Introduction
This article comes at the backdrop of a Member of Parliament of a conspicuous national party getting a 2-year punishment in a criminal defamation matter. It is imperative to revise the law relating to aggravating and mitigating factors. The western jurisprudence on this subject is guided by several factors, such as proportionality principles and sentencing guidelines. The principle of proportionality in sentencing refers to the idea that the punishment for a crime should be proportional to the seriousness of the offence committed. This principle is rooted in the notion of fairness and justice and is a fundamental aspect of any legal system.
In order to ensure that sentences are proportional, many jurisdictions have established sentencing guidelines. These guidelines provide a framework for Judges and other decision-makers to determine appropriate sentences based on the specific circumstances of each case, including the severity of the crime and the offender’s criminal history.
Sentencing guidelines typically include a range of possible punishments for each type of offence, along with factors that should be considered when determining the appropriate sentence. These factors may include aggravating and mitigating circumstances, the offender’s personal circumstances, and any other relevant information. By providing clear and consistent guidance on how sentences should be determined, sentencing guidelines help to promote fairness and consistency in the legal system. They also help to ensure that sentences are proportionate to the severity of the crime, which is an important aspect of promoting public safety and deterrence.
For instance, Section 500 of the Penal Code, 1860 prescribes punishment for defamation. A court may sentence the offender with a simple imprisonment for a period of up to 2 years, or fine or with both. But as it appears, the court in this matter chose to prescribe a sentence of complete 2 years.
This article discusses some of these factors. There can be various reasons why similar crimes may attract different punishments for offenders. One of the reasons could be differences in the severity of the crime, where even though two crimes might appear similar on the surface, there might be nuances in the details that affect the severity of the offence. Another reason could be differences in the criminal history of the offender or the jurisdiction where the crime was committed. Additionally, aggravating or mitigating circumstances, such as premeditation or self-defence, can also impact the severity of the crime and corresponding punishment. Furthermore, bias or discrimination could also play a role in different punishments for the same crime, which is a serious issue that should be addressed and corrected. It is important for the legal system to strive for consistency and fairness in sentencing, while also considering the unique circumstances of each case.
Aggravating and mitigating factors
When two different people are given different punishments for committing similar offences, it can be perceived as unfair or unjust. However, there can be several reasons for this discrepancy. Some of the possible explanations include differences in the severity of the crime, the criminal history of the offender, the jurisdiction, the circumstances of the offence, the presence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances, and bias or discrimination.
If the difference in punishment is due to bias or discrimination, then it is a serious issue that should be addressed and corrected. The legal system should strive to be impartial and treat all individuals equally regardless of their race, ethnicity, gender, religion, or other personal characteristics.
On the other hand, if the difference in punishment is due to legitimate factors such as the severity of the crime, the criminal history of the offender, or the circumstances surrounding the offence, then it may be justified. Each case is unique, and the court must consider all relevant factors when determining an appropriate punishment. Ultimately, it is important to remember that the goal of punishment is not only to punish the offender but also to deter others from committing similar crimes. The punishment must be proportional to the offence and serve the interests of justice.
It is important for the legal system to strive for consistency and transparency in sentencing and to guard against any bias or discrimination that may lead to unequal treatment of offenders. One way to do this is to establish clear guidelines and sentencing ranges for different offences, to ensure that punishments are proportional to the seriousness of the crime and are applied consistently across different cases. Additionally, it is important to have mechanisms in place to monitor and review sentencing practices, and to provide opportunities for appeals and appeals review.
There are several other reasons why the punishment for the same crime might differ between different individuals or cases. One of the reasons is differences in the severity of the crime. While two crimes may appear to be the same on the surface, there can be nuances in the details that affect the severity of the offence. For example, two people may both be charged with theft, but one stole a small item worth Rs 50 while the other stole a valuable piece of jewellery worth Rs 10,000. The punishment for the latter offence would likely be more severe.
