LexSUNITA DEVI versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
* Author [2024] 5 S.C.R. 629 : 2024 INSC 448 Sunita Devi v. The State of Bihar & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 3924 of 2023) 17 May 2024 [M.M. Sundresh* and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Need for a comprehensive sentencing policy. Trial against the accused under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 was conducted by the judicial officer in utmost haste and the accused was denied due opportunity to defend himself. Conviction and death sentence awarded was set aside by the High Court and a de novo trial was ordered, making certain observations against the Special Judge. Criminal Appeal Nos.3925-3927 of 2023 filed by the judicial officer. Criminal Appeal No.3924 of 2023 filed by the informant against the order of remittal for de novo trial. On facts, in Criminal Appeal No.3925 of 2023, the trial had commenced and concluded in a single day wherein the aforesaid judicial officer rendered a similar conviction however, the accused was sentenced to life imprisonment. Headnotes† Sentencing – Lack of policy/legislation – Disparities in awarding sentence – Need for sentencing policy – Constitution of India – Articles 14, 21: Held: Hearing the accused on sentence is a valuable right conferred on the accused – The real importance lies only with the sentence, as against the conviction – Unfortunately, there is no clear policy or legislation when it comes to sentencing – Over the years, it has become judge-centric and there are admitted disparities in awarding a sentence – When it comes to sentencing, there are various factors such as age, sex, education, home life, social background, emotional and mental conditions, caste, religion and community that constitute aggravating and mitigating circumstances – A decision of a Judge in sentencing, would vary from person to person and also from stage to stage – It is controlled by the mind – The environment and the upbringing of a Judge would become the ultimate arbiter in deciding the sentence – A Judge from an affluent background 630 [2024] 5 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports might have a different mindset as against a Judge from a humble one – A female Judge might look at it differently, when compared to her male counterpart – An Appellate Court might tinker with the sentence due to its experience, and the external factors like institutional constraints might come into play – There is a crying need for a clear sentencing policy, which should never be judge-centric as the society has to know the basis of 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 – Various elements such as deterrence, incapacitation and reformation should form part of sentencing – The need for adequate guidelines for exercising sentencing discretion, avoiding unwanted disparity, is of utmost importance – Courts do take into consideration the mitigating and aggravating circumstances – However, no research has been undertaken for constituting what are aggravating and mitigating circumstances – Suggestions made – Department of Justice, Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India to consider introducing a comprehensive policy, possibly by way of getting an appropriate report from a duly constituted Sentencing Commission consisting of experts in different fields for the purpose of having a distinct sentencing policy – Government of India to file an affidavit on the feasibility of introducing a comprehensive sentencing policy and a report thereon, within six months. [Paras 29, 30, 32-36, 37, 40, 58] Administration of Criminal Justice – Denial of due opportunity to defend and hearing – Trial against the accused under POCSO Act was conducted by appellant-judicial officer in utmost haste – At every stage, the accused was denied due opportunity to defend himself – High Court set aside the conviction and the death sentence and a de novo trial was ordered – In Criminal Appeal No.3925 of 2023 filed by the very same judicial officer, a similar conviction was rendered in the trial which was concluded in a single day and the accused was sentenced to life imprisonment: Held: High Court while passing both the impugned judgments not only called for the records and rendered findings of fact, but also considered them in detail – At every stage, the accused was denied due opportunity to
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.