High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Divorce Cannot Be Granted Merely on WhatsApp Chats: Bombay High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Decree Based on Unproved Electronic Evidence State Cannot Demand Settlement Amount Yet Withhold Legitimate Refund: Bombay High Court Strikes Down MVAT Settlement Order Surveyor’s Report Is Not Sacrosanct; Arbitral Award Ignoring Vital Evidence Is Perverse: Delhi High Court Sets Aside Insurance Arbitration Award When Victim Lives Under Exclusive Control Of Accused, Burden Shifts To Accused To Explain What Happened: Calcutta High Court Medical Evidence Clearly Indicating Suicide Cannot Be Overlooked, Prosecution Must Prove Homicidal Death Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Andhra Pradesh High Court 'Candidates Acted With Full Knowledge of Consequences': Kerala High Court Reverses Order for Refund of 10% Exit Fee in Medical PG Mop-Up Admissions Dispensing with Departmental Inquiry Without Material is Arbitrary: Supreme Court Sets Aside Dismissal of Delhi Police Constable Power Of Attorney Holder Authorized To Enforce Pre-Emption Right Can File Suit, Death Of Principal Does Not Bar Legal Heirs: Orissa High Court Government Servant Convicted In Criminal Case Can Be Dismissed Without Departmental Enquiry: Tripura High Court Upholds Teacher’s Dismissal RTI Cannot Be Used To Bypass Statutory Bar On Police Case Diaries: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Penalty Against Police Officers Externment Cannot Be Based On Police Report And Stale Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes District Magistrate’s Order Even Exonerated Accused Can Be Summoned During Trial: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Summoning Under Section 358 BNSS Benefit of Doubt Acquittal Not Equal to Honourable Acquittal: Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of Police Constable Candidate Madras High Court Allows NEET-Failed Student To Appear In CBSE Class XII Mathematics Exam After Last-Minute Subject Switch By Parents Salary of Parents Cannot Be Used to Deny OBC Non-Creamy Layer Status in Absence of Post Equivalence: Supreme Court Father Who Rapes Minor Daughter Cannot Seek Leniency: Bombay High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment Construction Of Toilet Is Bare Necessity For Proper Use Of Premises, Expression "Own Use" Not Confined To Landlord's Personal Physical Use: Calcutta High Court 353 IPC | Conviction Cannot Rest On Uncorroborated Testimony Of Sole Witness When Other Evidence Contradicts Occurrence: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal 250 BNSS | 60-Day Discharge Period Is Procedural, Does Not Extinguish Accused's Right To Seek Discharge: Gujarat High Court Section 45 PMLA Cannot Become an Instrument of Endless Incarceration: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in ₹18 Crore Scholarship Scam Case Land Acquisition — Heirs Who Slept on Rights for 23 Years Cannot Claim Ignorance to Revive Dead Challenge: Karnataka High Court Institutional Hearing Is No Violation of Natural Justice: Kerala High Court Upholds BPCL’s Termination of Decades-Old Petroleum Dealership Witnesses Not Expected To Recount Past Incidents With Mathematical Precision, Minor Contradictions Don't Demolish Credibility: Orissa High Court If a Suit Is Ex Facie Barred by Limitation, the Court Has No Choice but to Dismiss It: P&H High Court

“Interest of Justice”: Supreme Court Reduces Sentence in Attempt to Murder Case from 5 Years to 3 Years

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


New Delhi, September 4, 2023 – In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India has reduced the sentence of Pramod Kumar Mishra, convicted under Section 307 IPC for attempt to murder, from 5 years to 3 years of rigorous imprisonment. The Bench, comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol, delivered the decision today, emphasizing the “interest of justice” in the case.

The appeal was limited to the question of the quantum of the sentence imposed on the appellant, who had been convicted by the Trial Court and whose conviction was later upheld by the High Court of Allahabad. The Supreme Court observed that while sentencing, both “aggravating and mitigating circumstances” need to be considered.

The Court noted that 39 years have passed since the date of the offense and that there were no criminal antecedents of the appellant on record. “Therefore, in the interest of justice and in consideration of the abovementioned mitigating factors, this Court reduces the sentence,” the judgment read.

The appellant has also been ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000 within a period of 6 weeks, which will go to the complainant as compensation. In default of payment, the appellant will undergo an additional 3 months of rigorous imprisonment.

The judgment also cited several previous cases to emphasize the principles and philosophies behind sentencing, stating that the Court has to “delicately balance the aggravating and mitigating factors and circumstances in which a crime has been committed.”

Legal experts view this judgment as significant, especially in the context of sentencing policies in India, which the Court noted are not yet statutory. The decision is expected to be cited in future cases involving similar circumstances.

The appeal has been partly allowed, and the appellant is directed to undergo the remaining period of his sentence.

Date of Decision:  04 September 2023

PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA vs THE STATE OF U.P.               

Latest Legal News