A bench comprising Justices Rajesh Bindal and Vijay Bishnoi delivered the decision Tuesday while hearing a petition challenging a judgment of the High Court’s Madurai Bench. The High Court had cut the sentence of two men convicted in a grievous knife-injury case from three years to two, while raising compensation from ₹5,000 each to ₹50,000 each. The apex court restored the original three-year sentence imposed by the trial court.
The bench said sentencing serves a broader social purpose and must retain its deterrent value. Reducing jail time solely because compensation has been increased, the judges observed, undermines public confidence in the justice system and weakens the principle of accountability. Punishment, the court stressed, should strike a balance—neither excessively harsh nor so lenient that it fails to discourage future crimes.
Clarifying the legal position, the court said victim compensation is an important element of criminal justice but cannot substitute imprisonment or other penalties. Compensation provisions exist to support victims, not to dilute punishment for offenders. The judges emphasized that sentencing must consider proportionality, the nature of the offence, surrounding circumstances, societal impact, and both aggravating and mitigating factors.
Setting aside the High Court’s order, the Supreme Court directed the convicts to surrender before the trial court within four weeks and serve the remainder of their sentence. Time already spent in custody will be adjusted against the total term.
Legal observers say the ruling reinforces the principle that financial payments cannot replace custodial punishment in serious offences. The judgment is expected to guide lower courts in sentencing decisions, particularly in cases where compensation is awarded alongside imprisonment. By reaffirming that monetary relief is supplementary rather than substitutive, the court has underscored the judiciary’s commitment to deterrence, proportional justice, and public trust in the rule of law.
.jpg)
