Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(SC) 176

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RAJESH BINDAL, VIJAY BISHNOI, JJ.
Parameshwari – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu and Others – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 949 of 2026 [Arising Out of SLP (Criminal) No. 7495 of 2021]
Decided On : 17-02-2026

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.

Sentencing must reflect the gravity of the crime, ensuring adequate deterrence while avoiding undue sympathy and maintaining public confidence in justice.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 307, 324, and 326 - Challenge to modification of sentence for grievous injuries - High Court reduced sentence from three years to already undergone two months, error noted by Supreme Court for lack of cogent reasoning. (Paras 18, 19, 37)

(B) Sentencing principles - Court emphasized deterring effect of punishments and highlighted the need for proportionality in sentencing to reflect crime's gravity, reaffirming judicial duty to maintain public trust. (Paras 21, 23, 25)

(C) Victim compensation - Compensation does not substitute punishment; courts must avoid undue sympathy while ensuring just consequences for crime to uphold societal order. (Paras 29, 32)

Facts of the case:
Appellant challenged the High Court’s modification of the sentence after the conviction of private respondents for grievous offences committed against the victim, who later died from unrelated circumstances. High Court enhanced the fine but reduced the term of imprisonment citing undue delay and willingness to pay compensation.

Findings of Court:
High Court erred in modifying the sentence without appropriate justification, undermining the seriousness of the crime and failing to maintain proportionality in punishment.

Issues: Whether the High Court's reduction of the sentence was justified based on the elapsed time and compensation offered by the respondents.

Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court ruled that adequate punishment must reflect the crime's severity and societal impact, rejecting the High Court's leniency as undermining justice and public confidence.

Result: Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside, original sentence reinstated.

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 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/- ).

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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”).

6. 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 sustaine