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

Date of the Judgment: 19 January 2022

Citation: 2022 INSC 52

Judges: Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Abhay S. Oka

Can a High Court provide different sentences to co-accused when their roles in a crime are similar? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent criminal appeal, focusing on whether it was just to give varying sentences to individuals involved in the same assault. The core issue revolved around the High Court of Punjab and Haryana’s decision to reduce the sentence for some accused while not extending the same benefit to others, despite similar roles in the crime. The judgment was delivered by a bench of Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Abhay S. Oka, with Justice Abhay S. Oka authoring the opinion.

Case Background

In 2008, an incident occurred where seven individuals were accused of assault. The prosecution alleged that these individuals, including the appellants Ram Kumar and another, attacked several people using lathis (bamboo sticks). The victims, identified as PW1 Mahabir, PW2 Balwan, PW3 Narender, PW4 Sheela Devi, and PW5 Usha Devi, sustained injuries. PW1 Mahabir suffered a fracture of two ribs. The Trial Court found all seven accused guilty under Sections 148, 323, 325, and 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted all seven accused under Sections 148, 323, 325, and 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The accused then filed an appeal before the Sessions Court, which was dismissed. Subsequently, a criminal revision petition was filed before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The High Court dismissed the revision petition but reduced the sentence for five of the seven accused to the period already undergone by them. However, the High Court did not extend the same benefit to the appellants, Ram Kumar and another, which led to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case involves several sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC):

• Section 148, IPC: Deals with rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon.
• Section 323, IPC: Deals with punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.
• Section 325, IPC: Deals with punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt.
• Section 149, IPC: Defines the concept of common intention in unlawful assembly, stating that if an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in furtherance of the common object of that assembly, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence.

These sections outline the legal framework for offenses related to rioting, causing hurt, and the concept of common intention in unlawful assembly. The application of Section 149, IPC, is crucial as it holds all members of an unlawful assembly liable for the actions of one or more members if those actions are in furtherance of the assembly’s common objective.

Arguments

Arguments of the Appellants:

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

Arguments of the Respondent (State of Haryana):

• The State of Haryana argued that the injured witnesses sustained injuries from blows of lathi given by the appellants.
• They highlighted that PW1 Mahabir had suffered a fracture of two ribs.
• They contended that the prosecution had successfully established that the appellants had used lathis to assault the injured witnesses, and therefore, no interference was required.

Submissions of Parties

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 in the commission of the offense.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not cite any specific cases or books in this judgment. The Court primarily relied on the facts of the case and the principle of equal treatment under the law.

The legal provisions considered by the court were:

• Section 148, IPC: The Court considered the conviction for rioting with deadly weapons.
• Section 323, IPC: The Court considered the conviction for voluntarily causing hurt.
• Section 325, IPC: The Court considered the conviction for voluntarily causing grievous hurt.
• Section 149, IPC: The Court considered the conviction for common intention in an unlawful assembly.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court considered the convictions under Section 148, IPC, Section 323, IPC, Section 325, IPC and Section 149, IPC, but focused more on the fact that all the accused were convicted under these sections with similar roles.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the principle of fairness and equality in sentencing. The Court noted that the High Court had not provided any justifiable reason for treating the appellants differently from the other accused, who had been given the benefit of a reduced sentence. The Court emphasized that when the roles of the accused are similar, they should receive similar treatment in terms of sentencing.

Logical Reasoning

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and reduced the substantive sentence of the appellants (accused nos. 1 and 6) to the sentence already undergone by them. The Court held 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 High Court has not given reasons why the same benefit was not extended to the appellants.”

“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 Court’s decision was unanimous, with both Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Abhay S. Oka agreeing on the judgment. There were no dissenting opinions.

Key Takeaways

• Equal Treatment: Courts must ensure equal treatment in sentencing when the roles of co-accused are similar.
• Reasoned Decisions: High Courts must provide clear reasons when making decisions that treat co-accused differently.
• Consistency: Consistency in sentencing is crucial for maintaining fairness and justice in the legal system.
• Reduced Sentence: The Supreme Court reduced the sentence of the appellants to the period already undergone, aligning their punishment with that of the other accused.

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 when the roles of the accused in a crime are similar, they should receive similar treatment in sentencing. This judgment reinforces the principle of equal treatment under the law and emphasizes the need for reasoned decisions by the High Courts. There is no change in the previous position of law, but it reinforces the principle of equal treatment in sentencing.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Ram Kumar & Anr. vs. State of Haryana highlights the importance of equal treatment in sentencing. The Court corrected the High Court’s error by reducing the sentence of the appellants to the period already undergone, ensuring that all accused with similar roles received similar punishment. This decision underscores the principle that justice must be fair and consistent.