8 men got wildly different sentences for the same crime. SC says no.
For a Holika Dahan brawl that turned fatal, one accused served 11 months, another 9 years. The Supreme Court found the 'sentence undergone' formula produced an aberration and imposed uniform 5-year terms.
5
years.
For a Holika Dahan brawl that turned fatal, one accused served 11 months, another 9 years. The Supreme Court found the 'sentence undergone' formula produced an aberration and imposed uniform 5-year terms.
Eight men, same crime, same conviction. One walked out in 11 months. Another had already served 9 years. On the eve of Holika Dahan in March 2012, a quarrel in Haryana turned into a fatal brawl. By the time the Supreme Court was done with the case, it had exposed a flaw in how Indian courts sentence multiple accused for the same offence — and fixed it with a single, uniform number.
The night before Holi
The trouble began with an argument. On the night before Holika Dahan in March 2012, a man named Krishan abused another man, Subhash.
The next morning, Krishan's son Brahmjit beat Subhash with a stick. That afternoon, as members of the complainant party sat outside their house, Brahmjit returned and abused them again. Then eight men arrived — armed with iron pipes, rods, and farsas (a type of heavy axe-like weapon). The iron pipes and rods clattered as the men advanced. Subhash suffered serious head injuries. He was hospitalised and operated upon, but died four days later.
The police registered a case on 9 March 2012 under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC — the main criminal law of India). After Subhash's death, Section 302 (murder) was added on 13 March 2012. The trial court — the Sessions Court, in Sessions Trials No. 160 of 30.07.2012, 275 of 04.12.2012 and 114 of 15.04.2013 — convicted all eight accused of murder under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC (every member of an unlawful assembly is guilty of an offence committed in pursuit of the group's common object) on 11 February 2016. The court sentenced each to life imprisonment.
The hospital room where Subhash lay after surgery, the slow wait of four days, the finality of the death that followed — these details hung over the trial. The Sessions Court, after hearing evidence and arguments, found that the eight men had acted with a common object, armed with lethal weapons, and that Subhash's death was a direct result of the attack. The life sentence it imposed was the standard punishment for murder under the law.
An unusual fix
The eight men appealed to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Appeal No. 249 DB of 2016. The High Court bench in Chandigarh, on 27 August 2019, found that the murder conviction was too harsh. It converted the conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC, applying Exception 4 to Section 300 (a legal provision that reduces murder to culpable homicide when the death occurs during a sudden fight, without premeditation). So far, this was a standard appellate correction — the High Court concluded that the fight had been spontaneous, not planned, and that the accused had not intended to kill.
But then came the sentencing. The High Court did not impose a fixed term. Instead, it sentenced each accused to only the period they had already spent in custody — the 'sentence undergone' formula. The result was wildly disparate: one accused had served about 11 months. Another had already spent over 9 years in jail. The same crime, the same conviction, but one man would walk free almost immediately while another had already served nearly a decade. The disparity was not based on any difference in their roles — the High Court had not distinguished between them. It was simply an accident of how long each accused had been arrested before trial, how long their individual bail applications had taken, how long the system had held them.
This was the problem. The 'sentence undergone' approach treated each accused as if they were separate cases, not co-accused in the same offence. The man who had been arrested early and could not afford bail served nine years. The man who was arrested later or managed to get bail earlier served eleven months. The crime was the same. The conviction was the same. The punishment was not.
Why the formula failed
The complainant, Uggarsain, appealed to the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No(s). 1378-1379 of 2019. The Supreme Court, comprising Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Dipankar Datta, confined its inquiry to one question: was the sentencing appropriate?
The Court held that the 'sentence undergone' criterion produced grossly disparate results among co-accused whose roles were indistinguishable. This violated the principle of proportionality — the idea that punishment must fit the crime and be consistent across similarly situated offenders. The Court found that the High Court's approach was an aberration, a departure from the settled principles of sentencing.
The Court observed: "the imposition of 'sentence undergone' criterion producing widely disparate sentences among co-accused amounts to an aberration." The Court further held that "the principle of proportionality requires that sentencing must consider the gravity of the offence; for conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC involving death caused by an armed unlawful assembly, a sentence must be adequate and not reduced to a nominal period merely because of the varying periods different accused happened to spend in custody."
