Sentence Cannot Be Reduced to Two Months for Four Life-Threatening Stab Wounds: Supreme Court Restores 3-Year RI in Attempt to Murder Case

“Mere Lapse of Time Cannot Be a Clinching Factor”, In a powerful reaffirmation of sentencing principles, the Supreme Court of India on 17 February 2026 set aside a Madras High Court judgment that had reduced a three-year rigorous imprisonment sentence to merely two months already undergone in a case involving four life-threatening stab injuries.

Bench of Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Vijay Bishnoi held that the High Court had acted “in complete defiance of the law” by reducing the sentence without cogent reasoning. Restoring the sentence imposed by the Trial Court, the Supreme Court underscored that proportionality, deterrence and societal interest must guide sentencing in grave offences.

The Court emphatically ruled that compensation under Section 357 CrPC, now Section 395 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, is restitutory and “cannot be considered as equivalent to or a substitute for punishment.”

Four Stab Injuries and Conviction Under Section 307 IPC

The case arose from an incident dated 6 June 2009, registered as Crime No. 142/2009 at Thiruppachethi Police Station, Tamil Nadu. Due to prior enmity, the accused attacked the victim with knives and sticks, inflicting four stab injuries—on the left chest, rib, abdomen and right palm.

Medical evidence established that the injuries were grievous and “if not given immediate care, could have been life-threatening.”

The Trial Court convicted the accused under Sections 307, 326 and 324 IPC and sentenced them to three years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine. The First Appellate Court affirmed the conviction and sentence in 2016.

However, in revision, the Madras High Court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to the period already undergone—approximately two months—citing that “more than 10½ years have elapsed,” that the victim was later murdered in an unrelated incident, and that the accused were willing to pay ₹1,00,000 as compensation.

The victim’s wife, Parameshwari, challenged this reduction before the Supreme Court.

“Undue Sympathy to Impose Inadequate Sentence Would Do More Harm to the Justice System”

Examining the High Court’s approach, the Supreme Court observed that the reduction was wholly unjustified. The Bench noted that Section 307 IPC prescribes a maximum punishment of ten years, and yet the Trial Court had imposed only three years’ rigorous imprisonment.

The Court held that the High Court ignored settled law on sentencing and failed to apply judicial mind to the gravity of the offence. It observed that “mere passage of time, by itself, cannot be a clinching factor,” and reiterated that punishment must be proportionate to the crime.

Quoting earlier precedents, the Court reaffirmed: “The cardinal principle of sentencing policy is that the sentence imposed on an offender should reflect the crime he has committed and it should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence.”

The Bench cautioned that “undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law.”

“Compensation Cannot Replace Punishment”: Supreme Court Warns Against ‘Purchasing’ Leniency

A significant dimension of the ruling concerns victim compensation. The High Court had enhanced the fine and directed payment of ₹1,00,000 to the victim’s wife while reducing imprisonment to two months.

The Supreme Court categorically rejected this approach.

It clarified that Section 357 CrPC, now Section 395 BNSS, recognizes the victim’s right to compensation but “the compensation is just an addition to the sentence already awarded.”

In strong words, the Court observed that enhancing compensation while reducing sentence in grave offences “is dangerous as it might send a wrong message to society that the offenders can absolve themselves from their liability by merely paying a monetary consideration.”

The Bench made it clear that consequences of crime cannot be “purchased by money.”

Referring to its earlier decision in Shivani Tyagi v. State of U.P., where monetary payment in lieu of suspension of sentence was termed as “Blood Money,” the Court reiterated that such practices are alien to Indian criminal jurisprudence.

“Punishment Must Respond to the Society’s Cry for Justice”

The judgment elaborates on the philosophy of punishment, noting that the criminal justice system aims not at vengeance but at deterrence, protection of society and reformation. Yet, reformation cannot dilute proportional punishment in serious crimes.

The Court stressed that sentencing must maintain “proportion between crime and punishment,” balance aggravating and mitigating factors, and preserve public trust in the administration of justice.

It observed that crimes impair the social fabric and therefore sentencing cannot be reduced mechanically in revision without considering societal impact.

Supreme Court Restores Sentence; Accused Directed to Surrender

Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and restored the conviction and sentence dated 28 November 2013 as affirmed by the First Appellate Court.

The private respondents have been directed to surrender before the Trial Court within four weeks and serve the remaining part of the three-year sentence after adjusting the period already undergone. The Trial Court has been instructed to ensure compliance in accordance with law.

The ruling stands as a clear message that sentencing discretion must be exercised judicially, not sentimentally, and that proportional punishment remains the cornerstone of criminal jurisprudence.

Date of Decision: 17 February 2026