Principle Of Parity | Supreme Court Extends Benefit Of Fixed-Term Sentence To Co-Accused Based On Remission Period

"When the benefit of commutation of death penalty to life imprisonment was granted by this court to the co-accused Madan and the imprisonment also was for a fixed term of twenty years and he has been released, we find that by application of the principle of party, insofar as the case of the applicant is concerned... must also be restricted to a similar period of twenty years." Supreme Court of India, in a significant order, held that the principle of parity must be applied to ensure uniform sentencing for co-accused persons, directing the release of a life convict who had completed twenty years of actual imprisonment with remission.

A bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan observed that where a co-accused had been granted a fixed-term sentence and subsequently released, denying the same benefit to another similarly placed convict would be a miscarriage of justice.

The applicant, Sudesh Pal, was convicted alongside other accused for offences under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC by the Sessions Court in 2015, which initially awarded him the death penalty. Upon appeal, the Allahabad High Court commuted his sentence to imprisonment for life, while upholding the death penalty for his co-accused, Madan, which was later modified to a fixed term of twenty years by the Supreme Court. Having already served over twenty-four years of imprisonment with remission, the applicant approached the Supreme Court seeking modification of his sentence to twenty years on the ground of parity.

The primary question before the court was whether the principle of parity in sentencing could be invoked to restrict a life imprisonment sentence to a fixed term of twenty years. The court further examined whether the applicant’s prolonged incarceration and conduct justified bringing his sentence in alignment with that of his co-accused.

Requirement Of Uniformity In Sentencing

The bench emphasized that sentencing should not be arbitrary and that the state cannot advocate for disparate treatment of co-accused persons who share the same conviction profile. While the respondent-State argued that the co-accused Madan was granted relief due to specific medical conditions, the court rejected this as a basis to deny the applicant, who had also undergone extensive incarceration.

Application Of The Principle Of Parity

The Court observed that since the co-accused Madan had already been released after serving a fixed term of twenty years, it would be unjust to hold the applicant for an indefinite period. The bench held that the principle of parity dictates that the applicant’s sentence should be treated as concluded, as he had fulfilled the same duration of incarceration as the co-accused.

"We find that by application of the principle of party, insofar as the case of the applicant is concerned, who was not imposed the death penalty by the High Court, but had the benefit of commutation to life imprisonment must also be restricted to a similar period of twenty years."

Final Directions And Release

The Supreme Court concluded that the ends of justice would be met by treating the applicant’s sentence as having been served in full. Consequently, the Miscellaneous Application was allowed, and the Court directed that the applicant be released from custody forthwith.

Date of Decision: 15 July 2026