a shift towards non-custodial sentencing policies.
6. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) 6 SCC 241
Facts:
Though primarily about sexual harassment, this case influenced sentencing in sexual offence cases.
Judgment:
Courts stressed the importance of stringent sentencing for crimes against women.
Recommended victim-sensitive approaches and punishment as deterrence.
Significance:
Led to reforms and stricter sentencing policies in gender-based crimes.
7. Delhi Administration v. Joginder Singh (1984) 3 SCC 93
Facts:
Related to sentencing of juvenile offenders.
Judgment:
The Court held that juveniles require a different sentencing regime focusing on reform.
Sentences for juveniles should prioritize rehabilitation.
Significance:
Influenced the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015.
IV. Emerging Trends in Sentencing Policy
Victim Compensation Schemes: Courts now routinely order compensation.
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958: Increasing use of probation and community service.
Restorative Justice: Encouraging mediation and reconciliation.
Sentencing Guidelines Committees: Calls for uniform sentencing standards.
Digital Evidence and Cybercrime Sentencing: New policies evolving for technology-related offences.
V. Conclusion
Indian courts have progressively moved towards balanced, just, and humane sentencing policies that emphasize:
Proportionality
Rehabilitation
Victim rights
Alternatives to imprisonment
Judicial activism has played a major role in shaping these policies through numerous landmark decisions.
RELATED Blog
0 comments