NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that courts must not show excessive leniency when sentencing criminals, emphasizing that compensation to victims cannot take the place of jail time. The Bench of Justices Vijay Bishnoi and Rajesh Bindal set aside a Madras High Court order that drastically reduced a three-year sentence in an attempt-to-murder case by cutting the prison term to the period already served and hiking the fine instead.
The top court stressed that imposing compensation on an offender is restorative and not punitive, and cannot be treated as an alternative to custodial punishment. It said punishment serves a deterrent purpose and sends a social message that crime carries consequences that can’t simply be “bought off with money.”
The Bench expressed concern that various courts have been mechanically reducing jail sentences while increasing compensation, often without proper reasoning — a trend the Supreme Court described as dangerous and capable of undermining public confidence in the criminal justice system.
In its ruling, the court outlined key guiding factors that must guide sentencing decisions, including: The case stemmed from a 2009 incident in which several men inflicted multiple stab wounds on a victim, causing life-threatening injuries. The trial court had convicted the accused of attempt to murder and grievous hurt, imposing three years’ imprisonment with fines. The Madras High Court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to about two months already served, citing the long elapsed period since the offence and acceptance of enhanced compensation.
The Supreme Court disagreed that time lapse and compensation justified the reduced sentence, noting the trial court had already shown restraint by awarding three years even though harsher punishment was legally available. It described the High Court’s approach as a “travesty of criminal jurisprudence,” and restored the original incarceration term. The convicts were directed to surrender to serve the remaining sentence after adjusting for time already spent in custody.
-
Proportionality between punishment and the severity of the offence.
-
Careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of each case.
-
Societal impact and public confidence in the justice system.
-
Balanced assessment of aggravating and mitigating factors.
