The Supreme Court has set aside a Madras High Court order and restored the three-year sentence for two convicts in an attempt to murder case. The court described the practice of increasing victim compensation while reducing jail terms as dangerous. It also laid down guidelines for sentencing.
The Supreme Court recently overturned a Madras High Court order that had reduced the sentence of two convicts in an attempt to murder case to the period already undergone. A bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and Vijay Bishnoi described the practice of enhancing victim compensation while reducing jail terms as a dangerous trend that could send a wrong message to society, implying offenders can buy their way out of liability.
The case stems from a 2009 incident in Sivagangai district, where the accused allegedly attacked the victim with knives due to prior enmity. The victim suffered four stab injuries to the chest, ribs, abdomen, and hand. The trial court convicted the two under Sections 307 (attempt to murder), 326 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt), and 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons) of the Indian Penal Code, sentencing them to three years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 5,000 each. The appellate court upheld this, but in revision, the Madras High Court retained the conviction, reduced the jail term to time served, and increased the fine to Rs 50,000 each.
The Supreme Court emphasized that punishment aims to create deterrence to prevent future crimes and allow offender reformation. It clarified that victim compensation is restitutory, meant to rehabilitate the victim, and cannot substitute punitive punishment. The court issued guidelines for sentencing: adherence to the 'just deserts' principle, proportionality between crime and punishment based on gravity, consideration of case facts and evidence, maintaining public trust in the justice system without being swayed by public emotions, and balancing aggravating and mitigating factors.
The bench set aside the High Court order, affirmed the trial court's judgment, and directed the convicts to surrender within four weeks to serve the remaining sentence after adjusting for time already undergone. This ruling underscores the need for consistent sentencing norms in India's criminal justice system.
