Punishment must be proportionate to the gravity of offence: Uggarsain Vs The State Of Haryana & Ors (2023)

                                   

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”,  sentenced accused 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 (Uggarsain Vs The State Of Haryana & Ors (2023) [Criminal Appeal No(S). 1378-1379 Of 2019].

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

            On Holika Dahan of 2012, the informant and others  were attacked by  7 accused persons with deadly weapons like danda, farsa and rod. They caused injuries on Pawan, Uggarsain and Subhash. Subhash succumbed to injuries.

            On receipt of intimation, the police registered the case under Section 147, 148,149 and 323 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. After death of Subhash due to grievous injuries, Section 302 was also added in FIR.  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.

The trial Court held that all the accused person reaching the spot together armed with deadly weapons indicated intention of lawful assembly and the nature of injuries indicated intention of causing death.

The trial Court also viewed that inability of prosecution to explain the injuries does not absolve them of the role in the attack and causing death of Subhash because evidence relied on was credible.

The accused appealed before the High Court and  by impugned judgment partly allowed their plea. The sentence under Section 302 IPC was converted to Section 304 Part II on the ground that the deceased received only one injury . 

The High 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.

            Therefore  informant 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.

            During hearing, fact had come to the knowledge that different accused had undergone different period of sentence, some more than 9 years and some less than a year out of five years rigorous imprisonment.

 

ARGUMENTS

            The appellant argued that the High Court was wrong in inferring that the injuries were caused due to sudden fight. It was deliberate fight to cause grievous injuries with deadly weapons. One of the informant died as a consequence. Therefore, it was prayed for fit and appropriate sentence to all the accused persons. The appellant also prayed for uniform sentencing standard when the roe of each accused was practically indistinguishable.

            On the other hand, accused pointed that the High Court had considered salutary principles as indicated by Supreme Court such as the relative ages of the accused, their family circumstances, the length of time they spent in custody, as well as the length of time that had elapsed since the commission of the crime,

            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.

In Shyam Sunder v Puran & Anr (1990), the accused-appellant was convicted under Section 304 Part I IPC. The appellate court reduced the sentence to the term of imprisonment already undergone, i.e., six months. However, it enhanced the fine. Supreme Court ruled that sentence awarded was inadequate.

It opined that: - “... The court in fixing the punishment for any particular crime should take into consideration the nature of the offence, the circumstances in which it was committed, the degree of deliberation shown by the offender. The measure of punishment should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence...”

            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”.

       Lastly, the Court viewed that accused being criminally liable under Section 304 Part II read with Section 149 IPC, the appropriate punishment would be five years of rigorous punishment.

    Those who served less than five years were directed to surrender and serve rest of the sentence of rigorous imprisonment with six months.

Also Read: Supreme Court provided illustrative disclosure framework in bail petition