Summary
In revision, the High Court upheld the convictions of two accused for stabbing the victim (Sections 307, 324 and 326 IPC) but cut their three-year rigorous imprisonment to the two months already served, offsetting it with enhanced fines paid as compensation. On appeal by the victim's widow, the Supreme Court set that aside: compensation to the victim adds to the sentence and cannot replace it, lapse of time alone is not decisive, and the High Court gave no proper reasons. The trial court's sentence was restored and the Court set out factors for sentencing.
Issues
- Whether the High Court, in revision, was justified in reducing the sentence for attempt to murder and grievous hurt to the period already undergone (about two months) while enhancing the fine payable as compensation.
- Whether victim compensation can substitute for or offset a sentence of imprisonment.
Provisions considered
- Section 307, Indian Penal Code, 1860The convictions under Section 307 (with Sections 324 and 326) for four stab injuries that were grievous and potentially life-threatening were upheld, and the trial court's three-year rigorous imprisonment, already lenient, was restored in place of the High Court's reduction. (¶¶ 18, 35, 36, 37, 38)
- Section 395 (corresponding to Section 357, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023The provision recognises the victim's loss and allows compensation out of the fine, but such compensation is in addition to the sentence and is not an alternative to punishment. (¶¶ 29, 30, 31, 32)
Held
- Sentencing must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence; undue sympathy leading to inadequate sentences undermines public confidence in the law, and the court must balance aggravating and mitigating factors with regard to the victim and society. (¶¶ 22, 23, 24, 25, 27)
- Mere passage of time is not by itself a decisive mitigating factor; a High Court reducing a sentence must give reasons and apply its judicial mind, which the High Court failed to do when it relied only on the lapse of over ten years and the victim's later death in an unrelated incident. (¶¶ 19, 27, 37)
- Victim compensation is restitutive and is in addition to the sentence; it is neither equivalent to nor a substitute for punishment. Enhancing compensation while reducing the sentence for a grave offence wrongly signals that offenders can buy their way out of liability, and the practice was condemned. (¶¶ 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34)
- Courts imposing or modifying sentences must keep in view: (A) proportionality between crime and punishment; (B) the facts and circumstances, including the evidence and the trial court's findings; (C) the impact of the crime on society and public trust, without being swayed by public outrage; and (D) a fair balance of aggravating and mitigating factors. (¶ 34)
- The evidence of the complainant, the injured victim and his wife, corroborated by the doctor, established the stabbing and grievous, potentially life-threatening injuries; the convictions were rightly recorded and affirmed, and the High Court's reduction of the sentence to the period undergone was unwarranted. (¶¶ 35, 36, 37)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside and the trial court's conviction and sentence of 28.11.2013, as confirmed in appeal, restored; the private respondents to surrender before the trial court within four weeks and serve the remaining sentence after set-off of the period already undergone.