Limitation | Delay Condonation Cannot Be An Act Of Generosity: Supreme Court Refuses To Condone 31-Year Delay To Challenge Decree Sentence Suspension In Murder Cases Only Under Exceptional Circumstances; Presumption Of Innocence Erased Upon Conviction: Supreme Court Inquiry Commission Report Cannot Be Used For Disciplinary Action If Statutory Right To Cross-Examine Denied: Gauhati High Court Use Of Trademark On Website Accessible In India Constitutes Domestic Use, Geo-Blocking Mandatory For Territorial Restrictions: Delhi High Court Civil Court Jurisdiction To Interfere With DRT Proceedings Is Absolutely Barred Even For Third Parties: Madras High Court Adding a Prefix Can’t Erase Deceptive Similarity – Delhi High Court Orders Removal of ‘ARUN’ from Trademark ‘AiC ARUN’ Cannot Resile From Mediated Settlement After Taking Benefits: Supreme Court Quashes Wife's DV Case, Grants Divorce Absolute Indemnity Obligation Triggers Immediately Upon Court-Directed Deposit, Not On Final Appeal: Supreme Court Magistrate Directing Investigation Under Section 156(3) CrPC Only Requires Prima Facie Satisfaction Of Cognizable Offence: Supreme Court Cancellation Of Sale Deed Under Specific Relief Act Not A Pre-Condition To Initiate Criminal Case For Forgery: Supreme Court Amalgamated Company Cannot Claim Set-Off Of Predecessor's Losses Under Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act Without Specific Statutory Provision: Supreme Court Overlapping Split Chargesheets May Raise Double Jeopardy Concerns, Supreme Court Notes While Granting Bail To Former Jharkhand Minister Supreme Court Grants Bail To Convicted Ex-Jharkhand Minister Facing Overlapping Prosecutions From Split Chargesheets Electricity Act Appellate Authority Is A Quasi-Judicial Body Subject To High Court’s Supervisory Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mere Discrepancy In Date Of Birth Across Certificates Doesn't Amount To Fraud If No Undue Advantage Is Derived: Allahabad High Court Interest Earned On Funds Temporarily Parked Pending Project Deployment Cannot Be Taxed As 'Income From Other Sources': Delhi High Court Reference Court Cannot Set Aside Collector's Award Or Remand Matter For Fresh Determination: Allahabad High Court Administrative Transfer Causing Revenue Loss Defies Court Process: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Ferry Ghat Handover Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka 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