Summary
The Court corrected widely disparate sentences based solely on custody already undergone for the same group assault. Six convicts were sentenced to five years’ rigorous imprisonment because no distinct roles justified terms ranging from eleven months to several years. The orders concerning two convicts who had already served more than five years were left undisturbed; the High Court’s conversion to culpable homicide was not reopened.
Issues
- Whether sentencing all convicts to time already served was proportionate where the offence and attributed roles did not justify large differences in punishment.
Provisions considered
- Section 304 Part II read with Section 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860The appeal was confined to sentencing under the convictions retained by the High Court. Absence of distinguishable roles and the gravity of the fatal armed assault required proportionate punishment rather than unexplained disparities based on prior custody. (¶¶ 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16)
Held
- Sentencing must reflect the gravity of the crime and its circumstances, balancing deterrent, corrective and punitive considerations. Personal and family circumstances and elapsed time are relevant but cannot support an inadequately reasoned or disproportionately lenient sentence. (¶¶ 10, 11, 12, 13)
- The High Court’s apparently uniform rule of time already served produced radically unequal outcomes for convicts whose roles it had not distinguished. Age and family circumstances did not explain why older convicts had served much longer while younger convicts received far shorter terms for the same offence. (¶¶ 7, 13, 14, 15, 16)
- Considering the fatal injuries, the armed group assault and the total circumstances, including four years already spent at liberty, five years’ rigorous imprisonment was appropriate for Raju, Parveen, Sunder son of Amit Lal, Sandeep, Nar Singh and Sunder son of Rajpal. They were required to surrender within six weeks to serve the balance. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16)
- Krishan and Bramhajit had already served more than five years, so the High Court’s orders concerning them were left undisturbed. The Supreme Court’s consideration was limited to sentencing and did not restore the murder convictions. (¶¶ 6, 7, 16, 17)
Result
Appeals partly allowed. Six named convicts sentenced to five years’ rigorous imprisonment with surrender within six weeks to serve the balance. Orders concerning Krishan and Bramhajit left undisturbed. No costs.