Sentencing in Criminal Law: A Judicial Balancing Exercise
Sentencing in criminal law is not simply a mechanical imposition of punishment—it is a nuanced judicial exercise that considers the nature of the offence, the offender’s background, and the broader societal impact. Indian courts routinely invoke aggravating and mitigating circumstances to calibrate just and proportionate sentences under Article 21.
Legislative Framework for Sentencing
The legislative framework for sentencing in India, particularly under Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), now Section 258 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, mandates a separate sentencing hearing in all trials for offenses punishable by death or imprisonment, ensuring courts consider aggravating and mitigating factors before determining punishment.
This provision reinforces procedural fairness by requiring judges to hear the accused on sentencing, allowing evidence of factors like remorse, age, or socio-economic background to be presented.
Complemented by Section 354(3) of the CrPC, now Section 393 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which mandates reasoned orders for death or life imprisonment sentences, these provisions ensure transparency, proportionality, and alignment with Article 21’s guarantee of fair punishment, as emphasized in Santa Singh v. State of Punjab (1976) 4 SCC 190.
Emerging Trends in Indian Sentencing
Emerging trends in Indian sentencing reflect a growing emphasis on psychological evaluations and pre-sentence reports to refine the assessment of mitigating factors, as highlighted in the Supreme Court’s suo motu proceedings in SMW (Crl.) No.1/2022.
Courts are increasingly recognizing the value of expert psychological assessments to understand an offender’s mental state, socio-economic stressors, or potential for reform, particularly in serious offenses.
These reports provide a structured framework to evaluate factors like mental instability, remorse, or environmental influences, ensuring more individualized and proportionate sentencing.
This development underscores a shift toward evidence-based sentencing practices, enhancing fairness and rehabilitation prospects under Article 21.
What Are Aggravating Circumstances?
Aggravating circumstances are factors that increase the severity of the offence or the culpability of the offender. These may justify a harsher sentence due to the elevated gravity or impact of the crime.
Common Aggravating Factors
- Premeditation or planning of the crime
- Use of deadly weapons or extreme violence
- Victim vulnerability (children, elderly, disabled)
- Prior criminal history or recidivism
- Offences against public servants or institutions of trust
- Wide societal impact, public outrage, large-scale harm
Key Case Law on Aggravating Factors
- Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684: Established the “rarest of rare” doctrine for death penalty—emphasizing factors like extreme brutality and premeditated murder.
- State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram (2006) 12 SCC 254: Betrayal of trust and killing of family members warranted stringent sentencing.
- SMW (Crl.) No.1/2022 (2025 – Suo Motu by Supreme Court): Working toward standardized guidelines to ensure consistent consideration of mitigating factors in capital cases.
- Srimanta Tung v. State of West Bengal (2025 SCC OnLine Cal 5225): Calcutta High Court commuted a death sentence to life imprisonment (20 years without remission), balancing aggravating and mitigating factors.
What Are Mitigating Circumstances?
Mitigating circumstances reduce the moral blameworthiness of the offender and may justify leniency. These factors do not excuse the crime but contextualize the offender’s conduct.
Common Mitigating Factors
- First-time offender, no prior record
- Youth or advanced age
- Mental illness or diminished capacity
- Provocation, duress, or coercion
- Genuine remorse, cooperation with authorities
- Delay in trial, prolonged incarceration before conviction
Key Case Law on Mitigating Factors
- Santa Singh v. State of Punjab (1976) 4 SCC 190: Sentencing must consider age, background, and potential for reform.
- State of Maharashtra v. Suresh (2000) 1 SCC 471: Even in heinous crimes, mitigating factors like mental instability must be weighed.
- Delhi Court (May 2025): Poverty was rejected as a mitigating factor in a murder case.
- Supreme Court (July 2025): Held that brutality alone cannot justify a death penalty; socio-economic and psychological factors matter.
- State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mehtab (2015) 5 SCC 197: In a culpable homicide case, the Court reduced the sentence due to absence of intent, young age, and remorse.
Judicial Balancing and Sentencing Philosophy
The hallmark of good sentencing is a balanced approach—neither unduly harsh nor unduly lenient. Courts emphasize:
- The principle of proportionality under Article 21: punishment must be fair, just, and reasonable.
- Considering both the crime and the criminal before sentencing.
- Maintaining a “balance sheet” of aggravating vs. mitigating factors.
- Ensuring procedural fairness—especially in capital cases, where mitigating evidence must be meaningfully considered.
- Balancing deterrence, public interest, and rehabilitation.
Recent Judicial Observations
- Delhi High Court (September 2025): Reaffirmed need to balance aggravating and mitigating factors under Section 377; refused to enhance sentence solely based on offence gravity. (Raw Law)
- Supreme Court (August 2025): Held that prolonged pendency of a case may itself constitute a mitigating circumstance due to mental suffering. (Deccan Herald)
Conclusion
Aggravating and mitigating circumstances are vital tools in Indian sentencing, ensuring punishments are proportionate and individualized. While aggravating factors like premeditation and victim vulnerability drive harsher penalties, mitigating factors like youth, remorse, or socio-economic hardship invite leniency. Guided by Article 21’s mandate for proportionality and fairness, Indian courts continue to balance deterrence, rehabilitation, and public interest, shaping a just and humane criminal justice system.