Parameshwari vs The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.

Held: Impugned judgment set aside – 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 practice of enhancing the compensation payable to the victim and reducing the sentence, especially in cases of grave offence, is dangerous as it might send a wrong message to society that the offenders/accused persons can absolve themselves from their liability by merely paying a monetary consideration – There was prior enmity between the victim and the Private Respondents who had caused injuries to the victim – Further, the testimonies of the complainant, PW2 (the victim), and PW3 (the Appellant) were corroborated by the statements of PW9 (Doctor), who had stated that the victim suffered 4 stab injuries, which were grievous in nature to the extent that, if not given immediate care, could have been life threatening – High Court acted in complete defiance of the law and created a travesty of the established criminal jurisprudence in arriving at its conclusion – It noted that more than 10 ½ years had elapsed since the incident and that the victim had been murdered by some other persons a few years later – Based on these aspects, the High Court modified the sentence awarded to the accused persons – It failed to reason out the circumstances, acting on which, it reduced the sentence for such a heinous offence and thereby, erred in not applying its judicial mind to accurately decide the sentence – Trial Court rightly convicted the Private Respondents u/s.307, 324 and 326 of the IPC as the injuries were grievous and life threatening – This decision was correctly affirmed by the District and Sessions Court – High Court, while exercising its revisionary powers, very ignominiously reduced the sentence of the Private Respondents to the period already undergone – Undue sympathy shown by the High Court herein was unwarranted – The judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Assistant Sessions Judge confirmed by the District Sessions Fast Track Mahila Court affirmed. [Paras 19, 32, 35-38] Sentencing – Imposition of sentence – Factors to be considered – Misplaced understanding of courts in treating compensation as a substitute of sentence, condemned: Held: Trend amongst 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, deprecated – Factors to be kept in mind by the courts while dealing with imposition of sentence – Proportionality: 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 – Consideration to Facts and Circumstances: Due consideration must be given to the facts and circumstances of the case, including the allegations, evidence and the findings of the trial court – Impact on Society: While imposing sentences, the courts shall bear in mind that crimes essentially impair the social fabric of the society (of which the victim(s) is/are an indispensable part) and erodes 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 – Aggravating and Mitigating Factors: 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. [Para 34] Victim Compensation – Rationale:

Held: The provision of victim compensation finds its roots in victimology, which acknowledges victims as the primary sufferers of the crime and advocates the idea of providing some relief to the victims from their grief and suffering – 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 – s.395 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (alternatively Section 357 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973) recognises the loss caused to the victim and accordingly provides for granting monetary compensation to the victim – The said provision of victim compensation is not an alternative to the sentence or punishment imposed, however, the compensation is just an addition to the sentence already awarded. [Paras 29, 30] Criminal Jurisprudence – Punishment – Objective: Held: 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 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. [Paras 21, 22]