SC warns jail terms cannot be ‘purchased’ with money, sets aside Madras HC relief in attempt-to-murder case

In a sharp rebuke to what it described as a “dangerous” and growing judicial trend, the Supreme Court of India has ruled that criminal punishment cannot be diluted merely by enhancing compensation to victims, warning that such practices risk sending a message that offenders can buy their way out of jail.

A bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and Vijay Bishnoi set aside a judgment of the Madras High Court that had reduced the sentence of two men convicted of attempt to murder from three years’ rigorous imprisonment to the period already undergone, while increasing the fine from ₹5,000 to ₹50,000 each.

‘Misplaced understanding’ of compensation

The apex court said the growing tendency among high courts to mechanically reduce sentences while enhancing compensation reflects a “misplaced understanding” of criminal jurisprudence.

“The practice of enhancing compensation payable to the victim and reducing the sentence is dangerous,” the court observed, cautioning that it may create a false impression that offenders can absolve themselves of criminal liability by paying money.

Calling the trend a matter of serious concern, the Bench noted that sentences awarded by trial courts are often reduced “capriciously and mechanically, without any visible application of judicial mind”.

Sentencing must reflect gravity of crime

Emphasizing that punishment cannot be substituted with monetary payments, the court laid down comprehensive guidelines to be followed by courts while imposing or modifying sentences:

• Just deserts and proportionality: Courts must ensure proportionality between the gravity of the offence and the punishment awarded.
• Holistic evaluation: Due consideration must be given to the facts, allegations, evidence and findings of the trial court.
• Social impact of crime: Crimes erode the social fabric and public trust. Sentences must reinforce faith in the rule of law, while remaining free from public outrage or emotion.
• Balance of factors: Courts must strike a fair balance between aggravating and mitigating circumstances before altering a sentence.

The Bench underscored that compensation is restitutory — meant to rehabilitate victims — and cannot be equated with punishment, which is inherently punitive and deterrent in nature.

“Punishment is meant to send a social message that violation of the moral fabric of society will have consequences which cannot merely be ‘purchased by money’,” the court said.

The 2009 knife attack

The case stemmed from a 2009 incident in Tamil Nadu’s Sivagangai district, where the accused allegedly attacked the victim with knives over prior enmity. The victim suffered four stab injuries to the chest, ribs, abdomen and hand.

The trial court convicted the two men under Sections 307 (attempt to murder), 326 (grievous hurt) and 324 (hurt by dangerous weapons) of the IPC, sentencing them to three years’ rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of ₹5,000 each.

The conviction and sentence were upheld by the appellate court. However, in revision, the Madras High Court maintained the conviction but reduced the jail term to the period already undergone, while enhancing the fine to ₹50,000 each.

Apex court restores prison term

Terming the high court’s “undue sympathy” as unwarranted, the Supreme Court held that such overt displays of leniency risk undermining the administration of justice.

Setting aside the impugned judgment, the top court restored the original conviction and sentence passed by the trial court and affirmed by the sessions court.

It directed the two convicts to surrender before the trial court within four weeks and serve the remaining portion of their three-year sentence, after adjusting the period already undergone.

Reiterating the twin objectives of criminal justice — deterrence and reformation — the court made it clear: victim compensation cannot be a passport to escape imprisonment.