Aggravating And Mitigating Factors In Sentencing
Sentencing is one of the most important judicial functions. Courts consider aggravating factors (which increase the severity of punishment) and mitigating factors (which reduce it) to impose a just sentence. In India, the doctrine evolved through several landmark Supreme Court judgments.
1. Aggravating Factors
These are elements that increase the culpability of the offender and justify harsher punishment.
Common aggravating factors include:
Brutality or cruelty in the method of offence
Premeditation or planning
Motive indicating depravity (e.g., greed, lust, revenge)
Victim vulnerability (child, elderly, disabled)
Offender’s prior criminal record
Offence affecting society at large
Misuse of position of trust or authority
2. Mitigating Factors
These are elements that reduce the moral blameworthiness of the offender.
Common mitigating factors include:
Youth or old age of offender
No prior criminal record
Genuine remorse or possibility of reform
Socioeconomic circumstances
Provocation or emotional distress
Mental illness or reduced capacity
Long delay in trial
Dependency of family on the offender
DETAILED CASE LAW DISCUSSION
The following landmark cases shaped sentencing jurisprudence in India.
CASE 1: Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) – Foundation of Aggravating & Mitigating Doctrine
This case introduced the “rarest of rare” doctrine for imposing the death penalty.
The Supreme Court held:
Aggravating factors recognized:
Murder committed with extreme brutality
Premeditated or planned killing
Killing for motive of financial gain or terrorism
Killing of vulnerable victims
Mitigating factors recognized:
Age of the accused (too young/old)
Possibility of reform
Mental or emotional disturbance
No prior criminal history
Circumstances showing the offender may not be a continuing threat
The Court emphasised that life imprisonment is the rule, and death penalty should be imposed only after balancing both sets of factors.
CASE 2: Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983) – Expansion of "Rarest of Rare"
This case elaborated on how to apply the “rarest of rare” principle.
The Court laid down five categories where aggravating factors might outweigh mitigating ones:
Manner of commission – extremely brutal or grotesque
Motive – showing depravity
Socially abhorrent nature – caste killings, dowry murders
Magnitude of crime – multiple murders
Personality of victim – child, woman, or vulnerable person
Mitigating factors were again emphasized, such as the young age of the offender, possibility of reform, and circumstances of provocation.
CASE 3: Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra (2009)
This judgment strengthened the role of mitigating factors and criticised courts for over-relying on aggravating factors.
Key points:
Court held that reform and rehabilitation must be seriously examined.
Many earlier death sentences were overturned because mitigating factors were ignored.
The Court warned against “judge-centric” sentencing and insisted on a principled, structured approach.
Mitigating factors such as lack of intent to kill, age, background, and possibility of reform must be given substantial weight.
CASE 4: Sangeet v. State of Haryana (2012)
A crucial case that pointed out inconsistencies in sentencing.
Findings:
Courts were relying too heavily on aggravating factors while giving insufficient weight to mitigating circumstances.
The Supreme Court criticised the mechanical invocation of “rarest of rare”.
Re-emphasised that the balance sheet approach is essential:
One column for mitigating factors
One column for aggravating factors
Stressed that motive, manner, and circumstances must be assessed holistically.
This case promoted restoring balance and fairness in sentencing.
CASE 5: Shankar Kisanrao Khade v. State of Maharashtra (2013)
This judgment analyzed sentencing in extreme detail.
Court’s findings:
Many death sentences imposed earlier were not justified because mitigating factors were ignored.
The Court recommended a Sentencing Policy to avoid arbitrary punishments.
Importance:
It examined the offender’s socioeconomic background, psychological condition, and ability to reform.
It held that only when mitigating circumstances are entirely absent, aggravating factors can justify the death penalty.
This case stressed a scientific and evidence-based evaluation of factors.
CASE 6: Mukesh & Anr. v. State (Nirbhaya Case) (2017)
This case represents an instance where aggravating factors overwhelmingly outweighed mitigation.
Aggravating factors:
Barbaric and brutal gang rape and murder
Premeditated nature of the assault
Victim vulnerability
Impact on collective conscience of society
Mitigating factors (such as young age) were considered but found insufficient.
The Court held that the brutality and cruelty made it a rarest of rare case.
CASE 7: State of Punjab v. Prem Sagar (2008)
This case highlighted the need for proportionality in sentencing.
Findings:
Sentencing should not be arbitrary or vary drastically for similar offences.
Aggravating factors such as prior criminal record, repetition of offence, and disregard for law justify harsher punishment.
Mitigating factors such as family circumstances and lack of intent can reduce sentence.
It stressed the principle that punishment must be just, fair, and proportionate.
CASE 8: Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra (2012)
(Drunk-driving causing death case)
Aggravating factors:
Reckless and negligent driving
Knowledge that driving drunk endangers life
Multiple deaths caused
Mitigating factors such as lack of intention to kill were considered but did not excuse the act.
Court held that punishment must reflect societal condemnation.
COMBINED PRINCIPLES FROM ALL CASES
When aggravating factors outweigh mitigating factors:
Brutal & barbaric murder
Premeditated & planned offence
Victim extremely vulnerable
Offender shows no remorse
Crime shocks society’s conscience
Repeat offenders or those posing continuing threat
When mitigating factors outweigh aggravating factors:
Young age or possibility of rehabilitation
No prior criminal record
Offence committed under emotional disturbance
Lack of premeditation
Delay in trial
Genuine remorse
Socioeconomic hardship
CONCLUSION
The Indian judiciary follows a balanced and principled approach.
Sentencing is not automatic; it is a careful judicial exercise.
Aggravating and mitigating factors are weighed like two sides of a scale, and punishment is imposed accordingly.
RELATED Blog
comments