Seriousness of crime and criminal history of accused is important factor for giving him punishment

Delhi High Court: Expressing the view that sentencing policy is a way to guide judicial discretion in accomplishing particular sentencing, the Court held that the seriousness of crime and the criminal history of the accused, are used to prescribe punishment. In the absence of any straitjacket formula for sentencing, the twin objective of deterrence and correction come into picture. It was said that sentencing depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the court should keep in mind the gravity, motive and nature of offence and other circumstances. By laying emphasis on individualized justice, shaping the result of the crime to the circumstances of the offender and the needs of the victim and community, restorative justice eschews uniformity of sentencing. Undue sympathy imposing inadequate sentence would do more harm to the public system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law and society would not long endure under serious threats.


In the present case, the petitioner had kidnapped a 12 years old child and subjected him to unnatural acts. The Court held that forced sexual assault on a minor is serious offence and is, therefore, punishable with imprisonment for life or with an imprisonment of a term, which may extend to 10 years. It was said that the principle of proportionality in sentencing a crime doer is well entrenched in criminal jurisprudence. As a matter of law, proportion between crime and punishment bears most relevant influence in determination of sentencing the crime doer. The court has to take into consideration all aspects including social interest and consciousness of the society for award of appropriate sentence. Hence, the petitioner herein is sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment.
[Ajaj Hussain v. State, CRL. REV. P. 700 of 2013, decided on December 9, 2013]

Print Page