Swatanter Kumar, C.J.

Sentencing is one of the most important facet of administration of criminal justice system. Apart from statutory restrictions, an appropriate sentence is a matter for the discretion of the sentencing judge. The decisions of the Courts on points of substantive law are binding on the Court itself and the Courts subordinate thereto. However, decisions on sentencing are no more than examples of how the Court has dealt with a particular offender in relation to a particular offence. In the modern times, criminal jurisprudence has developed to some extent except the principles of uniformity of sentence for a particular category of crime. But they are not authoritative in a strict sense. Limitation or curtailment of sentencing may be regulated by legislative provisions and other modes of fettering discretion in awarding of punishment may also result from principles stated by judicial pronouncement. In English and American Law, the component of justice model is the constriction of judicial discretion by the promulgation of standards with which the judge must substantially comply. The main three strategies are : (a) the enactment directly by legislature of a detailed set of principles of sentencing, indicating a normal or presumptive sentence for given classes of case, with specified aggravations and mitigations, leaving the sentencing judge very limited discretion; (b) the promulgation of standards, by a Commission composed of judges and other interested persons, which would be more detailed than a direct legislative enactment, less exposed to change but at the same time more flexible and capable of amendment in the light of experience; and (c) the evolution of guidelines based on an empirical study of current sentencing practice within the jurisdiction concerned. In most of the systems, discretion is vested with the Courts in matters of sentencing and passing other related orders. Continuous efforts are made to avoid disparity of sentencing as individualization of sentencing will naturally undermine uniformity of sentencing practice and would create disharmony detrimental to public confidence. Under the penal system, discretion is exercised by the Courts awarding sentence. (Ref: Sentencing and the Penal System Text and Materials by Christopher Harding and Laurence Koffman published by Sweet and Maxwell, (London) 1988).

2. The English Sentencing System points out that the aim of the penal system is to reduce crime by making as many people as possible who want to obey criminal law. The two stated objects for general practice of punishment would justify such a policy if there is reduction of crime and promotion of respect for criminal law. Historically the instinctive reaction to criminal act is retaliation by the injured person expressing his resentment or hostility towards the criminal and his conduct. Punishment for such an offence thus became the essence of any organized state to maintain the rule of law. The notion of `Just deserts' or the sentence proportionate to the offender's culpability was the principle which, by passage of time, became applicable to criminal jurisprudence. For an offender to receive a sentence which adequately reflects the gravity of his offence, the punishment ought not to be so lenient and should not be heavier than that justified by the offence. The sentence must not be too long or excessive. Lord Denning, while giving evidence to the Royal Commission on capital punishment, stated:

“The ultimate justification of any punishment is not that it is deterrent but that its emphatic denunciation by the community of a crime.”

The term `Sentencing' is used in its generic sense. A criminal trial may result in either acquittal or conviction. In the event of conviction, punishment, with or without other measures, is the logical end of a criminal trial. It imposes not only a discretion but also a great responsibility on the Courts administering criminal justice system and sentencing