The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of deterrence in sentencing and the impact of inadequate sentences on the justice system.

The petition at the instance of the injured in C.C. 184/84 in the court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Cochin is to 'enhance the sentence'. Court below found that on 17-6-83 at 11.30 p.m., respondents in furtherance of their common intention trespassed into the property of first petitioner and caused grievous hurt to him, requiring hospitalisation for about four weeks (committing) offences punishable under Ss. 447, 323, 324 and 326 read with S. 34 IPC. First petitioner, inter alia, sustained a fracture of the nasal bone. The Magistrate thought that a sentence of imprisonment till the rising of court would meet the ends of justice; petitioners thought otherwise, and moved this court under S. 482 of the Code. Counsel for accused-respondents submitted that the case be remitted to the trial court for imposing an appropriate sentence instead of revising in calendar.

2. A question of importance touching an area of extreme sensitivity arises for consideration. Sentencing policy is of vital importance in the dispensation of criminal law, and its resonant timbre determines the quality of sentencing jurisprudence.

3. Criminal law has a social purpose to achieve and, it is in the realms of corrective jurisprudence. In the words of Roscoe Pound:

"Law regulates social interests, arbitrates conflicting interests, claims and demands. Criminal law reflects the wishes of interest groups".

Friedman (Law in Changing Society) observed:

"State of criminal law continues to be - as it should be - a decisive reflection of social consciousness of a society".

Jerome Hall (Studies in Jurisprudence and Criminal Theory) states:

"Security of person and property of all citizen is an essential requisite of good Government, and this can be achieved through the instrumentality of criminal law".

4. Having brought into sharp focus, the norms of criminal justicing system, its modalities and the manner in which sentencing system should be oriented should be considered. The corrective machinery makes itself felt through its sentencing process, by deft modulation of sentences, stern where it should be, and tempered with mercy where it warrants to be. This is an area where precise scales or evaluation standards are not available. A computerised situation cannot be thought of. Changing vicissitudes have reigned the sentencing scene. From a draconian sentencing process which led to the hanging of a 9 year old girl in the 16th century, extreme attitudes of reformation and curative process had gained currency. But sanctions have always evoked responses. As Jack Gibbs in "Crime Punishment and Deterrence" stated :

"Any legal theory of behaviour must assume that people by and large do not want to be punished and will act so as to avoid fines, jail, whipping or electric chair. That means a threat of real punishment will deter".

Evil of punishment must exceed the advantage of the offence. The classical school of criminology was based on hedonistic psychology. Man governs his behaviour by considerations of pleasure and pain. John Spenser said (White Collar Crime) :

"Algebraic sum of pleasure and pain must be balanced".

The first known theory of criminal behaviour was that of Baccaria, which was the hedonistic doctrine of criminology.

5. There is a cross cultural conflict. The area of crime is enlarging. Gilded crimes and white collar offences are new additions. Narcotic peddling and white slave traffic, professional terrorism and mafia crimes have gained currency. Living law must find answers to new challenges. Courts have evolved new heads of public policy. Viscount Simonds, highlighted the imperatives and identified new heads of Public Policy in what is known as the Lady's Directory Case (1961) 2 All ER 446 Shaw v. D.P.P. Reformative and curative jurisprudence have been found to be not entirely responsive. Deterrence is surely a component of the sentencing system. Even the refutation of hedonistic psychology would not justify rejection of deterrence argum