Supreme Court asks Centre to explore comprehensive sentencing policy in criminal cases

The Supreme Court recently directed the Central government to file an affidavit on the feasibility of introducing a comprehensive sentencing policy for criminal offences within six months [Sunita Devi vs State of Bihar and anr]..A Bench of Justices MM Sundresh and SVN Bhatti lamented the lack of a clear policy or law in this regard."Over the years, it has become judge-centric and there are admitted disparities in awarding a sentence ... Sentencing shall not be a mere lottery. It shall also not be an outcome of a knee-jerk reaction. This is a very important part of the Fundamental Rights conferred under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, Any unwarranted disparity would be against the very concept of a fair trial and, therefore, against justice" the Court observed.The issue is an extremely complex one and it is the duty of State and Union governments to have an extensive discussion and debate on the issue with all stakeholders, it added."This issue which might require constituting an appropriate Commission on Sentencing consisting of various experts and stakeholders ... Societal experience would come handy in coming to a correct conclusion. What we have at present is an imposition of a sentence by way of a legislation. There are obvious errors and lacunae," the Bench opined. .The observations came in a batch of appeals against a Patna High Court order.The matter involved an Additional Sessions Judge from Bihar who was suspended by the High Court soon after he had within a day convicted and sentenced a man to life imprisonment for sexual assault of a minor.The High Court in the ruling under challenge had directed the trial court to conduct a fresh trial, while disapproving of how the proceedings had earlier gone in the one-day sentencing case.The High Court had also directed that the concerned judge should not be assigned trials that have far-reaching consequences and that he should be sent for fresh training to the State Judicial Academy.The appeals were filed by the original informant in the case as well as the special judge who passed the one-day sentencing order..The Supreme Court proceeded to dismiss the appeals, observing that the judge had been let off liberally."The appellant judicial officer is fortunate that no action was taken against him. We do not wish to say anything more on this, except by stating that in the absence of any proposed action, there is no question of hearing the appellant.".At every stage of the trial, the accused had been denied a due opportunity to defend himself or consult counsel as the judicial officer was acting in utmost haste, the Supreme Court noted. "Every trial is a journey towards the truth and a Presiding Officer is expected to create a balanced atmosphere in the mind of the prosecution and the defence. It seems to us that the decision was rendered in utmost haste. It would be humanly impossible to deliver the judgment within half an hour’s time running into 27 pages consisting of 59 paragraphs in the first case and similarly in the other. The lawyer for the defence cannot fight against the court. It is the court which has to follow a balanced approach," the apex court said. .Sentencing cannot be on the same day: Supreme Court issues notice in Bihar POCSO judge appeal against suspension.It eventually directed the trial court re-hearing the case to keep in mind the mandate of the POCSO Act while recording the evidence of the survivor, and expeditiously conclude the trial.The Registry was directed to forward a copy of the judgment to the Union Department of Justice..Senior Advocate Vikas Singh represented the informant and the trial court judge. Senior Advocate CU Singh appeared for the Patna High Court and the accused..[Read Judgment]