The Supreme Court of India has set aside a judgment of the Madras High Court that reduced the sentence of two convicts from three years of rigorous imprisonment to the period already undergone (two months) upon the payment of additional compensation. The Bench comprising Justice Vijay Bishnoi and Justice Rajesh Bindal observed that treating compensation as a substitute for a sentence is a “misplaced understanding” that creates a “travesty of the established criminal jurisprudence.”
The primary legal question was whether the High Court was justified in reducing a three-year sentence for an attempt to murder (Section 307 IPC) to just two months, citing the lapse of time and the convicts’ willingness to pay ₹1,00,000 as compensation to the victim’s family. The Supreme Court answered in the negative, holding that punishment must be proportionate to the gravity of the crime and cannot be “purchased by money.” The Court restored the Trial Court’s sentence and directed the private respondents to surrender within four weeks.
Background of the Case
The case originated from an incident on June 6, 2009, involving prior enmity. The private respondents (Respondent Nos. 2 and 3) attacked the victim with knives, causing four stab injuries to the chest, ribs, abdomen, and hand. Medical evidence from PW9 (Dr. Prabhakaran) confirmed the injuries were life-threatening if not immediately treated.
On November 28, 2013, the Trial Court (Assistant Sessions Judge, Sivagangai) convicted the respondents under Sections 307, 326, and 324 of the IPC, sentencing them to three years of rigorous imprisonment. This conviction and sentence were upheld by the District Sessions Fast Track Mahila Court, Sivagangai, on February 23, 2016.
During the pendency of a Criminal Revision before the Madras High Court, the victim passed away (due to unrelated circumstances). The High Court, while confirming the conviction, modified the sentence to the period already undergone (approx. 2 months) and enhanced the fine/compensation to ₹50,000 each. This was challenged by the victim’s wife, the Appellant herein.
Arguments of the Parties
The Appellant contended that the reduction was illegal and that sentences must be commensurate with the seriousness of the crime. Reliance was placed on State of M.P. vs. Suresh (2019), arguing that mere lapse of time is not a mitigating factor and that additional compensation to a deceased victim’s family is “fruitless” if the offender is not adequately punished.
The State of Tamil Nadu, through the Additional Advocate General, supported the Appellant, stating that the High Court showed “undue sympathy” and failed to provide cogent reasons for the reduction, which could lead to a loss of public confidence in the efficacy of law.
The Private Respondents (Convicts) argued that the High Court rightly considered the 10-year lapse since the incident, their clean antecedents, and their willingness to pay compensation as factors for reformation.
The Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court criticized the High Court’s approach, noting it acted in “complete defiance of the law.” The Bench highlighted several key principles of penology and victimology:
1. Deterrence vs. Vengeance: The Court observed: “The objective of punishment is not to seek vengeance for the crime, rather, it is an attempt to reconstruct the damaged social fabric of society.”
2. Proportionality: Citing Hazara Singh vs. Raj Kumar (2013), the Court reiterated that the sentence must reflect the crime. It noted that for an offense under Section 307 IPC, where the maximum penalty is ten years, a three-year sentence was already “adequate leniency.”
3. Compensation is not “Blood Money”: The Bench was particularly firm on the distinction between restitution and punishment:
“The provision of victim compensation is not an alternative to the sentence or punishment imposed… it cannot be considered as equivalent to or a substitute for punishment. Punishment is punitive in nature… it cannot merely be ‘purchased by money’.”
The Court referred to Shivani Tyagi vs. State of U.P. (2024), where it had previously termed similar offers of money in exchange for leniency as a form of “Blood Money” which has no place in the Indian criminal justice system.
4. Factors for Sentencing: The Court culled out four essential factors for lower courts:
- Proportionality: Adherence to “just deserts.”
- Facts and Circumstances: Allegations and evidence.
- Impact on Society: Maintaining public trust.
- Balancing Factors: Weighing aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
The Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Madras High Court’s modification of the sentence. It affirmed the 2013 judgment of the Trial Court.
“We direct that the Private Respondents must surrender before the Trial Court within four weeks from today and shall serve the remaining part of the sentence awarded to them.”
The Court concluded that “undue sympathy” leading to inadequate sentencing undermines the administration of justice, stating it is imperative that “justice is not merely done but also seen to be done.”
Case Details: Case Title: Parameshwari v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. ___ of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 7495 of 2021)
