Accused Loses Right To Default Bail By Acquiescence If Extension Orders Are Challenged Only After Chargesheet Filing: Supreme Court AP High Court Orders Release Of Vehicle Seized For Mineral Transport Violations Upon Payment Of Penalty, Says Rules Don't Mandate Indefinite Detention Short Time Gap Between 'Last Seen' And Death Clinches Murder Conviction Against Fired Driver: Allahabad High Court Court Must Restore Possession To Dispossessed Party If Ex-Parte Decree Is Set Aside Even If Property Descriptions Differ: Andhra Pradesh High Court Management Cannot Deny Compassionate Appointment Citing Delay If It Failed To Maintain Service Records: Calcutta High Court Long Possession Alone Does Not Establish Tenancy; Burden Of Proof Lies On Person Claiming Status Of Tenant: Bombay High Court Consent Of Minor Immaterial: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction But Acquits Man Of Kidnapping Charges Notional Income Of Minor In Motor Accident Claims Must Be Based On Minimum Wages Of Skilled Workmen: Supreme Court Enhances Compensation To ₹56.8 Lakhs Revenue Records Serve Only Fiscal Purpose, Cannot Be Treated As Proof Of Title To Property: Supreme Court Executing Court Cannot Grant 'Deemed Extension' Of Time For Deposit In Specific Performance Decree: Supreme Court Specific Performance Decree Becomes Inexecutable If Balance Sale Consideration Not Deposited Within Stipulated Time: Supreme Court Supreme Court Protects MSMEs From Closure Over Missing Environmental Clearance If Pollution Boards Were Unaware Of Requirement Industrial Units Operating With Valid PCB Consents Can't Be Closed Merely For Technical Want Of Prior Environmental Clearance: Supreme Court Punishment On Charge Not Framed In Show Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Supreme Court Reduces Doctor's Penalty To Censure Plea Of Acquiescence Cannot Defeat Lawful Title Claim When Encroachment Is Established: Madras High Court Board Of Revenue Can't Quash Unchallenged Orders While Exercising Revisional Jurisdiction: Orissa High Court Penetration To Any Extent Sufficient For Offence Under POCSO Act; Intact Hymen No Bar For Conviction: Meghalaya High Court Expeditious Conclusion Of Summary Force Court Trial Not Arbitrary If Procedure Followed; ITBPF Act Self-Contained: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 23 Rule 1 CPC Doesn't Bar Appeal Filed Prior To Withdrawal Of Earlier Defective Appeal Against Same Order: Madhya Pradesh High Court Appointment Of Receiver Is An 'Extreme Remedy', Cannot Be Ordered Lightly Especially After Decades Of Inaction: Punjab & Haryana High 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