The Supreme Court set aside a Madras High Court order that had reduced the sentence of convicts in an attempt-to-murder case to the period already undergone, holding that compensation to the victim’s family cannot be treated as a substitute for punishment.
The case arose from a 2009 assault in which the accused stabbed the victim multiple times with knives, causing life-threatening injuries. The trial court convicted the accused under Sections 307, 326 and 324 of the IPC and sentenced them to three years’ rigorous imprisonment. The conviction and sentence were affirmed by the appellate court.
However, in revision, the High Court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to the period already undergone about two months while enhancing the fine to ₹50,000 each, citing the passage of time, the subsequent death of the victim in an unrelated incident, and the accused’s willingness to pay compensation.
Allowing the appeal filed by the victim’s wife, the Supreme Court held that the High Court had shown undue sympathy and failed to provide cogent reasons for drastically reducing the sentence in a case involving life-threatening injuries. It observed that sentencing must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and that mere passage of time cannot be a decisive mitigating factor.
The Court emphasised that the objective of punishment is to protect society and create deterrence, while also allowing scope for reformation. It clarified that victim compensation is restitutive in nature and cannot replace the punitive element of sentencing. Reducing imprisonment in serious offences solely in exchange for monetary compensation, the Court warned, could send a dangerous message that offenders can “purchase” their freedom.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court restored the original sentence of three years’ rigorous imprisonment imposed by the trial court, reiterating that courts must avoid undue leniency in serious crimes and ensure that punishment reflects the gravity of the offence.
