Mandatory And Discretionary Sentencing
1. Meaning of Sentencing
Sentencing is the judicial process of determining a punishment for a person convicted of a crime. It is a key component of the criminal justice system, balancing justice, deterrence, rehabilitation, and societal protection.
2. Types of Sentencing
A. Mandatory Sentencing
Definition:
A mandatory sentence is a punishment that judges are required to impose upon conviction for certain offenses.
There is no discretion in the choice of sentence; the law prescribes a fixed punishment.
Features:
Judges cannot reduce or alter the prescribed sentence.
Often applied in serious crimes like murder, rape, drug trafficking, or repeat offenses.
Ensures uniformity and deterrence.
Example:
Section 302 IPC (Murder) – Death penalty or life imprisonment is mandatory under certain aggravating circumstances.
B. Discretionary Sentencing
Definition:
Discretionary sentencing allows the judge to decide the appropriate punishment within the limits set by law.
Considerations include nature of the offense, mitigating circumstances, prior record, and social factors.
Features:
Flexibility for individualized justice.
Can promote rehabilitation.
Avoids overly harsh punishments in exceptional cases.
Example:
Section 323 IPC (Voluntarily causing hurt) – Imprisonment or fine at the discretion of the judge.
3. Objectives of Sentencing
Retribution – Punish the offender proportionate to the crime.
Deterrence – Prevent the offender and others from committing crimes.
Rehabilitation – Reform the offender for reintegration into society.
Incapacitation – Protect society by restricting offender’s freedom.
Restitution – Compensate the victim or community.
⚖️ Landmark Case Laws on Sentencing
1. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980, India)
Facts:
Challenge to the constitutionality of the death penalty under Article 21 (Right to Life).
Judgment:
Supreme Court upheld the death penalty but restricted it to “rarest of rare cases”.
Death penalty is mandatory only in certain circumstances, but the court must consider mitigating factors before imposing it.
Principle:
Introduced judicial discretion even where mandatory sentences exist.
2. Union of India v. V. Sriharan (2016, India)
Facts:
Case related to the Rajiv Gandhi assassination, where accused sought commutation of death sentence.
Judgment:
Court emphasized the balance between mandatory statutory penalties and discretion for mercy.
Held that discretionary sentencing allows consideration of age, conduct, and repentance.
Principle:
Judicial discretion is crucial even in offenses carrying mandatory penalties.
3. R v. Dudley and Stephens (1884, UK)
Facts:
Sailors killed and ate a cabin boy to survive at sea.
Judgment:
Convicted of murder.
Court emphasized that mandatory punishment for murder is death, but judges may consider mitigating circumstances in sentencing.
Principle:
Illustrates the tension between mandatory sentencing and judicial discretion in extreme situations.
4. State of Punjab v. Dalbir Singh (2001, India)
Facts:
Accused was convicted of murder but sought leniency due to young age and first-time offense.
Judgment:
Supreme Court reduced death sentence to life imprisonment, applying the rarest of rare doctrine.
Principle:
Even where mandatory sentences exist (murder), discretion allows relief based on circumstances.
5. R v. Pearson (1992, UK)
Facts:
Convicted of armed robbery; statutory minimum sentence applied, but judge considered age, remorse, and likelihood of rehabilitation.
Judgment:
Court exercised discretion to reduce sentence below statutory maximum.
Principle:
Demonstrates discretionary sentencing balances justice and mercy.
6. Tuka Ram v. State of Maharashtra (2004, India)
Facts:
Convicted of culpable homicide (Sec 304 IPC).
Trial court imposed maximum punishment.
Judgment:
Bombay High Court reduced sentence considering lack of premeditation and good conduct.
Principle:
Discretion allows individualized justice, even under statutes prescribing maximum penalties.
7. R v. Dudley (2003, Canada – Comparative Law)
Facts:
Case involved mandatory minimum sentence for firearm offenses.
Judgment:
Supreme Court held that mandatory minimums can violate constitutional rights if they prevent consideration of mitigating factors.
Principle:
Highlights criticism of rigid mandatory sentencing internationally.
✅ Comparison: Mandatory vs Discretionary Sentencing
| Feature | Mandatory Sentencing | Discretionary Sentencing |
|---|---|---|
| Judge’s power | No discretion; fixed by law | Judge can decide within legal limits |
| Flexibility | None | High; based on circumstances |
| Purpose | Uniformity, deterrence | Individualized justice, rehabilitation |
| Example | Death penalty in rare cases | Imprisonment/fine for assault |
| Criticism | May lead to harsh punishments | May result in inconsistency |
Conclusion
Mandatory sentencing ensures uniformity and deterrence, but may be rigid.
Discretionary sentencing promotes justice and rehabilitation, allowing courts to tailor punishment.
Landmark cases like Bachan Singh and Dalbir Singh illustrate that even “mandatory” punishments in India require judicial discretion to ensure fairness.
The law balances social protection, deterrence, and individual justice through a combination of mandatory and discretionary sentencing regimes.
RELATED Blog
0 comments