Sentencing principles require proportional punishment; undue leniency based on incomplete mitigation can justify reconsideration of sentence.

Sentencing must reflect the gravity of the offence and the manner of its commission, with a proper balance between aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Youth, student status, absence of antecedents and compensation may be relevant mitigators, but undue leniency that produces an inadequate sentence can undermine public confidence in criminal justice. The text notes that the accused were involved in several cases and that material relevant to sentencing was not properly considered by the High Court. On that basis, the reduction of sentence to the period already undergone was treated as resting on erroneous premises and an incorrect application of punishment principles, requiring reconsideration of sentence.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in reducing the sentence to the period already undergone on considerations of youth, student status, absence of criminal antecedents and payment of compensation.

Analysis: Sentencing must reflect the gravity of the crime and the manner of its commission. Proper punishment requires a balance of aggravating and mitigating circumstances, but undue sympathy or leniency that results in an inadequate sentence undermines public confidence in the criminal justice system. The record showed that the accused were involved in several cases and that relevant material bearing on sentencing had not been properly considered by the High Court. The reduction of sentence was therefore based on erroneous premises and an incorrect approach to the principles governing punishment.

Conclusion: The reduction of sentence was not justified and the matter required reconsideration of sentence.

---