UGGARSAIN versus THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

Citation: [2023] 10 S.C.R. 74 · Decided: 03-07-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAVINDRA BHAT · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 8 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
74
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 10 S.C.R.
[2023] 10 S.C.R. 74 : 2023 INSC 587
74
UGGARSAIN
v.
THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No(s). 1378-1379 of 2023)
JULY 03, 2023
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND DIPANKAR DATTA, JJ.]
Sentence/Sentencing – Appropriateness of sentences – Eight
accused persons were charged with and tried for offences
punishable u/ss. 148, 149, 302, 304 Part-II and 323 of IPC for
having causing death of deceased and causing injury on others –
Trial Court convicted all the accused persons and sentenced them
to rigorous imprisonment for life u/s. 302 r/w s.149 and one year
rigorous imprisonment u/s. 148 and six months rigorous imprisonment
u/s.323 r/w. s.149 – The High Court partially allowing the appeal
by the accused persons converted their conviction u/s. 302 r/w. s.
149 IPC to s.304 Part II r/w. s.149 IPC and affirmed convictions u/
s.148 and s.323 r/w. s.149 IPC – High Court observed that the case
fell under Exception 4 to s.300 IPC – Appellants contended that
impugned judgment gravely erred in adopting the standard of
sentence undergone, which resulted in widely different and disparate
results – On appeal, held: Appeals confined to the extent of
appropriateness of sentences undergone by different accused
persons for causing the same offence – All eight accused have
undergone different periods under imprisonment varying from 9
years to 11 months – Principle of proportionality should guide the
sentencing process – In the instant case, the sentencing was
inexplicable – No rationale appeared from the reasoning of the
High Court for this wide disparity – The judgment of High Court
fell into error having not considered the gravity of the offence –
Having held all the accused criminally liable, u/s. 304 Part II r/w
s.149 IPC and also not having found any distinguishing feature in
the form of separate roles played by each of them, the imposition of
the “sentence undergone” criteria, amounted to aberration, and
the sentencing is for that reason, flawed – Considering totality of
circumstances, appropriate sentence of five years rigorous
imprisonment imposed – However, two accused (A-1 and A-6) having
served more than that period, the impugned judgment, as far as
they are concerned is left undisturbed.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
75
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The sentencing in this case, to put it mildly, is
inexplicable (if not downright bizarre). On the one hand, A-1
underwent sentence for 9 years 4 months- at the other end of the
spectrum, accused A-8 underwent only 11 months. No rationale
appears from the reasoning of the High Court for this wide
disparity. It is not as though the court took note of the role
ascribed to the accused (such a course was not possible, given
the nature of the evidence). If it were assumed that the age of
the accused played a role, then A-1, at 61 years- who served 9
years and A-6, who had served in the army, and was detained for
over 8 years got the stiffest sentence. On the other end of the
scale, younger persons were left relatively unscathed, having
served between 3 years and 11 months. [Para 15][81-G; 82-A, B]
2. The impugned judgment, in this court’s opinion, fell into
error in not considering the gravity of the offence. Having held
all the accused criminally liable, under Section 304 Part II read
with Section 149 IPC and also not having found any distinguishing
feature in the form of separate roles played by each of them, the
imposition of the “sentence undergone” criteria, amounted to
an aberration, and the sentencing is for that reason, flawed. This
court is, therefore, of the view that given the totality of
circumstances (which includes the fact that the accused have been
at large for the past four years), the appropriate sentence would
be five years rigorous imprisonment. However, at the same time,
the court is cognizant of the fact A-1 and A-6 served more than
that period. Therefore, the impugned judgment, as far as they
are concerned, is left undisturbed. [Para 16][82-C-E]
Jameel v. State of U. P. [2009] 15 SCR 712; Shyam
Sunder v Puran & Anr [1990] Suppl 1 SCR 662 – relied
on.
Ahmed Hussein Vali Mohammed Saiyed v. State of
Gujarat [2009] 8 SCR 719; Guru Basavaraj v. State of
Karnataka [2012] 8 SCR 189; B.G. Goswami v. Delhi
Administration [1974] 1 SCR 222; Ravda Sashikala v
State of Andhra Pradesh [2017] 2 SCR 379; M.P. v.
Bablu [2014] 9 SCR 467; Raj Kumar [2013] 5 SCR
979; State of Punjab v. Saurabh Bakshi [2015] 3 SCR
590 – referred t

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.