Summary
In an appeal confined to sentence for attempted murder, the Court reduced five years’ rigorous imprisonment to three years, considering the thirty-nine-year lapse, absence of recorded criminal antecedents and lack of premeditation in the longstanding land dispute. It added a Rs 50,000 fine payable as compensation to the complainant. The conviction remained undisturbed.
Issues
- Whether the five-year sentence required adjustment in light of the individual mitigating circumstances.
Provisions considered
- Section 307, Indian Penal Code, 1860The conviction was outside the limited appeal; the Court considered the statutory punishment and adjusted imprisonment and fine after weighing mitigation. (¶¶ 3, 10, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24)
Held
- Sentencing requires a fact-sensitive balance of aggravating and mitigating circumstances, taking account of the offender, the offence and legitimate purposes of punishment. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13, 14, 15)
- The thirty-nine years since the offence, the old dispute involving the complainant and the appellant’s uncle, absence of criminal antecedents on record and lack of premeditation justified reducing rigorous imprisonment to three years in this case. (¶¶ 21, 22, 23)
- The appeal was confined to quantum of sentence. The Court did not reopen the Section 307 conviction or acquit the appellant. (¶¶ 3, 10, 23, 24)
Result
Appeal partly allowed. Rigorous imprisonment reduced from five to three years; appellant to undergo the balance. Rs 50,000 fine payable within six weeks as compensation to complainant, with three months’ rigorous imprisonment in default.