Sentencing Is Inexplicable: SC On HC Decision To Award Different Jail Terms To Convicts For Same Offence
Sentencing Is Inexplicable: SC on HC Decision to Award Different Jail Terms to Convicts for Same Offence
Context and Issue
When multiple accused are convicted for the same offence arising from the same transaction or occurrence, it is generally expected that sentencing should be consistent and proportionate to their roles.
However, sometimes High Courts award different jail terms to co-accused convicted of the same offence without adequately explaining the basis for differential sentencing.
The Supreme Court has criticized such decisions, describing them as “inexplicable” and emphasizing the need for reasoned and just sentencing.
Why Is Uniformity in Sentencing Important?
Principle of Equality Before Law:
Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees equality before law.
Arbitrary differences in sentencing violate this principle.
Fairness and Reasoned Judgments:
Sentences must reflect the degree of culpability of each accused.
Courts must provide clear reasons if sentences differ.
Preventing Arbitrariness:
Differential sentences without explanation create perceptions of unfairness.
It undermines public confidence in the judicial process.
Supreme Court’s Stance on Differential Sentencing
The Supreme Court has held that when co-accused are convicted for the same offence arising from the same facts, their sentences must be uniform unless there is a clear and cogent reason for differentiation.
Lack of adequate reasoning or justification for disparate sentencing amounts to judicial error and injustice.
Key Case Laws
1. Vijay Singh and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2017) 5 SCC 308
The Court observed that where co-accused are convicted of the same offence, awarding widely different sentences without clear justification is arbitrary and inexplicable.
The Court reiterated the need for courts to record reasons while awarding different sentences.
2. Gurmeet Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 2 SCC 377
The Court emphasized the requirement for uniformity in sentencing co-accused convicted for the same offence unless differences arise from the role or conduct of each accused.
It cautioned against imposing different sentences merely arbitrarily.
3. Satpal v. State of Haryana, (2001) 9 SCC 401
The Supreme Court held that sentencing must be proportionate and based on facts related to individual culpability.
It struck down sentencing disparities where courts failed to provide intelligible reasons.
4. Dalbir Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1985 SC 1592
The Court ruled that differential sentences without explanation violate principles of justice and equality.
It stressed the need for reasoned judgments in sentencing.
5. Union of India v. Paul Manickam, (2010) 7 SCC 791
The Court emphasized that sentencing is a judicial function that must be exercised judiciously, with clear reasons especially when sentences vary among co-accused.
Principles Extracted
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Equality in Sentencing | Co-accused for same offence should have proportionate sentences unless justified otherwise. |
| Judicial Reasoning | Courts must record clear reasons for different sentences. |
| Individual Culpability | Differences in role, conduct, or previous record may justify variance. |
| Avoid Arbitrariness | Sentencing without reasons is arbitrary and liable to be set aside. |
| Appeal and Review | Higher courts can interfere if sentencing appears unjust or inexplicable. |
Practical Impact
Trial and appellate courts must carefully analyze the role and conduct of each accused before fixing sentences.
They should expressly articulate reasons when awarding different sentences to co-accused.
Failure to do so may lead to sentences being modified or equalized by higher courts.
Illustration
Suppose 3 co-accused convicted of robbery with violence.
Two are sentenced to 7 years imprisonment, one to 3 years without explanation.
Supreme Court may hold the sentencing differential as inexplicable unless the court justifies that the third accused had a lesser role or mitigating circumstances.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s position is clear: sentencing must be fair, reasoned, and proportionate. Awarding different jail terms to convicts for the same offence without clear explanation is inexplicable and undermines justice. Courts must ensure transparent and reasoned judgments on sentencing to uphold principles of equality and fairness.
RELATED Blog
0 comments