Supreme Court Lays Down Comprehensive Guidelines To Prevent Misuse Of POCSO Act In Matrimonial Disputes Land Reforms Act | Joint Application For Pre-Emption By Adjoining Landowners Is Maintainable: Calcutta High Court Ocular Evidence In Conflict With Medical Findings Or Withholding Of Natural Witnesses Vitiates Prosecution Case: Allahabad High Court Compassionate Appointment Claim Must Be Decided Based On Policy Prevalent At Time Of Death: Bombay High Court Section 376 IPC | Failure To Prove Initial Dishonest Intent In Marriage Promise Renders Sexual Relationship Consensual: Allahabad High Court Prolonged Incarceration And Delay In Trial Are Valid Grounds To Invoke Constitutional Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 In UAPA Cases: Delhi High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Insurer Liable To Pay And Recover Compensation For Gratuitous Passengers In Goods Vehicles: Gujarat High Court Proof Of Demand And Acceptance Under PC Act Must Be Evaluated Based On Preponderance Of Probabilities In Rebuttal: Kerala High Court Tenancy Claim | Mere Possession Without Lawful Foundation Or Identification Of Tenanted Land Cannot Confer Occupancy Rights: Karnataka High Court 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Evaded By Claiming Physical Disability If Conduct Indicates Concealment Of Financial Means: Kerala High Court M.P. Municipal Corporation Act | Locus Standi Under Section 307(5) Limited To Residents Of The Municipal Area: Madhya Pradesh High Court Writ Jurisdiction | Belated Challenge To Disciplinary Action After Superannuation Amounts To Laches; Petition Dismissed: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC | Mere Pendency Of Partition Suit Does Not Entitle Plaintiff To Injunction Restraining Reconstruction Of Residential Building: Kerala High Court Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Section 482 CrPC | High Court Quashes FIR Following Private Compromise In Non-Heinous Dispute Arising From Civil Conflict Mere Involvement In Criminal Case Does Not Constitute Moral Turpitude To Deny Public Appointment: Telangana High Court Pendency Of Investigation Cannot Be A Blanket Ground To Deny Permission For Foreign Travel: Rajasthan High Court Fraudulent Representation By Counsel Vitiates Ex Parte Decree: Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds Professional Misconduct As Evidence Of Fraud Writ Jurisdiction | Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Pending Criminal And Departmental Proceedings Renders Petition Liable To Dismissal: Orissa High Court Banking Fraud | Failure Of Bank Official To Conduct Physical Inspection Of Collateral Property Constitutes Criminal Conspiracy And Abuse Of Official Position: Madras High Court Fraud Vitiates Judicial Proceedings: Judgment Obtained Through Misrepresentation And Conflict Of Interest Cannot Be Sustained, Holds Punjab And Haryana High Court Discovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act From Publicly Accessible Place Requires Caution: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Articles At Instance Of Accused Without Independent Corroboration Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court DNA Profile Must Be Supported By Other Conclusive Evidence To Prove Guilt: Supreme Court

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