The Court drew upon several precedents to support its reasoning, including Ahmed Hussein Vali Mohammed Saiyed v. State of Gujarat (2009), Jameel v. State of U.P. (2009), Guru Basavaraj v. State of Karnataka (2012), B.G. Goswami v. Delhi Administration (1974), Shyam Sunder v. Puran & Anr (1990), Ravda Sashikala v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2017), State of M.P. v. Bablu (2014), and Raj Kumar (2013). These cases collectively established that sentencing must be proportionate and not arbitrary, particularly when multiple accused are involved in the same offence. The Court examined each precedent carefully, noting that the consistent thread running through them was the requirement that a sentence must reflect the gravity of the offence, not the procedural accident of pre-trial detention.
The Court also considered the nature of the offence itself. Section 304 Part II IPC deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder — a serious offence that involves causing death without the intention to kill. The maximum punishment under this provision is ten years imprisonment, or fine, or both. The High Court had reduced that to a few months or years for some accused, effectively treating the offence as trivial. The Supreme Court found this unacceptable. A death caused by an armed unlawful assembly, even in a sudden fight, demands a sentence that acknowledges the loss of life and the violence involved.
The uniform five-year sentence
The Supreme Court imposed a uniform sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment on six of the eight accused — Raju, Parveen, Sunder s/o Amit Lal, Sandeep, Nar Singh, and Sunder s/o Rajpal. They were directed to surrender and serve the rest of their sentences within six weeks. The Court left the sentences of two accused — Krishan and Brahmjit, the father-son duo who had started the quarrel — undisturbed, as they had already served longer periods in custody. Krishan and Brahmjit had been in jail for over nine years, which already exceeded the five-year term imposed on the others. The Court saw no reason to disturb their sentences, as they had already served a period that was proportionate to the offence.
The Court's reasoning was clear: for a conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC involving death caused by an armed unlawful assembly, a sentence must be adequate and not reduced to a nominal period merely because of the varying periods different accused happened to spend in custody. The gravity of the offence — a death caused by a group armed with lethal weapons — demanded a meaningful sentence. The Court also engaged Section 319 Cr.P.C. (the power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of an offence) as a procedural vehicle in its analysis.
The order was specific and practical. The six accused whose sentences were modified were directed to surrender within six weeks. This gave them time to prepare, but also made clear that the Court's decision was final and enforceable. The appeals were partly allowed, with no order as to costs. The Supreme Court had not overturned the High Court's conversion of the conviction — it accepted that the offence was culpable homicide, not murder. But it corrected the sentencing, ensuring that the punishment matched the crime.
The deeper problem: 'sentence undergone' across Indian courts
The Uggarsain case is not an isolated incident. The 'sentence undergone' formula has been used by courts across India, particularly in cases where accused have spent long periods in pre-trial detention. The logic is understandable: a person who has already spent years in jail should not be sent back for a longer term if the remaining sentence is short. But the problem arises when this approach is applied mechanically, without considering the uniformity that co-accused deserve.
In many cases, the disparity is even more extreme than in Uggarsain. Some accused are arrested immediately, while others surrender later. Some get bail quickly, while others languish in jail for years. The 'sentence undergone' approach rewards those who managed to stay out of custody and punishes those who were held longer — regardless of their actual role in the offence. This is the opposite of what sentencing should do. A sentence should reflect the gravity of the offence and the culpability of the offender, not the efficiency of the police or the generosity of the bail court.
The Supreme Court's decision in Uggarsain is a reminder that the principle of proportionality must govern sentencing, not convenience or sympathy. When multiple accused are convicted for the same offence with indistinguishable roles, the court must impose a uniform sentence that reflects the gravity of the crime. The 'sentence undergone' approach may be appropriate in some cases — for example, where the accused has already served a sentence that is close to the maximum for the offence, or where the offence is minor. But for serious offences involving death, a nominal sentence is not enough.
What this means
The case is a reminder that the 'sentence undergone' approach is not a one-size-fits-all solution. When multiple accused are convicted for the same offence with indistinguishable roles, the court must impose a uniform sentence that reflects the gravity of the crime, not the accident of how long each accused happened to be in custody before trial. The Supreme Court's decision in Uggarsain v. The State of Haryana & Ors., decided on 3 July 2023 and cited as 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 492, establishes that sentencing must be principled, not arbitrary.
THE PLAY: When sentencing multiple accused for the same offence with indistinguishable roles, impose a uniform sentence based on the gravity of the crime — not the varying periods each accused happened to spend in custody.
The eight men went in together. The High Court let them out at wildly different times. The Supreme Court brought them back to the same line.