Judgment :- 1. Petitioner was found guilty of offence under S.307 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years by the Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge. On appeal, conviction was confirmed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Kottayam Division, but sentence was reduced to rigorous imprisonment for eighteen months perhaps, in a mood of benevolence. No reasons are stated, nor discernible. 2. PW1, a young lady was Dietitian in the M.G.D.M. Hospital, and petitioner a cook (under suspension) in the canteen of the hospital. At or about 4 P.M. on 19-3-1984, petitioner entered the room where PWl was sitting, and asked her why he was being sent out, and why he was not given "free medical chit". She replied that it was not for her to reinstate him, and upon this, petitioner stabbed her, causing as many as 24 injuries, including 22 incised wounds, a punctured wound and a tear as seen from P5 Certificate issued by PW6. Apparently petitioner was armed with a knife, when he went to meet PW1. PWl was almost butchered and disfigured; she survived, it were, by a miracle. Radhakrishnan (PW3), Dr. Titus (PW4) and Dr. Ivan made a valiant effort to serve PWl and disarm petitioner. Acting on prosecution evidence, petitioner was convicted rightly for the offence under S.307. Conviction cannot be assailed. 3. The offence is punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years. Trial Judge thought that a sentence of imprisonment for three years was proper, for he thought petitioner "repents". This reason has been belied. In the grounds of revision explained in Malayalam and signed by petitioner, as seen from the certificate of the Superintendent, Central Prison, it is stated: "If anyone is responsible for what had happened, it is PW1, and she alone", This is not the attitude of a repentant person, atleast after conviction. Petitioner seems to think that what he did was right, and that PW1 deserved what she got. Additional Sessions Judge reduced the sentence for no reason, as stated hereinbefore. Petitioner has a grievance about the sentence imposed. He says, the crime must be punished, not the criminal. Crime is the act of the criminal. It is the deed, that projects from the criminal not something in the abstract. Argument though high sounding, is hollow. 4. Sentencing is an aspect of importance in criminal trial. Petitioner has a grievance about the sentence imposed. He says, the crime must be punished, not the criminal. Crime is the act of the criminal. It is the deed, that projects from the criminal not something in the abstract. Argument though high sounding, is hollow. 4. Sentencing is an aspect of importance in criminal trial. Sentence must be modulated to the facts and circumstances of the case, character and antecedents of accused, his personal situation, the absence or presence or moral turpitude, and like considerations. A soft sentence or probation is called for, in cases where lenient disposition is merited. Concept of probation is in the realms of humanistic jurisprudence, and its merit was never in dispute. It is no, new efflorescence on the skies. Justice tempered with mercy is, a principle of vintage. But, leniency must be judiciously applied. Unregulated benevolence and ill-exercised leniency, cannot be justified. Where a deterrent sentence is called for, such must be imposed. 5. Counsel of the Supreme Court of India must be borne in mind: "It is the duty of the court in every case to award a proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence, and the manner in which it was committed". (State of Punjab v. Man Singh) (AIR 1983 SC 172) See also AIR 1987 Supreme Court 1346 (Mahesh v. State of Uttar Pradesh) and AIR 1987 Supreme Court 1721 (Asharfi Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh). This Court also had occasion to consider the guidelines that should govern sentencing policy in Raman v. Francis, 1987 (2) KLT 773. It is not possible, to catalogue situations and sentences, which could be picked out and matched with precision. Discretion informed by tradition, methodised by analogy and disciplined by system, eschewing unregulated benevolence, must be brought into decision making process. 6. Criminal justice machinery is evolved, so that the injured and the aggrieved do not take law into their own hands and deal with offenders. Unduly lenient sentences could provoke the aggrieved to wreak vengeance. Philosophy of reformation which certainly must form part of sentencing process, beyond justifiable limits, may not be assented to or shared by victims of crime, or the aggrieved. If criminal law ceases to be deterrent or effective, injured will seek means of revenge. While sentences should not be unduly harsh or barbarically macabre, it cannot be unduly lenient either. Philosophy of reformation which certainly must form part of sentencing process, beyond justifiable limits, may not be assented to or shared by victims of crime, or the aggrieved. If criminal law ceases to be deterrent or effective, injured will seek means of revenge. While sentences should not be unduly harsh or barbarically macabre, it cannot be unduly lenient either. Sentencing process must blend the various considerations germane, and set the right tone. "The state of Criminal Law continues to be as it should be a decisive reflection of social consciousness of a society". (Friedman Law in changing society). Responsibility of the Court is onerous and must be discharged at once with a sense of seriousness, and compassion. 7. Sentence passed by Court of Session is set aside. I do this because, petitioner also has a grievance that report of Probation Officer was not considered. Probation Officer's Report deserves consideration, though ultimately it is the judge who has to decide on the sentence. Trial Court will consider the report, as also circumstances under which the crime was committed, the extenuations and aggravations, the nature of the offence, whether there was pre-meditation, and other material circumstances including the injury and disfigurement suffered by the victim and pass as appropriate sentence. A reason that an accused may have for committing as offence, is not necessarily a reason in extenuation. Normally for every act, there mutt be a reason. How good the reason is, is what must be considered and not whether there is a reason. Case is remitted to the Trial Court, for imposing a proper sentence in accordance with law.