Supreme Court Enhances Sentences in Culpable Homicide Case: Uggarsain vs. State of Haryana (2023)

Date of the Judgment: July 03, 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 601
Judges: S. Ravindra Bhat, J., Dipankar Datta, J.
Can a High Court reduce sentences for culpable homicide based on time served, ignoring the gravity of the offense? The Supreme Court of India recently examined this question in a case where the High Court of Punjab and Haryana converted a murder conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder and reduced sentences based on time served. The Supreme Court, in this case, addressed the issue of whether the High Court was correct in modifying the conviction and whether the sentence was appropriate. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Dipankar Datta.

Case Background

The case originated from an incident on March 7, 2012, the eve of Holika Dahan, when Krishan (A-1) verbally abused Subhash. The next day, Brahmjit, son of Krishan (A6), physically assaulted Subhash with a danda around 10:00/11:00 AM. Later that day, at about 3:00 PM, while Pawan, Uggarsain, and Subhash were sitting in front of their house, Brahmjit returned and began abusing them again, escalating the situation. Subsequently, a group of accused, including Raju, Krishan, Parveen, Sunder (son of Amit), Sunder (son of Rajpal), Nar Singh, and Sandeep, arrived armed with weapons. Raju struck Sita Ram (PW1) on the right shoulder, Krishan hit Sita Ram on the back with an iron pipe, and Brahmjit inflicted a farsa blow to Sita Ram’s head. The group also injured Pawan, Uggarsain, and Subhash. Subhash, having sustained severe injuries, was taken to the hospital where he underwent surgery. However, he died on March 12, 2012. The police initially registered a case under Sections 147, 148, 149, and 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), but later added Section 302 (murder) after Subhash’s death.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The trial court convicted all eight accused under Sections 148, 323, and 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC, sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment for life. The trial court reasoned that the accused, armed with weapons, had the common intention to inflict deadly injuries, resulting in Subhash’s death. The High Court, however, partly allowed the accused’s appeals, converting the conviction under Section 302 to Section 304 Part II read with Section 149 IPC. The High Court cited the lack of explanation for injuries on the accused and the fact that Subhash had only one injury as reasons for the modification. The High Court also concluded that the incident was a sudden fight, falling under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC. Aggrieved by this conversion and reduction in sentence, the informant, Uggarsain, appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• Section 147, IPC: “Punishment for rioting.—Whoever is guilty of rioting, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.” This section deals with the punishment for rioting.
• Section 148, IPC: “Rioting, armed with deadly weapon.—Whoever is guilty of rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon or with anything which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.” This section specifies the punishment for rioting when armed with a deadly weapon.
• Section 149, IPC: “Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object.—If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence.” This section deals with the vicarious liability of members of an unlawful assembly for offences committed in furtherance of their common object.
• Section 300, IPC: Defines murder. Exception 4 to this section states, “Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.”
• Section 302, IPC: “Punishment for murder.—Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.” This section provides the punishment for murder.
• Section 304, IPC: This section deals with punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Part II of this section states, “Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.”
• Section 323, IPC: “Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.—Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.” This section defines the punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that the High Court erred in concluding that the injuries were caused due to a sudden fight. They contended that the accused deliberately went to the victims’ house with the intention to cause deadly injuries, which resulted in the death of Subhash.
• The appellants submitted that the object of the unlawful assembly was to use force that resulted in death. Therefore, the sentencing should be appropriate, and the High Court’s judgment was flawed in adopting the “sentence undergone” standard, leading to disparate results.
• The appellants emphasized that the role of each accused was practically indistinguishable, and a uniform sentencing standard should have been adopted.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The respondents argued that the High Court had correctly applied the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, considering the accused’s ages, family circumstances, time spent in custody, and the lapse of time since the crime.
• The respondents contended that the High Court had appropriately considered all relevant factors in determining the sentences.

Analysis of Arguments:

The appellants argued that the High Court’s decision to reduce sentences based on time served was inappropriate, given the gravity of the offense and the common intention of the accused. They emphasized that the accused had deliberately gone to the victims’ house with the intention to cause deadly injuries. The respondents, on the other hand, argued that the High Court had correctly considered all relevant factors, including the accused’s ages, family circumstances, and time spent in custody.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue:

1. Whether the High Court was correct in modifying the conviction from Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 to Section 304-Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and whether the sentence was appropriate.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

On the principle of proportionality in sentencing:

Legal Provisions Considered:

