In Brief
In this criminal appeal against the High Court's judgment, the Supreme Court examined the sentencing of three accused involved in a shooting and assault incident. The first accused, armed with a licensed pistol, fired bullets at two persons, causing injuries capable of causing death. The High Court had reduced his sentence from seven years to five years. The Supreme Court held that sentences must be proportionate to the gravity of offences and cannot be reduced merely on grounds of sympathy, especially where deadly weapons cause serious injuries. The Court enhanced the first accused's sentence to six years and six months, while affirming the acquittal of the other two accused from the charge of attempt to murder and their reduced sentences for grievous hurt, considering they were not armed with deadly weapons.", <parameter name="cited_cases">[{"raw_citation":"State of Punjab v. Bawa Singh (2015) 3 SCC 441", "case_name":"State of Punjab v. Bawa Singh", "cited_year":"2015", "paragraph":"13", "treatment":"relied", "treatment_by":"this_court", "treatment_quote":"undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law. It is the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed."}, {"raw_citation":"Ravinder Singh v. State of Haryana (2015) 11 SCC 588", "case_name":"Ravinder Singh v. State of Haryana", "cited_year":"2015", "paragraph":"14", "treatment":"relied", "treatment_by":"this_court", "treatment_quote":"The question of sentence is always a difficult task requiring balancing of various considerations. The question of awarding sentence is a matter of discretion to be exercised on consideration of circumstances aggravating and mitigating in the individual cases. The law courts have been consistent in the approach that a reasonable proportion has to be maintained between the seriousness of the crime and the punishment."}, {"raw_citation":"Sevaka Perumal and another v. State of Tamil Nadu (1991) 3 SCC 471", "case_name":"Sevaka Perumal v. State of Tamil Nadu", "cited_year":"1991", "paragraph":"15", "treatment":"relied", "treatment_by":"this_court", "treatment_quote":"undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law and society could not long endure under serious threats. If the courts did not protect the injured, the injured would then resort to private vengeance. It is, therefore, the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed."}]
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.