105 impossibility of reformation and rehabilitation as a mandate of Section 354(4) CrPC.100 The court analysed numerous earlier precedents, noting that evidence by the state on this has been sparse and limited, but was essential for the courts to measure the probability of reform, rehabilitation and reintegration. The court located this requirement in the right of the accused, who regardless of being ruthless, was entitled to a life of dignity, notwithstanding his crime. 101 While this process is not easy, it was noted that the neither is the process of rehabilitation since it involves reintegration into society. When this is found to be not possible in certain cases, a longer duration of imprisonment was instead permissible. Uneven application of this framework and (in)consistency in sentencing 196. An overall analysis of capital punishment cases decided by this court will perhaps reflect that that there is in fact, no pattern. While there are real and valid concerns in the non-uniform application of the Bachan Singh framework, discretion in sentencing, in itself – is not worrisome, and the concern needs to be dispelled. While generally judges may look to precedents for the comfort of numbers, that process only gives an indication of how similar instances have been dealt with and has a limited role when it comes to sentencing. The discretion afforded to the court in sentencing, is not for it to be judge-centric or result in disparate rulings, but in fact to enable the court with the flexibility of considering the case-specific factors relating to the crime and criminal, without falling into pre-determined patterns. Sentencing is not a mathematical equation and ought not be seen as one. This has been recognized in numerous cases starting from Bachan Singh itself. In Santosh Bariyar, analyzing the equality principle, due process and proportionality requirement in capital sentencing, it was held that rather than applying strict classification of the type of offences that warrant death sentence, the court must focus on equally considering the 100 Ibid (para 45) 101 Ibid (para 47)