• Section 147, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Punishment for rioting.
• Section 148, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Rioting, armed with a deadly weapon.
• Section 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Every member of an unlawful assembly guilty of an offence committed in prosecution of a common object.
• Section 300, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Defines murder and its exceptions.
• Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Punishment for murder.
• Section 304, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
• Section 323, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court relied on Ahmed Hussein Vali Mohammed Saiyed v. State of Gujarat [2009 (8) SCR 719]* to emphasize that sentences should deter criminals and be appropriate, not merely based on the lapse of time.
• The Supreme Court referred to Jameel v. State of U. P. [2009 (15) SCR 712]* to highlight that sentencing should be fact-dependent, using corrective or deterrent measures based on the factual matrix.
• The Supreme Court cited Guru Basavaraj v. State of Karnataka [2012 (8) SCR 1896]* to stress the court’s duty to impose appropriate sentences considering the crime’s impact on social order and to ensure adequate punishment.
• The Supreme Court referred to B.G. Goswami v. Delhi Administration [1974 (1) SCR 222]* to emphasize that punishment should deter, prevent repetition, and reform the offender for the good of society.
• The Supreme Court used Shyam Sunder v Puran & Anr [1990 Suppl (1) SCR 662]* to highlight that punishment should be proportionate to the gravity of the offense and that inadequate sentences should be enhanced.
• The Supreme Court used Ravda Sashikala v State of Andhra Pradesh [2017 (2) SCR 379]* to emphasize that sentencing depends on the facts, and the adequacy is determined by factors such as “the nature of crime, the manner in which it is committed, the propensity shown and the brutality reflected”.
• The Supreme Court cited State of M.P. v. Bablu [2014 (9) S.C.R. 467]* to emphasize the significance of imposing appropriate punishments.
• The Supreme Court cited Raj Kumar [2013 (5) SCR 979]* to emphasize the significance of imposing adequate punishments.
• The Supreme Court cited State of Punjab v. Saurabh Bakshi [2015 (3) SCR 590]* to emphasize the significance of imposing proportionate punishments.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily concerned with ensuring that the punishment was proportionate to the crime committed. The Court noted that the High Court’s approach of simply considering the time served led to significant disparities in the sentences of the accused, which was not justified given the nature of the crime. The Supreme Court emphasized that sentencing should be based on the gravity of the offense, the manner in which it was committed, and its impact on the social order. The Court also highlighted the importance of deterring potential offenders and reforming the guilty party.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court

Fact:Law Ratio

The court’s decision was influenced more by legal considerations (70%) than factual aspects (30%). The legal considerations included the principle of proportionality in sentencing, the need for deterrence, and the proper application of legal provisions.

Logical Reasoning:

The Supreme Court considered the High Court’s decision to reduce sentences based on time served. The Court noted that this approach led to significant disparities in the sentences of the accused. The Supreme Court emphasized that sentencing should be based on the gravity of the offense and the principle of proportionality. The Court also highlighted the importance of deterring potential offenders and reforming the guilty party. The Supreme Court found that the High Court’s sentencing was flawed and modified the sentence to five years rigorous imprisonment for most of the accused, except Krishan and Brahmjit who had already served more than that.

The Supreme Court rejected the High Court’s approach of solely relying on the “sentence undergone” criteria, emphasizing that sentencing should be proportionate to the gravity of the offense. The court noted that the High Court’s approach resulted in a wide disparity in sentences, which was not justified given the nature of the crime.

The Supreme Court held that the appropriate sentence would be five years rigorous imprisonment, considering the totality of circumstances. However, the court was cognizant of the fact that Krishan and Brahmjit had already served more than that period, and therefore, their sentences were left undisturbed.

The court observed that: “The sentencing in this case, to put it mildly, is inexplicable (if not downright bizarre). On the one hand, Krishan underwent sentence for 9 years 4 months- at the other end of the spectrum, Sunder s/o Rajpal underwent only 11 months. No rationale appears from the reasoning of the High Court for this wide disparity.”

The court further observed that: “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.”

The court also noted that: “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.”

Key Takeaways

• Sentencing should be based on the gravity of the offense and the principle of proportionality, not solely on the time served.
• Courts should consider the nature of the crime, the manner in which it was committed, and its impact on the social order when determining sentences.
• The “sentence undergone” criteria should not be the sole basis for sentencing, especially in cases involving serious offenses like culpable homicide.
• Disparities in sentences should be justified by specific roles or circumstances, not simply by the time served.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that Raju, Parveen, Sunder s/o Amit Lal, Sandeep, Nar Singh, and Sunder s/o Rajpal are sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for five years. They were directed to surrender and serve the rest of their sentences within six weeks from the date of the judgment.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There was no specific amendment discussed in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that sentencing should be based on the gravity of the offense and the principle of proportionality, not solely on the time served. The Supreme Court clarified that the “sentence undergone” criteria should not be the sole basis for sentencing, especially in cases involving serious offenses like culpable homicide. The judgment reinforces the principle that sentencing must be just and proportionate, considering all relevant factors, including the nature of the crime and its impact on society. This case underscores the need for a balanced approach to sentencing, ensuring that punishment fits the crime and serves the goals of deterrence and justice.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeals, modifying the sentences of some of the accused to five years rigorous imprisonment. The Court upheld the High Court’s decision to convert the conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 Part II of the IPC. However, it found the High Court’s sentencing approach to be flawed, as it relied solely on the time served by the accused, leading to significant disparities in sentences. The Supreme Court emphasized that sentencing should be based on the gravity of the offense and the principle of proportionality. This judgment underscores the importance of ensuring that punishment fits the crime and serves the goals of deterrence and justice.