Supreme Court: Three tests for sentencing in Criminal case

Sentencing for crimes has to be analyzed on the touch stone of

three tests viz., crime test, criminal test and comparative

proportionality test. Crime test involves factors like extent of

planning, choice of weapon, modus of crime, disposal modus (if any),

role of the accused, antisocial

or abhorrent character of the crime,

state of victim. Criminal test involves assessment of factors such as

age of the criminal, gender of the criminal, economic conditions or

social background of the criminal, motivation for crime, availability

of defense, state of mind, instigation by the deceased or any one

from the deceased group, adequately represented in the trial,

disagreement by a judge in the appeal process, repentance,

possibility of reformation, prior criminal record (not to take pending

cases) and any other relevant factor (not an exhaustive list).

13. Additionally, we may note that under the crime test,

seriousness needs to be ascertained. The seriousness of the crime

may be ascertained by (i) bodily integrity of the victim; (ii) loss of

material support or amenity; (iii) extent of humiliation; and (iv)

privacy breach.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 690 OF 2014

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH  Vs  UDHAM 

N.V. RAMANA, J .

Dated:October 22, 2019.

Print Page

Whether appeal is maintainable if accused is released under probation of offenders Act?

 The respondent was convicted of offences punishable
under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
(POCSO), but instead of sentencing him to any punishment, the
learned trial Judge thought it fit to give benefit of the provisions of
Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act to him.  Accordingly,
the respondent was directed to be released on his entering into a
bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/­ with one surety, to appear and
receive the sentence when called upon during a period of two
years and in the mean time, to keep the peace and to be of good
behaviour.     It   is   against   the   said   order   that   the   State   of
Maharashtra has filed the present Appeal, purportedly under the
provisions   of   Section   377   of   the   Code   of   Criminal   Procedure
(Code). 
 Section 377 of the Code speaks of an appeal against
the sentence  on the ground of its inadequacy.    In this case, no

sentence has been awarded.   There is, therefore, no question of
'inadequacy   of   sentence'   and   there   is   no   question   of   seeking
'enhancement' of a non­existing sentence.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.583 OF 2015
The State of Maharashtra V Mithilesh Harishchandra Yadav .
­­­

­­­
   CORAM :   ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.
DATED  :    1st  APRIL 2016
Citation: 2016 ALLMR(CRI)2203

Print Page