The Supreme Court on Tuesday cautioned that courts should avoid undue leniency while sentencing those found guilty in criminal cases [Parameshwari v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors].

A Bench of Justice Vijay Bishnoi and Justice Rajesh Bindal was dealing with a case where the Madras High Court had reduced a convict's jail sentence in an attempt-to-murder case, while enhancing the fine payable by him.

The top court set aside the High Court ruling, while making it clear that the payment of compensation cannot be treated like a form of substitute punishment.

"Compensation payable to the victim is only restitutory in nature, and it cannot be considered as equivalent to or a substitute for punishment. Punishment is punitive in nature, and its object is to create an adequate deterrence against the said crime and to send a social message to the miscreants that any violation of the moral turpitude of society would come with consequences, which cannot merely be 'purchased by money,'" it explained.

The Bench expressed concern that some courts do not understand this, and instead, mechanically reduce prison sentences, while treating compensation as a form of alternative punishment.

“The misplaced understanding of various courts in treating compensation as a substitute of sentence is both a matter of concern and a practice which should be condemned. We have observed a trend amongst various High Courts wherein the sentences awarded to the accused persons by the Trial Court are reduced capriciously and mechanically, without any visible application of judicial mind," the judgment said.

The Court added that such practices are dangerous, as it might send a wrong message to society that offenders can absolve themselves merely by paying money.

The Court stressed that punishment is meant not just to reform offenders but also to deter crime and uphold public trust in the justice system.

It stated courts must strike a careful balance between the rights of the individual and the interests of society, warning that excessive leniency to convicts found guilty of serious offences can undermine public confidence in the rule of law.

"The consideration to be kept in mind while awarding punishment is to ensure that the punishment should not be too harsh, but at the same time, it should also not be too lenient so as to undermine its deterrent effect," the Court said.

The Court proceeded to lay down a set of guiding factors that must be considered while imposing or altering sentences:

Proportionality: Punishment should match the seriousness of the offence and reflect what is fair and deserved in the circumstances.

Facts and circumstances: Courts must carefully consider the allegations, evidence on record and findings of the trial court before interfering with sentences.

Impact on society: Sentencing should take into account the wider impact of crime on society and public confidence, while remaining independent of public pressure or emotion.

Aggravating and mitigating factors: A balanced assessment must be undertaken, weighing the seriousness of the offence alongside circumstances favouring the accused.

The Court opined that such an analysis is essential to ensure that punishment is not reduced mechanically or on irrelevant considerations, particularly in cases involving serious violence.

The ruling was passed in a case tied to a 2009 incident, where several men attacked the victim with knives, leaving him with multiple stab wounds to the chest, ribs, abdomen and hand. Doctors who examined him during the trial said the injuries were life-threatening and could have proved fatal without immediate treatment.

The trial court convicted the accused for attempt to murder and causing grievous hurt, and sentenced them to three years in prison along with fines. This decision was later upheld by the sessions court.

In revision proceedings, the Madras High Court upheld the conviction but modified the sentence. It reduced the custodial sentence to about two months already served and directed the convicts to pay a higher fine, to be handed over to the victim’s wife as compensation.

The High Court referred to the long gap of more than ten years since the incident, the fact that the victim had later died in an unrelated case, and the convicts' willingness to pay compensation while modifying the punishment.

The Supreme Court found that the High Court had failed to properly consider the seriousness of the offence and the findings of the trial court. It pointed out that the trial court had already shown restraint by awarding a three-year sentence, even though the law allows for a much harsher punishment for the offence of attempt to murder.

The apex court added that simply relying on the passage of time and an offer of compensation was not enough to justify cutting down a prison sentence in a case involving life-threatening violence.

“The High Court acted in complete defiance of the law and created a travesty of the established criminal jurisprudence in arriving at its conclusion,” stated the Court.

The Court, therefore, restored the prison sentence earlier imposed on the convicts. They were directed to surrender before the trial court within four weeks to serve the remaining portion of their sentence, after accounting for the time already served.

Advocate A Velan appeared for the appellant.

Advocate MP Parthibhan appeared for the private respondents (convicts).

Additional Advocate General (AAG) V Krishnamurthy represented the State of Tamil Nadu.

[Read Order]