Equality in culpability must reflect equality in sentencing; disparity in punishment without justification erodes the integrity of criminal justice, emphasized the Patna High Court, while holding that mere allegation of presence or participation cannot justify a harsher penalty when all accused are found guilty under the same provision.
The Bench highlighted that differential sentencing among co-accused can only be justified when the evidence distinctly attributes separate and more grievous acts to one accused, or when aggravating factors such as a prior criminal record, motive, or leadership in the commission of the offence exist.
In the absence of such differentiating factors, uniformity in sentencing becomes a constitutional requirement under the equality clause. The Court emphasized that the trial court failed to record any finding of special culpability that would justify imposing a life sentence on the appellant.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Bibek Chaudhuri and Justice Dr. Anshuman reiterated that merely because the witnesses are relatives, it cannot be a ground to discard the testimony of such witnesses. The only requirement is that the testimonies of such witnesses have to be scrutinized with greater caution and circumspection.
The Bench examined the sentencing philosophy under Section 304 Part I IPC, observing that while the provision empowers courts to impose imprisonment for life, the punishment must correspond to the degree of culpability inferred from the facts. The Bench reiterated that sentencing is not a mechanical process but must be guided by principles of justice, proportionality, and consistency.
The Bench observed that the trial court failed to appreciate the commonality of evidence and the mitigating factors that applied equally to all accused. It reiterated that sentencing must be proportionate and consistent, especially where the prosecution evidence against multiple accused is identical in character and intensity.
The Bench therefore modified a life sentence imposed by the trial court, holding that the principle of parity must apply where co-accused are tried on the same evidence and under identical circumstances.
Appearances:
Senior Advocate Ramakant Sharma and Advocate Vatsal Verma, for the Appellant
APP Dilip Kumar Sinha, for the Respondent
