SC restores 3-year jail term in attempt to murder case, slams 'undue sympathy' by HC

20/02/2026

NEW DELHI, Feb 19: The Supreme Court has set aside a Madras High Court order that reduced the sentence of two convicts in an attempt to murder case to the period already undergone, observing that courts must not show "undue sympathy" in serious offences by substituting punishment with monetary compensation.
A Bench comprising Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Vijay Bishnoi held that the High Court acted in "complete defiance of law" by cutting down the rigorous imprisonment awarded under Section 307 IPC from three years to just two months, merely on the grounds of passage of time and willingness of the accused to pay compensation.
The apex court restored the original sentence imposed by the trial court, stressing that punishment must remain proportionate to the gravity of the crime and cannot be "purchased by money."
The case arose out of an incident registered as Crime No. 142/2009 at Thiruppachethi Police Station in Tamil Nadu, where the prosecution alleged that due to previous enmity, the accused attacked the victim with knives on June 6, 2009, causing multiple stab injuries on the chest, abdomen and hand.
Medical evidence showed that the injuries were grievous and could have been life-threatening if immediate treatment had not been provided.
The trial court convicted the accused under Sections 307, 326 and 324 IPC, sentencing them to three years' rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs 5,000 each.
The conviction and sentence were later upheld by the appellate court.
However, during revision proceedings, the Madras High Court confirmed the conviction but reduced the jail term to the period already undergone - about two months - while enhancing the fine to Rs 50,000 each, directing the amount to be paid as compensation to the victim's wife, Parameshwari.
The High Court cited that more than 10 years had elapsed since the incident and noted that the victim was later murdered in an unrelated case.
Allowing the appeal filed by the victim's wife, the Supreme Court held that the High Court failed to provide cogent reasons for reducing the sentence in such a grave offence.
"We are constrained to observe that the High Court created a travesty of established criminal jurisprudence," the Bench said.
The court emphasised that sentencing must not become a mechanical exercise driven by misplaced compassion.
It reiterated that "mere lapse of time cannot be treated as a mitigating factor" and courts must ensure that punishment reflects the seriousness of the crime.
The Bench strongly cautioned against the growing trend of reducing sentences in lieu of compensation, holding that victim compensation is only restitutory in nature and cannot replace punitive consequences.
The court observed that such an approach may send a wrong message that offenders can absolve themselves by paying money.
"Punishment cannot merely be 'purchased by money'," the court said, calling such practices dangerous for public confidence in the justice system.
The Bench also referred to its earlier ruling in Shivani Tyagi vs State of UP (2024), where it described compensation offered for suspension of sentence as "blood money."
Setting aside the High Court judgment, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's sentence and directed the convicts to surrender before the trial court within four weeks to serve the remaining part of their sentence.
In case of failure, the trial court was directed to take steps permissible under law to ensure compliance.
"The appeal stands allowed," the Bench concluded.

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty