The Supreme Court has cautioned trial courts and High Courts against showing undue leniency or excessive severity when deciding on sentences for individuals convicted of crimes. The Court emphasized that deviating from a balanced sentencing approach could undermine public trust in the judiciary and lead to injustice.

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih stated that "undue leniency can cause public confidence in the justice system to plummet, while excessive severity may lead to injustice". This ruling came as the court rejected a plea to reduce the eight-year sentence of a young man convicted of culpable homicide. The man had fatally struck another during an altercation stemming from the rape of his sister.

The case involved an incident where the accused, enraged by the sexual assault on his sister and the alleged rapist's refusal to marry her, used an axe to strike a man who was attempting to de-escalate the situation. The senior advocate representing the accused argued for leniency, highlighting the accused's young age (20 years old at the time of the incident) and the lack of premeditation. While Justice Datta acknowledged the emotional distress the accused may have experienced due to his sister's rape, the court did not find sufficient grounds to reduce the sentence.

The Supreme Court has consistently emphasized the importance of balancing judicial discretion with the need for fairness and consistency in sentencing. It has been noted that judicial discretion allows judges to consider the specific circumstances of a case. However, this discretion must be exercised judiciously to avoid disparities in sentencing outcomes.

In the past, the Supreme Court has set precedents to guide sentencing practices. In Rita v. United States (2007), the Court established that sentences within the guideline range are presumed reasonable, though defendants can still appeal their reasonableness. The Supreme Court has also stated that a sentencing court may use the full breadth of factors to determine an appropriate sentence for each offense in a multi-count case.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court has clarified that compensating the victim does not automatically lead to a reduction in the convict's sentence. The Court has stressed the separation between sentencing and victim compensation, noting that intertwining the two could allow criminals to "buy their way out of justice".

The Supreme Court also underscored that the primary consideration in determining compensation lies in the extent of the victim's loss or injury, independent of the sentence's punitive nature. While compensation serves as restitution, it does not mitigate the punishment.

The Supreme Court's role in shaping federal sentencing practices is significant. By maintaining a balance between discretion and consistency, the Court ensures that federal sentencing remains fair and adaptable.