Supreme Court Judgement: Sentence Modification for IPC Offences

In a recent landmark judgement by the Supreme Court of India, the sentences for the accused in IPC offences have been modified. The case involved a petition for sentence reduction by the respondents-accused. The court considered various factors including the nature of the offence, the period of sentence already served, and the first-time offenders’ status. Stay tuned to know more about this crucial legal development.


  • The High Court partly allowed the appeal and reduced the sentence for the respondents-accused to the period of 4 days already undergone, but increased the fine by Rs. 1500/- each.
  • The original sentence by the Trial Court was 3 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 250/- each for the offence under Section 326 read with Section 34 of IPC.
  • In case of default in paying the fine, further rigorous imprisonment of 6 months was imposed.
  • Additionally, they were sentenced to undergo 1 year of rigorous imprisonment and a further fine of Rs. 250/- each for the offence under Section 452 of IPC.
  • All sentences were to run concurrently as per the Trial Court’s judgement.
  • The respondents-accused challenged only the quantum of sentence imposed by the Trial Court in their appeal to the High Court.
  • The High Court reduced the sentence to the period already served for the offences under Section 326 and Section 452 of IPC.
  • The prosecution’s case involved the respondents-accused barging into the complainant’s house with weapons as reported by the complainant on 15.04.2008.
  • Respondent 1 and Respondent 3 were carrying axes, while Respondent 2 and Respondent 4 were carrying sticks.
  • The respondents-accused asked the complainant why he had not kept his cow tied.
  • Respondent 4 exhorted the other respondents to attack the complainant and others present.
  • The respondents-accused attacked the complainant and others, causing various injuries.

Also Read: Legal Analysis: Sheikh Noorul Hassan vs. Nahakpam Indrajit Singh – Permissibility of Subsequent Pleading in Election Petition Proceedings


  • The learned counsel for the appellant-State argued that the High Court did not consider the gravity of the offence and the fact that the accused had served only 4 days in prison.
  • The learned counsel for Respondent No.1 contended that the High Court’s decision was correct and should not be interfered with.
  • The High Court’s reasoning for partly allowing the appeals of the accused was briefly stated with minimal explanation.

Also Read: CRPF Act: Validity of Rule 27 for Compulsory Retirement – Case of Head Constable vs. CRPF


  • The High Court considered the nature of the offence committed by the respondents.
  • It took into account that this was the first offence of the respondents.
  • The period of sentence already undergone by the respondents was also a factor in the decision.
  • The High Court made its judgment based on the considerations mentioned above.
  • The trial court’s reasoning in sentencing is crucial as it connects the general punishment for the offense with the specific facts of the case.
  • Reasons for sentencing must be provided to ensure fairness and accountability, especially when the accused’s liberty is at stake.
  • The lack of detailed analysis and reasoning in the High Court’s order justifies interference by the Supreme Court.
  • The injuries caused in the attack were incised wounds and bruising, with no evidence of permanent damage.
  • Factors like bodily integrity, material loss, humiliation, and privacy breach determine the seriousness of the crime.
  • The age, role, and actions of the accused, as well as the motivation behind the offense, must be considered in sentencing.
  • Sufficient discretion is necessary for judges in sentencing, as a strict fixed punishment approach may not be effective.
  • The impact of sentencing on the efficacy of the criminal justice system is significant, highlighting its importance in maintaining societal order.
  • The judgment considers the fact that the crime occurred in 2008.
  • The respondents-accused were initially ordered to undergo four days of jail term with a fine of Rs. 1,500/-.
  • It is emphasized that the punishment must be enhanced to be commensurate with the guilt of the respondents-accused.
  • The judgment notes that this was the first offense committed by the respondents-accused.
  • The motive behind the crime is stated to be trivial.
  • The judgment highlights the need to treat this crime differently from other objectionable situations like police atrocities.
  • The case of Yashwant v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2018 SC 4067 is referred to for guidance.

Also Read: DAMEPL vs. DMRC: Curative Petition and Arbitral Award Restoration


  • Respondent No. 4 sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 2 months and fine of Rs.50,000/- for offence under Section 326 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC
  • Respondent No. 4 to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- for offence under Section 452 of IPC
  • All sentences to run concurrently
  • Respondent No. 4 to be taken into custody immediately to serve the sentence
  • Appeal partly allowed and impugned order of the High Court modified
  • Respondent Nos. 1, 2, and 3 sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 3 months and fine of Rs.75,000/- for offence under Section 326 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC
  • Respondent Nos. 1, 2, and 3 sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 3 months and fine of Rs.15,000/- for offence under Section 452 of IPC


Case Number: Crl.A. No.-000690-000690 / 2014

Click here to read/download original judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *