Proportionality In Sentencing Under Bns
What is Proportionality in Sentencing?
Proportionality in sentencing means the punishment imposed by the court should be commensurate with the gravity of the offence and the offender’s culpability. It ensures that sentences are neither excessively harsh nor unduly lenient relative to the crime committed.
Why is Proportionality Important?
Upholds fairness and justice in criminal law.
Prevents arbitrariness and abuse of judicial discretion.
Balances the interests of society and the rights of the accused.
Ensures sentencing aligns with retributive and deterrent goals of punishment.
Provisions under BNS Related to Sentencing
The BNS consolidates and codifies sentencing principles emphasizing proportionality:
Section 75 BNS: Courts must consider the nature of the offence, circumstances of the offender, and impact on victims.
Section 76 BNS: Mandates consideration of mitigating and aggravating factors.
Section 78 BNS: Encourages alternative sentencing options like probation and fines for lesser offences.
Section 80 BNS: Courts must record reasons for imposing a sentence deviating from prescribed minimum or maximum limits.
Key Case Laws on Proportionality in Sentencing
1. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 898
Facts: The case dealt with constitutionality of the death penalty.
Holding: Supreme Court held that the death penalty must be imposed only in the “rarest of rare” cases where the alternative option of life imprisonment is unquestionably foreclosed.
Principle: The proportionality principle limits the death penalty to only the gravest crimes.
Impact: Landmark judgment emphasizing that sentencing must be proportionate to the crime’s severity and societal impact.
2. Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1978 SC 1675
Facts: A habeas corpus petition challenging inhuman treatment of prisoners.
Holding: The Supreme Court underscored that punishment must be fair, just, and proportionate to the offence.
Principle: Cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment violates constitutional guarantees.
Application: Courts must ensure humane sentencing, respecting proportionality.
3. Mithu v. State of Punjab, AIR 1983 SC 473
Facts: Death sentence imposed under mandatory provisions for drug trafficking.
Holding: Supreme Court struck down mandatory death sentences as unconstitutional because they negate judicial discretion to consider proportionality.
Principle: Sentencing must be individualized, reflecting proportionality to facts.
Impact: Proportionality demands discretion and consideration of circumstances before imposing harsh punishments.
4. Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1958 SC 465
Facts: A murder case with circumstantial evidence.
Holding: Court held that the punishment must fit the crime, with due regard to mitigating factors.
Principle: Even in serious offences, proportionality requires consideration of intent, motive, and circumstances.
Application: Courts should weigh all factors before sentencing.
5. Union of India v. V. Sriharan (Afzal Guru Case), (2015) 7 SCC 186
Facts: Terrorism-related offences leading to death penalty.
Holding: Supreme Court affirmed death penalty after considering the nature of the offence and impact.
Principle: Proportionality principle justifies the death penalty in terror cases with mass casualties.
Significance: Shows proportionality as balancing punishment severity and social harm.
6. Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 3 SCC 773
Facts: Drug trafficking case.
Holding: Court emphasized sentencing must consider proportionality, especially in mandatory sentencing regimes.
Principle: Sentencing discretion essential for proportionality.
Impact: Courts must balance severity of punishment with offender’s circumstances.
7. Tukaram S. Dighole v. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 4 SCC 329
Facts: Murder case with mitigating circumstances.
Holding: Court reduced sentence considering proportionality between crime gravity and punishment.
Principle: Proportionality allows for balancing mitigating and aggravating factors.
Outcome: Exemplifies judicial moderation respecting proportionality.
Summary Table: Proportionality Principles Under BNS and Case Law
| Principle | Explanation & Case Law Examples |
|---|---|
| Rarest of rare doctrine | Death penalty only in extreme cases (Bachan Singh) |
| Judicial discretion | Mandatory sentences unconstitutional (Mithu case) |
| Mitigating & aggravating factors | Courts must weigh all circumstances (Virsa Singh, Tukaram) |
| Humane punishment | No cruel or excessive sentencing (Sunil Batra) |
| Balancing crime gravity & impact | Sentencing reflects social harm (Afzal Guru case) |
| Individualized sentencing | Each case requires proportional punishment (Bariyar case) |
Conclusion
Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the principle of proportionality in sentencing is firmly embedded to ensure that punishments are fair, just, and commensurate with the offence’s gravity and offender’s circumstances. The judiciary has consistently upheld this principle, striking down mandatory harsh punishments, and emphasizing judicial discretion and individualized sentencing.
The case laws discussed above form the bedrock of proportionality jurisprudence, guiding courts to impose sentences that serve justice while protecting human dignity and constitutional guarantees.
RELATED Blog
0 comments