Lethargy Is Not an Exceptional Circumstance: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Striking Off of Defence for Delay in Filing Written Statement Vague Decree of Injunction Can’t Be Executed by Attaching Machines: Rajasthan High Court Strikes Down Execution Order Mere permission to join proceedings without allowing filing of written statement is illusory: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Proceedings Unregistered Power of Attorney Can’t Transfer Property: MP High Court Denies Title, Dismisses Ejectment Suit Mere Non-Recovery of Weapon Is Not Fatal When Circumstantial and Medical Evidence Prove Guilt Beyond Doubt: Allahabad High Court Failure to Examine Gazetted Officer and Magistrate Who Certified Seizure Goes to Root of Fair Trial Under NDPS Act : Calcutta High Court Tender Years Doctrine Is No Longer Good Law: Delhi High Court Slams Mother’s Custody Claim Built on Parental Alienation Negation of Bail is the Rule in NDPS Cases Involving Commercial Quantity: Himachal Pradesh High Court Denies Bail Single Stab Injury in Heat of Passion During Sudden Quarrel Is Not Murder: Kerala High Court Section 10 CPC Inapplicable To Labour Court Proceedings; Stay Of Individual Disputes Denied: Karnataka High Court 138 NI Act | Once Issuance and Signature on Cheque Are Admitted, Burden Shifts on Accused to Dislodge Statutory Presumption: Madras High Court Confession Cannot Substitute Proof: Bombay High Court Acquits Husband Convicted of Wife’s Murder "Sole Eyewitness Testimony, Corroborated by Medical and Recovery Evidence, Is Enough to Sustain Conviction Under Section 302 IPC: Allahabad High Court Partition Once Effected Cannot Be Reopened on Vague Allegations of Fraud: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Registered Family Partition Deed Cancellation of Land Acquisition Compensation Without Allegation or Hearing Is Arbitrary: Supreme Court Restores Compensation to Innocent Land Owner Whether Act Was in Discharge of Official Duty Is a Question of Fact — Magistrate, Not High Court, Must Decide: Supreme Court Restricts Writ Interference in BNSS Cases Section 175(4) BNSS | Affidavit Is Not Optional — Even Complaints Against Public Servants Must Follow Procedural Rigour: Supreme Court Magistrate Cannot Be Directed to Recall His Judicial Order by a Writ Court: Supreme Court Warns Against Article 226 Interference in Pending Criminal Proceedings Even In Absence of Written Demand, If Substantial Dispute Exists or Is Apprehended, Reference Under Section 10 ID Act Is Valid: Supreme Court Absence of Classical Signs of Strangulation and Possibility of Hanging Nullifies Homicidal Theory: Supreme Court Holds Medical Evidence Alone Cannot Prove Guilt Confession Must Be Direct Acknowledgment of Guilt, Not Mere Presence at Scene: Supreme Court Slams Misuse of Section 164 CrPC Reversal of Acquittal Without Dislodging Trial Court’s Reasoning Is Impermissible: Supreme Court Restores Acquittal

“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