In a surprising turn of events, the Supreme Court expressed astonishment over a Punjab and Haryana High Court decision that handed down different jail terms to individuals convicted of the same offence. The case, titled Uggarsain v. State of Haryana and Others, involved the conviction of eight individuals for forming an unlawful assembly and fatally attacking a person with deadly weapons. The Supreme Court, consisting of Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Dutta, took up the appeal against the High Court's verdict.
The apex court noted that each convicted person had practically indistinguishable roles in the crime. Despite this, the High Court imposed varying sentences on the defendants. The highest penalty was a 9-year jail term, while others received relatively lenient sentences, including a 3-year term and even an 11-month term. The Supreme Court found the High Court's reasoning for this wide disparity to be inexplicable, if not outright bizarre. The court observed that there was no consideration of the individual roles played by the accused, given the nature of the evidence.
Consequently, the Supreme Court concluded that the High Court had erred in its approach and failed to assess the gravity of the offence. The imposition of a "sentence undergone" criterion, without any distinguishing features in the roles played by each convict, amounted to a flawed sentencing process. After considering the totality of circumstances, the Supreme Court imposed a uniform sentence of 5 years of rigorous imprisonment for all the convicts.
The Supreme Court acknowledged that some of the convicts had already served longer periods of imprisonment based on previous court orders. Therefore, it left the High Court's judgment undisturbed in their cases. The appeals were partly allowed, and the Court emphasized the need for proportionality in sentencing. The principle of proportionality guides the imposition of appropriate sentences that are proportionate to the crime committed. In line with this principle, the Supreme Court modified the sentences for all the convicts to a uniform term of 5 years of rigorous imprisonment.
While delivering the judgment, the Court stressed that reformation, deterrence, and punishment are integral aspects considered during the sentencing process. The appropriate sentence must strike a balance between these factors. The Court reminded the judiciary of its duty to impose the correct and proportionate sentence based on the circumstances of each case. Consequently, the Supreme Court sought to rectify the disparate sentencing by ensuring a fair and uniform punishment for the convicts involved in the case.
Source: Link
Picture Source :
