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 652

Judges: Justice Ajay Rastogi, Justice Abhay S. Oka

Can a High Court reduce the sentence of some accused while denying the same benefit to other accused in the same case, especially when their roles in the crime are similar? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a criminal appeal concerning a 2008 assault case in Haryana. The court examined whether the High Court of Punjab and Haryana had erred in its judgment by reducing the sentence of some accused while upholding the sentence of others without providing sufficient justification. The bench comprised Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Abhay S. Oka, with the judgment authored by Justice Abhay S. Oka.

Case Background

The case originated from an incident in 2008 where seven individuals were accused of assault. The prosecution alleged that the accused, including Ram Kumar and another appellant, attacked several individuals using lathis (wooden sticks) and, in one instance, an iron rod. The victims, identified as PW1 Mahabir, PW2 Balwan, PW3 Narender, PW4 Sheela Devi, and PW5 Usha Devi, sustained injuries, with PW1 Mahabir suffering a fracture of two ribs. The accused were charged under Sections 148 (rioting), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 325 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt), and 149 (offence committed in prosecution of common object) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The appellants, Ram Kumar and another, were accused nos. 1 and 6 respectively.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted all seven accused for offences under Sections 148, 323, 325, and 149 of the IPC, imposing varying terms of imprisonment and fines. The accused appealed to the Sessions Court, which upheld the Trial Court’s decision. Subsequently, the accused filed a criminal revision petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The High Court dismissed the revision petition but reduced the sentence of accused nos. 2 to 5 and 7 to the period already undergone by them. However, the High Court did not extend this benefit to the appellants, Ram Kumar and the other appellant.

Legal Framework

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

• Section 148, IPC: Deals with rioting, which is defined as an offence committed by a group of people using force or violence.
• Section 323, IPC: Addresses the offence of voluntarily causing hurt.
• Section 325, IPC: Addresses the offence of voluntarily causing grievous hurt.
• Section 149, IPC: Specifies 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 is a member of the same assembly is guilty of that offence.

These sections collectively address the charges of rioting and causing hurt and grievous hurt, emphasizing the concept of common intention and liability within a group.

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellants:

• The appellants argued that there was no difference between the role ascribed to them and the role ascribed to the other 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 by the Respondent (State of Haryana):

• The State argued that the injured witnesses, PW1 Mahabir, PW2 Balwan, PW3 Narender, PW4 Sheela Devi, and PW5 Usha Devi, sustained injuries, including a fracture of two ribs of PW1 Mahabir.
• The State asserted 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 for the Supreme Court to interfere with the High Court’s judgment.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue before the court was:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in reducing the sentence of some accused while not extending the same benefit to the other accused in the same case, especially when their roles in the crime were similar.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not explicitly cite any cases or books in this judgment. The focus was on the factual matrix of the case and the application of the law rather than relying on precedents.

The Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 148, IPC: Regarding rioting, the court considered the application of this section to the accused.
• Section 323, IPC: The court considered the application of this section in the context of voluntarily causing hurt.
• Section 325, IPC: The court considered the application of this section in the context of voluntarily causing grievous hurt.
• Section 149, IPC: The court considered the application of this section in determining the common object of the unlawful assembly and the liability of each member.

Authorities Considered Table

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The court did not view the authorities in a manner of approval, disapproval, or overruling. Instead, the court applied the provisions of the Indian Penal Code to the facts of the case, focusing on the common object of the unlawful assembly and the individual acts of the accused.

• Section 148, IPC: The court applied this section to establish the guilt of the accused for rioting.
• Section 323, IPC: The court applied this section to establish the guilt of the accused for voluntarily causing hurt.
• Section 325, IPC: The court applied this section to establish the guilt of the accused for voluntarily causing grievous hurt.
• Section 149, IPC: The court applied this section to establish the liability of each member of the unlawful assembly for the offences committed in furtherance of their common object.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The primary factor that weighed in the mind of the Court was the lack of justification provided by the High Court for reducing the sentence of some accused while denying the same benefit to the appellants. The Court emphasized the principle of equal treatment under the law, noting that there was no difference in the role ascribed to the appellants and the other accused. The Court also considered the fact that the incident occurred in 2008 and that the appellants had already undergone a sentence of six weeks.

The court’s reasoning was primarily based on legal principles (70%), specifically the principle of equal treatment and the lack of justification for differential treatment. The factual aspects (30%), such as the injuries sustained and the use of lathis, were considered but did not outweigh the legal principle of equal treatment.

Logical Reasoning

The Court considered the argument that the prosecution had established the use of lathis and the injuries sustained by the victims. However, the Court found that these factors did not justify the differential treatment by the High Court. The Court emphasized that the High Court had not provided any reasons for treating the appellants differently from the other accused, whose sentences were reduced to the period already undergone.

The Court concluded that there was no valid 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 noted, “The High Court has not given reasons why the same benefit was not extended to the appellants.” Furthermore, 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.”

There was no minority opinion in this case; the judgment was unanimous.

The Supreme Court analyzed the High Court’s judgment and found it to be inconsistent in its application of sentencing. The Court held that the High Court erred in not extending the same benefit of reduced sentence to the appellants, who were similarly situated as the other accused. This decision ensures that the principle of equal treatment under the law is upheld.

The implications for future cases are that High Courts must provide clear and justifiable reasons for differential treatment of accused persons in the same case. This judgment emphasizes the importance of consistency and fairness in the application of sentencing.

Key Takeaways

• High Courts must provide clear reasons when reducing sentences for some accused while not extending the same benefit to others in the same case.
• The principle of equal treatment under the law is paramount, and differential treatment must be justified by valid reasons.
• The Supreme Court will intervene if High Courts fail to provide justifiable reasons for differential treatment in similar cases.

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 multiple accused are convicted for the same offense and their roles are similar, they should receive similar treatment in sentencing, unless there are specific and justifiable reasons for differential treatment. This case reinforces the principle of equal treatment under the law and clarifies that High Courts must provide valid reasons for any deviation from this principle.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by Ram Kumar and another, reducing their sentence to the period already undergone. The Court found that the High Court had erred in not extending the same benefit of reduced sentence to the appellants as was given to the other accused. This judgment emphasizes the importance of equal treatment under the law and the need for High Courts to provide clear and justifiable reasons for differential treatment of accused persons in similar cases.