1. Trainee recruits deserted their posts — Conviction under Section 6(a) of the U.P. Pradeshik Armed Constabulary Act, 1948 — Appeal regarding sentencing disparity. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1970 Supreme(SC) 23
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.Hidayatullah, CJI., A.N.Ray : I.D.Dua, JJ.
Rameshwar Dayal
Versus
State Of U.P.
Case No. : 168 of 1969
Date of Decision : 2/2/70
The court established that parity should be maintained in sentencing when the offence, facts, and circumstances are identical, ensuring that similarly situated offenders do not receive widely divergent punishments.
Headnote:(A) State Armed Constabulary Act, 1948 - Section 6(a) - Desertion of post - Sentencing - Disparity in sentences for identical offences - Where two accused committed the same offence under identical circumstances, it is inappropriate for their sentences to be widely different - Court should ensure parity in punishment. (Para 1)
Facts of the case:
Two trainee recruits of an armed constabulary deserted their posts. Despite identical facts and defences, they were tried by different judges and received widely different sentences. On appeal, the sentences were further diverged, with one receiving four years and the other three months of imprisonment.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the disparity in sentencing for identical offences committed under similar circumstances was odd and required correction to ensure fairness.
Issues: Whether the significant disparity in sentences awarded to two individuals for the same offence under identical circumstances warrants judicial intervention to ensure parity.
Ratio Decidendi: In cases where the offence, facts, and circumstances are identical, the punishment should be consistent. The court reduced the sentence of the appellant to the period already undergone to align it with the co-accused.
Result: Appeal allowed to this extent.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
crime and sentencing
-
sentencing
- sentencing disparity (Para 1)
-
sentencing
Table of Contents
2. The accused contended that they had applied for leave due to their wives' illness and had not deserted their posts. (Para 1 )
3. The court noted that identical offences committed under similar circumstances should not result in widely disparate sentences across different judicial officers. (Para 1 )
4. Punishments for identical offences committed under similar circumstances should be equitable and consistent to avoid arbitrary disparity. (Para 1 )
5. Appeal allowed — Sentence reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone. (Para 1 )
6. How should courts handle sentencing for identical offences committed under similar circumstances?
Courts should ensure that punishments are even and consistent, as it is considered problematic for identical offences in similar circumstances to result in widely disparate sentences. (Para 1 )
7. What remedy can be applied to correct extreme disparity in sentences between co-accused?
The court may exercise its power to reduce the sentence of the more severely punished accused to the period already undergone to achieve parity with the other accused. (Para 1 )
M.HIDAYATULLAH, C.J.I.
(1) THIS appeal has been admitted only on the question of sentence by this court in somewhat unusual circumstances. Two members of the Police Armed Constabulary who had joined very recently and who were only trainee recruits, wished to go to their village and applied for leave on the ground that their wives were ill. This was their defence. The finding is that they did not apply but deserted their post and therefore committed an offence under S. 6(a) of the U. P. Pradeshik Armed Constabulary Act, 1948 . The prosecution case had been accepted that they deserted service. Unfortunately the two cases were tried before two different Sessions Judges. Although the offences were the same, the defences were also the same and the facts were absolutely the same, the sentences passed on their conviction were widely different. The present appellant received 7 years rigorous imprisonment and the other accused was sentenced to 4 years rigorous imprisonment. They both appealed and unfortunately again, the appeals came before different Judges in the High Court. One learned Judge reduced the sentence of 7 years to 4 years and the other learned Judge reduced the sentence of 4 years to three months". This shows how the question of sentences awarded in a crime may be viewed differently by different Judges, a problem which has never been solved satisfactorily so far. However, the two cases being identical, it looks somewhat odd that one of the accused should be sentenced to 4 years imprisonment while another who committed the identical offence and in the like circumstances should be sentenced to three months imprisonment. We must do something to make the punishment even in these two cases. We are told that the appellant in this case has undergone imprisonment for nearly ten months and we think it would be enough to say that the appropriate sentence in his case is the period of imprisonment already undergone by him. The appeal is allowed to this extent.
