It is definitely entirely in the fitness of things that the Supreme Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Parameshwari v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors in Criminal Appeal of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 7495 of 2021) and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2026 INSC 164 that was pronounced on February 17, 2026 in the exercise of its criminal appellate jurisdiction has cautioned that courts should avoid undue leniency while sentencing those found guilty in criminal cases. It must be laid bare that a Bench of Apex Court comprising Justice Vijay Bishnoi and Justice Rajesh Bindal were dealing with a case where the Madras High Court had reduced a convict’s jail sentence in an attempt-to-murder case, while enhancing the fine payable by him.
It may be noted that the Apex Court Bench expressed its profound concern in courts displaying undue leniency and said that some courts do not understand this, and instead, mechanically reduce prison sentences, while treating compensation as a form of alternative punishment.
This robust, rational, remarkable and recent judgment authored by Justice Vijay Bishnoi for a Bench of Apex Court comprising Justice Rajesh Bindal and himself sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “The supreme objective of law is the protection of society and creating a deterrence against crime by imposing adequate punishment. Leave Granted.”
we see, the Bench then lays bare the purpose of the appeal specifying and stating in para 2 that, “This appeal has been preferred by the Appellant challenging the Judgment dated 18.12.2020 (hereinafter referred to as “impugned judgment”) passed in Crl. R.C. (MD) No. 121 of 2016 by the High Court of Judicature at Madras, Madurai Bench (hereinafter referred to as “the High Court”) wherein the criminal revision filed by the Respondent No. 2 and Respondent No. 3 (hereinafter referred to as “Private Respondents”) was allowed by the High Court. The High Court upheld the conviction of Private Respondents for the offences punishable under Section 307, 326 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”), but it modified the sentence awarded to them from three years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs 5,000/- each (totalling to Rs 10,000/-) to period already undergone with an enhanced fine of Rs 50,000/- each (totalling to Rs 1,00,000/-).”
To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 3 while elaborating on the factual matrix stating that, “As per the prosecution story, Crime No. 142/2009 was registered at Thiruppachethi Police Station, wherein it was alleged that there was previous enmity between the victim and the Private Respondents. On 06.06.2009 at about 03.00 PM, the Private Respondents came with knives, while the other two accused persons came with sticks. The Private Respondents stabbed the victim with knives on the left side of the chest, in the left rib, abdomen, and on the right hand palm. The other accused persons attacked the victim with sticks, causing minor injuries. Further, it was also alleged that the Private Respondents, along with the other accused persons, have used abusive language against the victim.”
It may be noted that the Bench notes in para 4 that, “During the investigation, the Private Respondents and the other accused persons were arrested, and based on the confessional statement of one of the other accused persons, the knives used for committing the offence were discovered. Further, the Police recorded the statements of the victim and other witnesses. After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet dated 25.06.2009 was filed under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 326, and 307 of IPC against all the accused persons (including the Private Respondents) before the Addl. District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Manamadurai.”
The Bench then notes in para 5 that, “Subsequently, the Addl. District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Manamadurai, committed the case to the District and Sessions Court, Sivagangai, which framed charges under Sections 294(b), 326, and 307 of the IPC against Respondent No 2 and under Sections 294(b), 324, and 307 of the IPC against Respondent No 3, and under Sections 294(b) and 323 of the IPC against the other accused persons. Thereafter, the case was transferred by the District and Sessions Court, Sivagangai, to the Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Subordinate Court/ Assistant Sessions Judge, Sivagangai (hereinafter referred to as “Trial Court”).”
It cannot be glossed over that the Bench observes in para 6 that, “During the trial, the complainant Rajendran (hereinafter referred to as “PW1”), deposed that he knew the accused persons, including the Private Respondents, as they belonged to his village. Further, PW1 reiterated the complaint and stated that he took the victim to the Thiruppachethi Police Station and lodged the complaint. Further, the Appellant herein was examined as PW3, and the victim was examined as PW2. Additionally, Dr. Prabhakaran, who was examined as PW9, identified that the victim had sustained four stab injuries, and that these types of injuries, if not immediately treated, could be life-threatening.”
Most significantly, the Bench then encapsulates in para 34 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that, “The misplaced understanding of various courts in treating compensation as a substitute of sentence is both a matter of concern and a practice which should be condemned. 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 the gravity of the situation as thus, we have culled out certain basic factors, which are to be kept in mind by the courts while dealing with imposition of sentence, in line with the view taken by this Court in the aforementioned cases. The said factors are enunciated as below:
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 Bench notes in para 35 that, “In the present case, the testimonies on record of the PW1 (the complainant), PW2 (the victim), and PW3 (the Appellant herein), when taken conjointly, clearly establishes existence of prior enmity between the victim and the Private Respondents herein who had caused injuries to the victim. Further, these testimonies have been corroborated by the statements of PW9 (Doctor), who had stated that the victim suffered 4 stab injuries, which were grievous in nature to the extent that, if not given immediate care, could have been life-threatening.”
It is worth noting that the Bench notes in para 36 that, “We have carefully considered the decisions of the Trial Court, and are of the view that the Trial Court rightly convicted the Private Respondents under Sections 307, 324 and 326 of the IPC as the injuries were grievous and life-threatening. This decision was further affirmed, correctly so, by the District and Sessions Fast Track Mahila Court, Sivagangai.”
The Bench then propounds in para 37 holding that, “Thereafter, the High Court, while exercising its revisionary powers, very ignominiously reduced the sentence of the Private Respondents to the period already undergone. The High Court was so undesirous to even glance through the fact that the Trial Court had already taken into consideration all the relevant factors while imposing the sentence and showed adequate leniency while awarding sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years only, whereas the maximum punishment permissible for the offence under Section 307 of the IPC is 10 years.
“Additionally, the undue sympathy shown by the High Court herein was totally unwarranted, and 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.”
It would be instructive to note that as a corollary, the Bench then directs and holds in para 38 that, “In light of the above discussion, we are of the view that the impugned judgment warrants interference and is, therefore, set aside. Further, 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.”
Finally, the Bench concludes by directing and holding in para 40 that, “Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”
The Apex Court has rightly underscored that compensation to victims cannot replace custodial punishment. This was held so while setting aside the Madras High Court’s reduction of a three-year jail sentence in an attempt to murder case. There has to be zero tolerance for crimes and any leniency sends a wrong and dangerous message that, “In India you can get away even after committing the most heinous crimes”. This leading case definitely deserves to be emulated strictly in all such similar cases by all courts! No denying or disputing it!
(The author is Advocate based in Meerut, Uttar Pradesh. The views expressed is personal. The author can be reached at sanjeevsirohimrt@gmail.com)