LexPARAMESHWARI versus THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 243 : 2026 INSC 164 Parameshwari v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. 949 of 2026) 17 February 2026 [Rajesh Bindal and Vijay Bishnoi,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in reducing the sentence awarded to the Private Respondents. Headnotes† Sentencing – Reducing the sentence in cases of grave offences by enhancing the compensation payable to the victim – Impermissibility – Victim compensation restitutory in nature, not equivalent to or a substitute for punishment – Trial Court convicted the accused persons u/ss.307, 324 and 326, IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment of three years and a fine of ₹ 5,000/- each (totalling to ₹ 10,000/-) – High Court vide impugned judgment maintained the conviction; however, reduced the sentence to the period already undergone, i.e., 2 months, and enhanced the amount of the fine imposed on the Private Respondents from ₹ 10,000/- to a further sum of ₹ 50,000/- each (totalling to ₹ 1,00,000/ ) – interference with: 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 * Author 244 [2026] 3 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports 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
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.