SC: Facts Of Amicable Settlement Can Be A Relevant Factor For Purpose Of Reduction In The Quantum Of Sentence

OVERVIEW

· The three-judge bench of Supreme Court comprised of Justice NV Ramana, Justice Surya Kant and Justice Aniruddha Bose, who gave this climacteric judgement.

· The judgement upholds the conviction of the two accused Murali (appellant in SLP (Crl) No 10813/2019) and Rajavelu(appellant in SLP (Crl) 10814/2019) given by the trial court.

· Precedents referred includes Ram Pujan v. State of UP [(1973) 2 SCC 456] and Ishwar Singh v. State of MP [(2008) 15 SCC 667] along with other prior judgements.

KEY DETAILS

· Accused 1, Murali was convicted under Section 324 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and was notified with a sentence of three months’ rigorous imprisonment.

· The second accused, Rajavelu, was pronounced guilty under Sections 307 and 341 of IPC and sentence of five years’ rigorous imprisonment.

· During the course of appeal before the Apex Court, the parties entered into an amicable arrangement.

JUDGEMENT BY THE SC

· The Court observed there must be no ambiguity that Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code of 1973 ('CrPC') would not constitute Sections 324 and 307 of the Criminal Procedure Code as part of its scope of compounding activities.

· In sight of the unmistakable terminology of Section 320(9) of the CrPC, which specifically excludes any compounding except as authorized under that clause, the infringements of the appellants should not be compounded.

· The court noted the synopsis of the case, including the facts that parties to the dispute have mutually buried their hatchet and both the accused have served noteworthy portions of their sentences.

· The Apex Court also noted that there existed no prior hostility between the parties and hence they find the reduction in the quantum of sentence.

DO YOU THINK THIS IS ANOTHER STEP FOR INDIA TOWARDS A MORE PROVOCATIVE REFORMATIVE SYSTEM? LET US KNOW IN THE COMMENT BOX BELOW!