Supreme Court Reduces Sentence in Assault Case: Ram Kumar & Anr. vs. State of Haryana (2022)

Date of the Judgment: 19 January 2022
Citation: 2022 INSC 49
Judges: Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Abhay S. Oka.
Can a High Court reduce the sentence of some accused while maintaining the sentence of others when all were convicted for the same offences and there is no difference in the role ascribed to them? The Supreme Court addressed this issue in a criminal appeal where the High Court had reduced the sentence for some of the accused while not extending the same benefit to the appellants. The Supreme Court bench consisted of Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Abhay S. Oka, who authored the judgment.

Case Background

The case involves an incident from 2008 where seven individuals were accused of assault. The prosecution alleged that the accused used lathis (wooden sticks) and, in one instance, an iron rod to inflict injuries on multiple victims. The Trial Court convicted all seven accused under Sections 148 (rioting), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 325 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt), and 149 (unlawful assembly) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The accused were sentenced to imprisonment and fines for each of the offences. The accused then appealed to the Sessions Court which upheld the Trial Court’s decision.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The accused initially faced trial in the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate’s court, which found all seven guilty and imposed sentences for offences under Sections 148, 323, 325, and 149 of the IPC. The accused appealed to the Sessions Court, which upheld the convictions. Subsequently, a criminal revision petition was filed before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. While the High Court dismissed the revision petition, it reduced the sentence of five accused to the period already served. However, the High Court did not extend the same benefit to the appellants, which led to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case involves the following sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC):

• 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 deals with rioting while armed with a deadly weapon.
• Section 323, IPC: “Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.—Whoever, except in the case provided 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 deals with the punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.
• Section 325, IPC: “Punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt.—Whoever, except in the case provided by section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.” This section deals with the punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt.
• 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 pertains to the vicarious liability of members of an unlawful assembly for offences committed in furtherance of their common objective.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that there was no difference in the role ascribed to them and the role ascribed to the other accused who were given the benefit of reduced sentences by the High Court.
• They contended that the High Court did not provide any reasons for treating them differently from the other accused.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The State of Haryana, represented by the AAG, highlighted the injuries sustained by the victims, including a fracture of two ribs of PW1 Mahabir.
• The State argued that the prosecution had established that the appellants used lathis to inflict blows on the injured witnesses.
• The State contended that there was no reason to interfere with the High Court’s judgment.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in reducing the sentence of some accused while not extending the same benefit to the appellants, despite similar roles ascribed to all accused.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not cite any specific case laws or legal provisions other than those already mentioned, focusing primarily on the factual matrix of the case and the lack of justification provided by the High Court for differential treatment of the accused.

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court noted that all accused were convicted under Section 148, IPC* for rioting with deadly weapons.
• The Court noted that all accused were convicted under Section 323, IPC* for voluntarily causing hurt.
• The Court noted that all accused were convicted under Section 325, IPC* for voluntarily causing grievous hurt.
• The Court emphasized that all accused were convicted with the aid of Section 149, IPC*, indicating a common object in the assault.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily concerned with the lack of justification for the High Court’s differential treatment of the accused. The Court emphasized that there was no distinction in the roles ascribed to the appellants and the other accused who were granted reduced sentences. The Court noted that the High Court had not provided any reasons for not extending the same benefit to the appellants, leading to a finding of arbitrariness in the High Court’s decision.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the depositions of the injured witnesses (PW1 to PW5) which revealed that lathis were used as weapons of assault by all the accused. The Court also noted that the Trial Court had convicted all the accused with the aid of Section 149 of the IPC, indicating that they collectively caused injuries in furtherance of their common object. The Court found that there was no reason to deny the appellants the same benefit that was extended to the other five accused by the High Court. The Court stated, “There is no difference in the role ascribed to the appellants and the other accused.” The Court also stated, “The High Court has not given reasons why the same benefit was not extended to the appellants.” Further, the Court observed, “Therefore, taking into account the facts of the case, there was no reason to deny the benefit to the appellants which was extended to the other five accused by the High Court.”

The Supreme Court did not consider any alternative interpretations. It focused on the factual matrix of the case and the lack of a reasoned justification for the High Court’s decision. The decision was reached by finding that the High Court’s decision was arbitrary and not based on any valid distinction between the accused.

The majority opinion was delivered by Justice Abhay S. Oka, with Justice Ajay Rastogi concurring. There were no minority opinions.

Key Takeaways

• Differential treatment of co-accused in similar circumstances without a valid reason can be considered arbitrary.
• High Courts must provide clear reasons when reducing sentences for some accused while maintaining the sentences of others.
• The principle of parity in sentencing must be considered, especially when the roles of the accused are similar.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the substantive sentence of the appellants (accused nos. 1 and 6) be reduced to the sentence already undergone by them.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that parity in sentencing should be maintained among co-accused when their roles are similar, and any deviation must be supported by clear and valid reasons. This decision reinforces the principle that judicial decisions must be reasoned and not arbitrary, particularly in matters of sentencing. This case clarifies that High Courts must provide a rationale when reducing sentences for some accused but not others, especially when they are all convicted for the same offences and have similar roles.

Conclusion

In the case of Ram Kumar & Anr. vs. State of Haryana, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, reducing the sentence of the appellants to the period already served. This decision was based on the finding that the High Court had not provided any reasons for treating the appellants differently from the other accused, who had been given the benefit of reduced sentences. The Supreme Court emphasized the need for consistency and reasoned decision-making in sentencing, especially when dealing with co-accused who have played similar roles in the commission of an offence.