Non-Compliance With Rule 14 Of NDPS Rules 2022 Regarding Quantitative Test Vitiates Prosecution Case And Renders Detention Illegal: Allahabad High Court Supreme Court Directs Systematic Audit And Institutional Accountability For Safety In Public Spaces Under Article 21 Extra-Judicial Confession Made Before Police Cannot Solely Sustain Preventive Detention: Supreme Court Pre-Trial Incarceration Cannot Masquerade As Punitive Detention When Trial Is Not Imminent: Supreme Court Land Acquisition | Radial ‘Hub-And-Spoke’ Valuation Models For Contiguous Lands Are Legally Unsustainable: Supreme Court Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Is A Valid Consequence Upon Failure To Pay Balance Sale Consideration Under IBC Liquidation Process: Supreme Court Res Judicata | Suit For Specific Performance Barred If Relief Was Available In Prior Suit For Permanent Injunction And Not Claimed: Supreme Court RERA | Allottee’s Right To Seek Refund Is Absolute And Unqualified, Not Subject To Promoter’s Completion Of Project: Bombay High Court Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC | Appellate Court Cannot Summarily Reject Addition Of Legal Heirs Based On Unproven Documents Without Reason: Calcutta High Court Order XIV Rule 5 CPC | Trial Court Must Frame Additional Issues Based On Liberty Granted By Supreme Court To Ensure Just Adjudication: Delhi High Court Mere Citation Of Wrong Provision Does Not Invalidate Order If Court Possessed Jurisdiction: Gujarat High Court Injunction Under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC Cannot Be Granted Over Large Unidentified Tract Of Land Without Establishing Prima Facie Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 125 CrPC | Mere Rejection Of Permanent Alimony Plea In Divorce Proceedings Does Not Bar Claim For Maintenance: Karnataka High Court Section 311 BNSS | Trial Court Has Discretion To Record Evidence In Narrative Form; Accused Cannot Insist On Question-Answer Format: Kerala High Court Section 482 CrPC | Principle Of Parity Cannot Be Invoked To Quash FIR If Allegations Against Accused Are Distinct And Substantiated: Madhya Pradesh High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Tribunal Cannot Grant 'Right Of Recovery' To Insurer Without Evidence Of Policy Violation: Orissa High Court Mere Inadequacy Of Consideration Or Illiteracy Does Not Vitiate Specific Performance Unless Exploitation Is Proved: Madras High Court Contempt Jurisdiction Cannot Be Converted Into Parallel Forum To Enforce Civil Decrees: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 18 Rule 17 CPC | Reopening Evidence At The Stage Of Arguments Without Compelling Grounds Amounts To Abuse Of Process: Telangana High Court Cannot Circumvent Bail Granted By Supreme Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes PITNDPS Preventive Detention Order

“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