Abstract

The sentencing policy of a country reflects the morale, rationale, and judgment in the country. It helps to establish a certain degree of punishment and helps to reduce the existence of a crime through reprimanding, rehabilitation, or any other lawful or justified procedure thereby, ensuring the law and order in society. The idea of reprimanding and sentencing policy has evolved through the centuries. The lack of uniformity in the sentencing policy has led to disparity and arbitrariness. This disparity particularly exists because of the discretion exercised by the judges, i.e., in their decisions and judgments. This leads to an inconsistency in the system and a continuous routine of disparity in what can be considered the ideal and just ‘punishment’ for a particular offence. This disparity and inconsistency happen in the premature release also. In order to eliminate the disparity and inconsistency in the premature release of prisoners, the Mulla committee suggested constituting a sentence review board in each state. Besides this, in 1999 the National Human Rights Commission also suggested constituting the Sentence Review Board in each State and Union Territory to eliminate the disparity and inconsistency in the premature release. The study will focus on the functioning of the sentence review board. In India which will be examined in the background of the sentencing guidelines in the UK and USA. The procedure of sentencing policy, guidelines, and premature release of prisoners will be analyzed and focusing on the efficacy in the implementation of the legal measures and the issues and challenges adopted by the Sentence Review Board in India.

Keywords