Principle of proportionality should guide the sentencing process: Supreme Court

            A Division Bench of Supreme Court  consisting of Justices  S.Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta stressing “the measure of punishment should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence” told accused,  sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of five years, to surrender to serve the rest of the sentence because the sentence they have undergone was inadequate considering the nature of the offence they have committed. 

            An incident happened on the day of Holika Dahan the informant and others  were attacked by  7 accused with deadly weapons where one person succumbed to injuries. They were convicted under Sections 302 r/w Section 149 IPC, Section 148 IPC and Section 323 r/w Section 149 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life.
Upon the appeal to the High Court by the accused person the sentence under Section 302 IPC was converted to Section 304 Part II on the ground that the deceased received only one injury . 

The Court also held that the case fell under Exception 4 to Section Section 300 as tempers were running high between parties and that the accused did not act in a pre-meditated manner.

            That is why the informant in the instant case approached the Supreme Court of India against the conversion of conviction and corresponding reduction of sentence. In the present case, it is also reported that there is disparity/inappropriateness in the amount of sentence undergone by 7 accused persons.

            Some undergone more than 9 years and some undergone only less than a year out of five years rigorous imprisonment.

            Seeing the disparate  sentence of the accused persons, the Hon’ble Apex Court appropriately relied on several previous decisions of the Honb’ble Court that guided the sentencing process by a principle called principle of proportionality.
            

            In Ahmed Hussain Vali Mohammed Saiyed vs. State of Gujarat (2009) 8 SCR 719, held the sentence should deter the criminal from achieving the avowed object to ( sic break the) law. The Court also held that imposing meagre sentences merely on account of lapse of time would be counterproductive.

            Also emphasising on the sentencing process, the Court referred to Jameel vs State of U.P. (2009) where it was held – the law should adopt the corrective machinery  or deterrence based on factual matrix. By deft modulation, sentencing process be stern where it should be, and tempered with mercy where it warrants to be. The facts and given circumstances in each case, the nature of the crime, the manner in which it was planned and committed, the motive for commission of the crime, the conduct of the accused, the nature of weapons used and all other attending circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into the area of consideration.

            Again, in Guru Basavaraj v. State of Karnataka (2012) the court stressed that it “is the duty of the court to see that appropriate sentence is imposed regard being had to the commission of the crime and its impact on the social order” and that sentencing includes “adequate punishment”.
 
 
 Uggarsain Versus The State Of Haryana & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No(S). 1378-1379 Of 2019 )
 
Date of Judgment: 3/07/2023

Download Judgment