Parameshwari vs State of Tamil Nadu

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(SC) 176

RAJESH BINDAL, VIJAY BISHNOI
Parameshwari – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. A Velan, AOR Ms. Navpreet Kaur, Adv. Mr. Mritunjay Pathak, Adv. Mr. Prince Singh, Adv. Mr. Nilay Rai, Adv. Ms. Kanika Sharma, Adv. Mr. M. Rashik Hameed Mukilan, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. V. Krishnamurthy, Sr. A.A.G. Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR Mr. M.P. Parthiban, AOR Ms. Priyaranjani Nagamuthu, Adv. Mr. Bilal Mansoor, Adv. Mr. Shreyas Kaushal, Adv. Mr. S. Geyolin Selvam, Adv. Mr. Alagiri K, Adv. Mr. Shivansh Sharma, Adv. Mr. Abhishek S, Adv.

Judgement Key Points

[14][15][23][24][25][26][27][33]

Table of Content
1. facts of the case and procedural history. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
2. arguments regarding legality of sentence reduction. (Para 14 , 15 , 16)
3. analysis of sentencing principles in relation to the case. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37)
4. final judgment and directions. (Para 38 , 39 , 40)

JUDGMENT :

VIJAY BISHNOI, J.

^^u`iL; ijeks /keZ% Átkuka ifjikyue~A

nq"Vkuka xzg.ka fuR;a fuR;kuka p fouk'kue~AA**

The supreme objective of law is the protection of society and creating a deterrence against crime by imposing adequate punishment.

1. Leave Granted.

2. 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 pun

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

None of the listed cases explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or otherwise treated as bad law. The descriptions provided do not contain language suggesting judicial criticism, overruling, or negative treatment. Therefore, based solely on the information given, there are no cases identified as bad law.

Followed / Affirmed:

Ahmed Hussein Vali Mohammed Saiyed VS State of Gujarat - 2009 4 Supreme 466: This case discusses provisions of the TADA Act and the admissibility of dying declarations, but there is no language indicating it has been overruled or criticized. It appears to be a settled authority on procedural issues.

State of Punjab VS Dil Bahadur - 2023 3 Supreme 41: Emphasizes the principle of proportionality and just punishment, which are well-established principles in sentencing law. No indication of negative treatment.

GURU BASAVARAJ @ BENNE SETTAPPA VS STATE OF KARNATAKA - 2012 6 Supreme 200: Highlights the court’s duty to impose appropriate sentences considering social impact. No signs of negative treatment.

State of M. P. VS Mohan - 2013 0 Supreme(SC) 689: Discusses the sentencing system reflecting societal conscience; no indication it has been overruled.

State Of M. P. VS Saleem @ Chamaru - 2005 4 Supreme 733: Focuses on balancing aggravating and mitigating factors for just sentencing; no evidence of negative treatment.

State of Madhya Pradesh VS Suresh - 2019 3 Supreme 381: States that punishment should be proportionate and courts should avoid undue leniency, a standard principle in sentencing law; no indication it has been overruled or criticized.

Questioned / Clarified / Neutral:

Shivani Tyagi VS State of U. P. - 2024 4 Supreme 521: Discusses the suspension of sentences in serious offences and the nature of acid attacks as gender-based violence. The language is descriptive and analytical, with no indication of negative treatment or overrule. It appears to be a reasoned discussion of sentencing principles.

None of the cases in the list show clear signs of being overruled, reversed, or treated as bad law based solely on the provided descriptions. The treatment status of these cases remains neutral, as the descriptions do not include references to subsequent judicial treatment or negative treatment.