Supreme Court slams ‘dangerous practice’ of enhancing victim compensation, reducing jail terms by high courts

A bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and Vijay Bishnoi cautioned that the practice of enhancing the compensation and reducing the sentence is dangerous.

The Supreme Court flagged the trend among high courts of reducing the sentences awarded to the accused persons.

“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 Supreme Court held.

Considering the seriousness of the situation, the Supreme Court laid down guidelines to be followed by courts while dealing with imposition of sentence.

Guidelines for courts

• Adherence to the principle of “just deserts” ought to be the primary duty of the courts.
• There should be proportionality between the crime committed and the punishment awarded, keeping in consideration the gravity of the offence.
• Due consideration must be given to the facts and circumstances of the case, including the allegations, evidence and the findings of the trial court.
• While imposing sentences, the courts should bear in mind that crimes essentially impair the social fabric of the society (of which the victim(s) is/are an indispensable part) and erode public trust. The sentence should be adequate to maintain the public trust in law and administration; however, caution should also be taken, and the court shall not be swayed by the outrage or emotions of the public and must decide the question independently.
• The courts, while deciding the sentence or modifying the sentence, must weigh the circumstances in which the crime was committed, and while doing so, the court must strike a fair balance between the aggravating and the mitigating factors.

What was the matter?

• The case arose from a 2009 incident in Sivagangai district, where the accused persons allegedly attacked the victim with knives following prior enmity.
• The victim sustained four stab injuries to his chest, rib, abdomen and hand.
• The trial court convicted the two accused under Sections 307 (attempt to murder), 326 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt) and 324 (voluntarily causing hurt using dangerous weapons) of the Indian Penal Code.
• It sentenced them to three years’ rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs 5,000 each.
• The appellate court upheld the conviction and sentence. However, in revision, the Madras High Court maintained the conviction but reduced the jail term to the period already undergone, while enhancing the fine amount to Rs 50,000 each.

What the apex court held?

• The objective of punishment is to create an effective deterrence so that the same crime/actions are prevented and mitigated in future.
• 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 criminal justice system aims to achieve the twin objectives of creating a deterrence against crime and also providing an opportunity for reformation to the offender.
• Due consideration has also been provided by our legal system to the rights of the victim, who essentially are the first sufferers of the crime.
• The rationale behind victim compensation is to rehabilitate the victim for the loss and injury caused to them as a direct consequence of the crime or offence and not to exonerate the offender/accused from their culpability.
• 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”.
• The undue sympathy shown by the high court was totally unwarranted, and such displays of overt sentiments risk undermining the administration of justice, as it is imperative that justice is not merely done but also seen to be done.

Directions

• The impugned judgment warrants interference and is, therefore, set aside.
• The judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the chief judicial magistrate/assistant sessions judge, Sivagangai and later confirmed by the district sessions fast track mahila court, Sivagangai, are affirmed.
• 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 trial court shall ensure that they serve the remaining sentence, after adjustment of the period already undergone by them.