Sold Property During Pending Appeal, Defied Court Order: Andhra Pradesh High Court Sends Man To Jail For Contempt Hostile Witness Cannot Erase a Bribe Demand Already Made on Record: Supreme Court Restores Conviction of Ration Officer Three Decades of Unpaid Wages: Supreme Court Strips Gannon Dunkerley of Control Over Sick Company's Assets, Appoints Administrator to Pay Workers by August 2026 Gram Nyayalaya Cannot Touch Family Court's Maintenance Orders — Allahabad High Court Draws the Line Caste Abuse Allegation at Village Jatra Is Counter-Blast to Earlier Machete Attack: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail Despite SC/ST Act Bar Contributory Negligence | Not Wearing a Helmet Does Not Mean the Victim Caused the Accident: Madras High Court Air Force Can't Punish Officer After Criminal Court Sets Him Free: Supreme Court Overturns 30-Year-Old Dismissal Written Statement Without Affidavit of Admission/Denial: Non-Est Filing or Curable Defect? Delhi High Court Refers Conflicting Views to Larger Bench Bank's Negligence Killed Cheque Bounce Case Before It Could Begin: Supreme Court Rules Section 138 Remedy Lost Due to Stale Cheques Bank Letting Your Cheques Go Stale Is Deficiency in Service: Supreme Court Victim Has Locus To Request Court To Summon Witnesses Under Section 311 CrPC In State Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Benefit Of Probation Act Available Even If Offender Is Sentenced Solely To Fine: Supreme Court Reporting Registration Of FIR Based On Public Records Does Not Violate Right To Privacy: Sikkim High Court CBSE Cannot Cancel Class XII Results Based on Similar MCQ Answers Alone Without Any Report of Malpractice From Examination Centre: Orissa 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