2. 3. 4. 5. 42 SHAILESH JASVANTBHAI AND Anr v. STATE OF GUJARAT AND Ors. a. (2006)2 SCC 359 b. In operating the sentencing system, law should adopt corrective mechanism or deterrence based on factual matrix. This includes facts and given circumstances in each case, nature of the crime, manner in which it was planned, and all other relevant facts which would enter into the area of consideration. ALISTER ANTHONY PAREIRA v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA a. AIR 2012 SC 3802 b. There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing and accused on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain principles: twin objectives of the sentencing policy is deterrence and correction. c. The principle of proportionality in sentencing a crime doer is well entrenched in criminal jurisprudence. BRAJENDRA SINGH v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH a. AIR 2012 SC 1552 b. Discusses ‘mitigating circumstances’ and ‘aggravating circumstances’. Held that the Court should consider cumulative effect of both. Balancing the two is primary for sentencing. MUKESH SINGH AND Anr v. STATE FOR NCT OF DELHI, 2017 (Nirbhaya Judgment) a. AIR 2017 SC (CRI) 899 b. Discussed “rarest of the rare” principle laid down in the case of Bacchan Singh while discussing the death sentence of the convicts in the Nirbhaya case. c. Held that rarest of the rare’ case is one in which “the crime committed may result in intense and extreme indignation of the community and shock the collective conscience of the society”.