Another reason is differences in the criminal history of the offender. A person’s criminal history can be considered when determining a punishment. Someone who has a prior record of similar offences may receive a harsher sentence than someone who has no criminal history.
Differences in the jurisdiction can also lead to differences in punishment even for identical crimes. Different jurisdictions (such as States or countries) may have different laws and sentencing guidelines for the same crime.
The circumstances surrounding a crime can affect the punishment as well. For example, if someone committed a crime under extreme duress or coercion, the court may take that into account when deciding on a sentence. However, the presence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances can also affect the severity of a crime and the corresponding punishment.
Aggravating circumstances refer to any factors or circumstances that may increase the severity or culpability of a wrongdoing or offence. These circumstances may be considered in legal or disciplinary proceedings, such as in criminal trials or in academic misconduct cases. Examples of aggravating circumstances may include premeditation, use of a weapon or violence, involvement of minors or vulnerable individuals, or a history of similar offences. In academic settings, aggravating circumstances may include plagiarism or cheating in a particularly blatant or intentional manner.
Mitigating circumstances refer to any factors or circumstances that may lessen the severity or culpability of a wrongdoing or offence. These circumstances may be considered in legal or disciplinary proceedings, such as in criminal trials or in academic misconduct cases. Examples of mitigating circumstances may include mental illness, coercion, or duress, etc., self-defence, etc.
Case laws and conclusion
In the case of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab1, the Court established the principle that the punishment for a crime should be proportionate to the crime committed and the offender’s circumstances. This decision highlighted the need for the sentencing Judge to consider the nature of the crime, the motive, the method of commission, and the offender’s previous conduct, as well as the nature of the society and the public conscience. The Court emphasised that the sentence should not be excessively harsh or unduly lenient.
Similarly, in State of Maharashtra v. Sukhdev Singh2, the court held that while the law prescribes a maximum sentence for a particular offence, it does not mandate that sentence in every case. The court emphasised that the sentencing Judge must exercise discretion in determining the appropriate sentence based on the facts and circumstances of the case, including aggravating, and mitigating factors.
The landmark judgment in State v. T. Makwanyane3, is another example of the importance of considering the individual circumstances of each case when determining a sentence. In this case, the Constitutional Court of South Africa held that the death penalty was unconstitutional because it violated the right to life and dignity, as well as the prohibition against cruel, inhuman, and degrading punishment. The court emphasised that the punishment should be tailored to the individual offender and the crime committed, rather than being a mandatory sentence prescribed by law.
Overall, these cases emphasise the importance of considering the individual circumstances of each case when determining an appropriate sentence. Sentencing Judges must take into account the nature of the crime, the offender’s circumstances, aggravating and mitigating factors, and the principles of proportionality and fairness.
FAQs around Sentencing Policy in India
Q1- How many types of imprisonment are there in IPC?
A- The various types of punishments in the Penal Code, 1860 include simple or rigorous imprisonment for a specific term, life imprisonment, death penalty, imposition of fine and forfeiture of property.
Q2- What are the aggravating factors for sentencing in Indian legal system?
A- Crucial factors like intention of the accused at the time when such offence was committed, the extent of planning to commit offence, abuse of authority, etc. Such factors may intensify the seriousness of an offence.
Q3- What are mitigating factors in sentencing?
A- Factors which mitigate the seriousness of an offence, like absence of prior criminal record of the offender, his/her mental illness, age, etc. are categorized as mitigating factors.
Q4- What is pre-sentencing policy in India?
A- As per the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, once a person is convicted for committing an offence after duly going through the criminal trial, a Pre-Sentence Report is prepared, and the Court gives such convict a chance to be heard on the question of sentence thereby passing a sentence.
† Advocate is a practicing counsel at the Supreme Court of India, LLM in Comparative Criminal Law from McGill University, Canada and MSc, Criminology and Criminal Justice from University of Oxford. He is serving as a counsel/special counsel and consultant for several law enforcement and public sector institutions.
3. 1995 ZACC 3 : (1995) 3 SA 391.
