IMPAR

Vs.

OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, POLICE STATION SEWANAGALA AND ANOTHER

SUPREME COURT
JAYAWARDENA, J.
DEHIDENIYA, J.
THURAIRAJA, J.
SC/APPEAL/204/2015
HC Embilipitiya APL/02/2015
MC Embilipitiya 94991/13
JUNE 12, 2019

Plea bargaining and sentence bargaining-Previous convictions-Suspended sentence-Code of Criminal Procedure Act, section 303

Upon pleading guilty to the charge of theft, the appellant was convicted and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,500/- by the Magistrate's Court. The High Court affirmed the sentence on appeal. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court on the basis that he should have been given a non-custodial sentence upon his plea of guilty and his offer to pay Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant as compensation.

Held:

1. The appellant cannot engage in sentence bargaining merely because he pleaded guilty to the charge. It is the constitutional obligation of the court to award an appropriate sentence. Punishment should fit the criminal as well as the crime, be fair to society, and be blended with a measure of mercy according to the circumstances.

2. Retribution and deterrence are the proper purposes of punishment