Monetary Compensation To Victim Cannot Substitute Punishment In Heinous Offences: Supreme Court
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India, Division Bench of Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Vijay Bishnoi, has set aside a Madras High Court order that reduced the sentence of two convicts — found guilty of attempt to murder — from three years of rigorous imprisonment to the roughly two months they had already served, with an enhanced fine of ₹1 lakh directed as compensation. The apex court held that victim compensation is restitutory in nature and cannot serve as a substitute for punishment, cautioning that allowing monetary payment to offset custodial sentences risks conveying that offenders can effectively buy their way out of imprisonment. The Court flagged a broader pattern among certain High Courts of mechanically reducing sentences in serious offences by simultaneously enhancing compensation, directing the convicts to surrender and serve the remainder of their original sentence.
The appeal arose from a challenge to a High Court judgment modifying the sentence imposed on two accused convicted under Sections 307, 326 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case was that on 06.06.2009, owing to prior enmity, the accused attacked the victim with knives, inflicting stab injuries on the chest, rib, abdomen and palm. The victim was hospitalised and medical evidence recorded four stab injuries which were stated to be life-threatening if untreated.
The Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced them to three years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine. The appellate court affirmed the conviction and sentence. In revision, the High Court maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence to the period already undergone and enhanced the fine payable as compensation.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellant contended that reduction of sentence was unwarranted and disproportionate. The State supported this contention. The accused submitted that the High Court had considered lapse of time, subsequent events, and their willingness to pay compensation.
The Supreme Court observed that "the High Court acted in complete defiance of the law and created a travesty of the established criminal jurisprudence in arriving at its conclusion," by reducing the sentence of the convicts to the period already undergone, which amounted to merely two months, in a case involving life-threatening stab injuries. The Court further recorded that "the High Court failed to reason out the circumstances, acting on which, it reduced the sentence for such a heinous offence and thereby, erred in not applying its judicial mind to accurately decide the sentence."
On the foundational purpose of punishment, the Court observed that the objective is not to seek vengeance for the crime, but an attempt to reconstruct the damaged social fabric of society. It stated that "the punishment should not be too harsh, but at the same time, it should also not be too lenient so as to undermine its deterrent effect."
On the principle of proportionality in sentencing, the Court observed that "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," and that "undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentences would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law."
On the role of victim compensation, the Court observed that "compensation payable to the victim is only restitutory in nature, and it cannot be considered as equivalent to or a substitute for punishment. Punishment is punitive in nature, and its object is to create an adequate deterrence against the said crime and to send a social message to the miscreants that any violation of the moral turpitude of society would come with consequences, which cannot merely be 'purchased by money'." The Court further stated that "the practice of enhancing the compensation payable to the victim and reducing the sentence, especially in cases of grave offence, is dangerous as it might send a wrong message to society that the offenders/accused persons can absolve themselves from their liability by merely paying a monetary consideration."
The Court also drew reference to its earlier decision in Shivani Tyagi vs. State of U.P. & Another, where a High Court had suspended the sentence of acid attack convicts in lieu of a payment of ₹25 lakhs to the victim for medical treatment — and when the victim refused to accept the amount, directed its deposit with the court. The Supreme Court had set aside that order, terming such payment a form of "Blood Money" offered by the convicts, observing that "there is no acceptability" for such an arrangement in the criminal justice system.
On the broader pattern observed in courts, the bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and Vijay Bishnoi stated that "we have observed a trend amongst various High Courts wherein the sentences awarded to the accused persons by the Trial Court are reduced capriciously and mechanically, without any visible application of judicial mind."
Considering this, the Court culled out four basic factors to be kept in mind by courts while dealing with the imposition of sentence:
"A. Proportionality: Adherence to the principle of 'just deserts' ought to be the primary duty of the courts. There should be proportionality between the crime committed and the punishment awarded, keeping in consideration the gravity of the offence.
B. Consideration to Facts and Circumstances: Due consideration must be given to the facts and circumstances of the case, including the allegations, evidence and the findings of the trial court.
C. Impact on Society: While imposing sentences, the courts shall bear in mind that crimes essentially impair the social fabric of the society (of which the victim(s) is/are an indispensable part) and erodes public trust. The sentence should be adequate to maintain the public trust in law and administration, however, caution should also be taken, and the Court shall not be swayed by the outrage or emotions of the public and must decide the question independently.
D. Aggravating and Mitigating Factors: The courts, while deciding the sentence or modifying the sentence, must weigh the circumstances in which the crime was committed, and while doing so, the court must strike a fair balance between the aggravating and the mitigating factors."
The Court further observed that the undue sympathy shown by the High Court was totally unwarranted, and that "such displays of overt sentiments risk undermining the administration of justice, as it is imperative that justice is not merely done but also seen to be done."
The Court directed, “In light of the above discussion, we are of the view that the impugned judgment warrants interference and is, therefore, set aside. The judgment of conviction and sentence dated 28.11.2013 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Assistant Sessions Judge, Sivagangai and later confirmed by the District Sessions Fast Track Mahila Court, Sivagangai, are affirmed. The appeal stands allowed.”
“We direct that the Private Respondents must surrender before the Trial Court within four weeks from today and shall serve the remaining part of the sentence awarded to them. The Trial Court shall ensure that they serve the remaining sentence, after adjustment of the period already undergone by them. In case the Private Respondents fail to surrender within the stipulated time, the Trial Court shall take appropriate steps as permissible under the law to ensure compliance of the above stated directions. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”
Case Title: Parameshwari v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 164
Case Number: Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 7495 of 2021
Bench: Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Vijay Bishnoi
