The recent legal case involved an analysis by the court on the principle of equal treatment when it comes to sentencing. The court reduced the sentence of two appellants, emphasizing fairness and consistency in legal judgments. This decision underscores the importance of upholding justice through equitable treatment in legal proceedings.
Facts
- The appellants are the original accused nos.1 and 6.
- Accused appealed to Sessions Court, but appeal was dismissed.
- Accused filed criminal revision petition before High Court.
- High Court dismissed revision petition but reduced sentence for some accused to time already served.
- Seven accused were prosecuted for offences under Sections 148, 323, 325, and 149 of IPC.
- All seven accused were convicted by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate.
- Various sentences were imposed on all accused under different sections of IPC.
Also Read: Admission Deadline Adherence in Medical Courses
Arguments
- Shri Jawahar Narang argued that there is no difference in the roles of the appellants and the accused who were given leniency by the High Court.
- He stated that the High Court did not provide reasons for treating the present appellants differently.
- Shri Birendra Kumar Chaudhary, representing the state, pointed out the injuries sustained by the prosecution witnesses and highlighted the severity of the injuries, including the fractured ribs of PW1 Mahabir.
- He argued that the prosecution’s case regarding the appellants’ actions causing the injuries has been proven.
- Therefore, he concluded that there is no need for any interference in the matter.
Also Read: From Nominee to Disqualified: Supreme Court Scrutinizes Age Evidence, Declares Election Invalid
Analysis
- Lathis were used as weapons of assault by all the accused as per witness depositions.
- All accused were convicted under Section 149 of IPC based on Trial Court judgment.
- Accused no. 3 used an iron rod to assault PW2 Balwan.
- Trial Court found that all accused collectively caused injuries to PW1 to PW5 in pursuit of their common object.
- The Sessions Court affirmed the finding of the Trial Court that all accused assaulted injured witnesses with lathis.
- High Court released five other accused who had already served their sentences.
- The High Court did not provide reasons for not extending the same benefit to the appellants.
- There was no difference in the roles of the appellants and the other accused according to the Trial Court.
- The High Court’s decision to deny the benefit to the appellants was unjustified based on the facts of the case.
- Minor discrepancy noted by the Trial Court in the evidence of a prosecution witness mentioning an iron rod instead of a lathi.
- Appellants had already served a six-week sentence.
Decision
- The appeal has been allowed in the above terms.
- The substantive sentence of the appellants (accused nos.1 and 6) has been reduced to the sentence already undergone by them.
- All pending applications, if any, have been disposed of.
Case Title: RAM KUMAR Vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA (2022 INSC 65)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-000104-000104 / 2022
