The Supreme Court on Tuesday warned courts against displaying undue sympathy to convicts, emphasising that monetary compensation cannot substitute punishment.
Setting aside a Madras High Court verdict which had reduced the sentence of two men convicted of attempt to murder, the top court laid down a four-factor test for courts while deciding on sentencing.
The case arose out of a 2009 incident in which the accused, armed with knives and sticks, attacked the victim, inflicting stab wounds on the chest, ribs, abdomen and hand. The trial court convicted them for attempt to murder and sentenced them to three years in jail. The conviction and sentence were upheld in appeal by the High Court.
However, in the revision appeal, the high court maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence to the period already undergone, noting that more than 10 years had elapsed since the incident and that the victim had later been murdered by others.
The Supreme Court observed that the High Court acted in complete defiance of the law and created a travesty of the established criminal jurisprudence.
The bench of Rajesh Bindal and Vijay Bishnoi held that the High Court failed to properly reason why such a reduction was warranted in a case involving life-threatening injuries.
The top court at the same time laid down four basic factors that courts must keep in mind while deciding on sentencing -- proportionality between the gravity of the offence and the punishment awarded; due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case; impact of the crime on society while remaining unswayed by public outrage; and a balanced assessment of aggravating and mitigating factors.
"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 in order to pull back its wheel on the track...The objective of punishment is to create an effective deterrence so that the same crime/actions are prevented and mitigated in future," the judgment by Justice Bishnoi emphasised.
The court stressed that while retribution is not the ultimate aim of the criminal justice system, undue leniency can erode public confidence.
"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," it said.
The court warned that the growing trend of reducing sentences while enhancing compensation is "dangerous" and may send a message that offenders can "purchase" their liberty.
Punishment, the bench observed, is punitive and intended to create adequate deterrence and convey that violations of societal norms carry consequences "which cannot merely be 'purchased by money'."
