Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Fraudulent Sale of Vehicle During Hire Purchase Renders Agreement Void: Gauhati High Court Upholds Decree for Refund of ₹4.90 Lakhs Unsigned Written Statement Can’t Silence a Defendant: Hyper-Technical Objections Must Yield to Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Default Bail | No Accused, No Extension: Delhi High Court Rules Custody Extension Without Notice as Gross Illegality Under Article 21 Gratuity Can Be Withheld Post-Retirement for Proven Negligence Under Service Rules – Payment of Gratuity Act Does Not Override CDA Rules: Calcutta High Court Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction

Supreme Court Sets Uniform Sentencing Standard in Landmark Judgment on Disparity in Sentences

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


On 03 July 2023, In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India has addressed the issue of disparity in sentences and established a uniform sentencing standard. The bench comprising Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta delivered the judgment in the case of Uggarsain v. The State of Haryana & Ors., Criminal Appeal No(s). 1378-1379 of 2019.

The case involved the conversion of the appellant’s conviction from Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to Section 304 Part II IPC by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The appellant, Uggarsain, had appealed against the conversion of conviction and reduction of sentence. The prosecution had alleged that Uggarsain and others were involved in a violent attack that resulted in the death of the deceased, Subhash.

The trial court had convicted all the accused persons and imposed varying sentences. However, the High Court partially allowed the appeals, reducing the conviction to Section 304 Part II IPC. This led to widely different and disparate outcomes in terms of the sentences imposed on the accused.

The Supreme Court, while addressing the issue of disparity in sentences, emphasized the principle of proportionality in sentencing. The court referred to previous judgments, including Ahmed Hussein Vali Mohammed Saiyed v. State of Gujarat, Jameel v. State of U. P., Guru Basavaraj v. State of Karnataka, and others, which highlighted the importance of imposing appropriate and proportionate punishments based on the nature of the offense, circumstances of its commission, and other relevant factors.

The court observed that the sentencing in this case was flawed and arbitrary, with no rationale for the wide disparity in the sentences imposed on the accused. It held that the appropriate sentence, considering the totality of circumstances, would be five years of rigorous imprisonment. However, it took into account the fact that some of the accused had already served sentences longer than five years and left their sentences undisturbed.

The Supreme Court’s judgment establishes a uniform sentencing standard and highlights the need for proportionate sentences in criminal cases. It underscores that sentencing should be based on the gravity of the offense and relevant factors, ensuring fairness and justice in the criminal justice system.

This landmark judgment is expected to have a significant impact on future sentencing decisions, promoting consistency and fairness in the imposition of sentences.

The court’s decision in Uggarsain v. The State of Haryana & Ors. Serves as an important precedent for addressing disparities in sentencing and upholding the principle of proportionality in criminal law.

Date of Decision: July 3, 2023   

UGGARSAIN  vs THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. 

Latest Legal News