HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF THE CONCEPT OF SENTENCING IN INDIA
AUTHOR – MR. RISHABH MANAWAT* & MR. MOHIT MATHUR**
* STUDENT, UNITEDWORLD SCHOOL OF LAW, KARNAVATI UNIVERSITY, GANDHINAGAR, GUJARAT
** ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, UNITEDWORLD SCHOOL OF LAW, KARNAVATI UNIVERSITY, GANDHINAGAR, GUJARAT
BEST CITATION – MR. RISHABH MANAWAT & MR. MOHIT MATHUR, HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF THE CONCEPT OF SENTENCING IN INDIA, INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 5 (5) OF 2025, PG. 483-491, APIS – 3920 – 0001 & ISSN – 2583-2344
Sentencing is a developing area in the criminal justice system of India which has helped to maintain an equilibrium in rehabilitation, reforming, and deterrence. It is the representation of the judicial framework of the justice system of our country. Sentencing also represents the societal values and its perception of the people of the justice system of our country. It is largely guided and regulated by the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. They are the guiding pillars for determining the punishments for a variety of offenses, but these laws are applied and interpreted under the judiciary’s interpretation. India’s judiciary has played an important role in the evolution of the sentencing practice and policy in India creating a balance between different ideas of punishment and preserving the societal values. Indian judicial system follows the principle of proportionality in sentencing, which states that punishment should be in proportion to the seriousness of the crime. This principle has been highlighted in a variety of judgements by the Supreme Court of India. In Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab 1, the ‘rarest of rare’ was established which puts a restriction on imposing death penalty in the circumstances only when there is no other alternative available, even life imprisonment is not an option. This is the doctrine that that regulates the capital punishment in India where preservation of life is an important aspect. Other forms of harsh punishments like imprisonment for life have also been highly scrutinized by the judiciary in the case of Gopal Vinayak Godse v. State of Maharashtra 2, where the Apex Court gave a detailed clarification on the meaning of life which means remainder of the natural life of the convict. India lacks a uniform and consistent sentencing policy which has led to variable sentences. The Supreme Court has often highlighted the need for a sentencing policy for uniformity in the sentencing process. In State of Punjab v. Prem Sagar3, the Supreme Court emphasized the need for a uniform sentencing policy to overcome the variability in sentencing in India.