in Tan Rui Leen Russell v Public Prosecutor
 SGHC 102 , decided on 27th april 2009, the singapore high court held that "Where an offence is committed as a result of a loss of self-control brought about by provocation, the culpability of the offender is reduced because, given that he committed the offence concerned while deprived of his self-control, he might not (vis-à-vis an offence which results in injury to the victim) have intended to cause the extent of the injuries which he in fact caused to the victim. Loss of self-control may be regarded as a form of temporary and transient impairment of the offender’s cognitive judgment. Where provocation has substantially or fully deprived the offender of his self-control, a deterrent sentence, whether in the form of a long term of imprisonment or caning, is pointless. The objective of a deterrent sentence will only be met if the sentence imposed can temper the offender’s propensity to lose his self-control. But, human beings are not angels. Parliament has recognised this by stipulating that grave and sudden provocation is sufficient to reduce the offence of murder to that of culpable homicide not amounting to murder (see Exception 1 to s 300 of PC 1985). For the same reason, the s 335 offence (viz, causing grievous hurt on provocation) is only punishable with imprisonment of up to four years and/or a fine of up to $2,000, as opposed to the s 326 offence (the punishment for which is imprisonment for life or for a term which may extend to ten years and, if the court deems it appropriate, either a fine or caning)."
Is retribution an applicable sentencing consideration in india also ?
Tags :Criminal Law