In a recent criminal case, the court focused on the legal analysis of sentences and compensation imposed on the appellants. The court’s review resulted in modifications to the original verdict, considering factors such as time served, severity of injuries, and financial conditions of the parties involved. This blog provides insights into the court’s decision-making process, shedding light on the nuances of the justice system’s approach to sentencing in criminal cases.
Facts
- Three appellants were convicted for offences under Sections 324, 326, and 308 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
- High Court modified the sentence for rigorous imprisonment to three years and imposed a fine to be paid as compensation.
- No separate sentence was awarded for the offence under Section 324 IPC.
- The appellants were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years each for the offence under Section 308 read with Section 34, along with a fine.
- This Court issued notice on the quantum of sentence only.
Also Read: Transfer of Writ Petitions for Chartered Accountants’ Tax Audit Guidelines
Arguments
- Appellant Nos. 1 and 2 have already served the sentence.
- Trial Court’s conviction and sentence were erroneously confirmed by the High Court.
- No sufficient evidence to prove the guilt of the accused for the alleged offence.
- Apprehended after 10 months of the incident.
- Alleged incident occurred on 13.01.2002, and the appellants and injured parties are relatives.
- Request for leniency in sentencing due to family relationship.
- Inability to afford the requested compensation due to poor economic condition.
- The respondent-State argues against reducing the sentence and compensation awarded by the High Court.
- Multiple fractures were inflicted by the appellants on the injured, as per the respondent-State’s submission.
- The respondent-State contends that no interference is necessary due to the severity of the injuries caused by the appellants.
Also Read: Analyzing Interference with Acquittal in Legal Conviction Case
Analysis
- Learned counsel has made submissions on the merits of the matter.
- The court has issued notice only on quantum of sentence.
- The court is not inclined to go into the merits of conviction recorded.
Also Read: Interpretation of Wildlife Protection Act: Schedule I Species Identification
Decision
- The sentence for the 3rd appellant is modified and reduced considering the time already served
- Conviction under Section 308 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 326 IPC is maintained
- Compensation for the offences under Section 308 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 326 IPC is reduced from Rs.25,000 to Rs.5,000 each
- Conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 324 IPC is confirmed
- The accused/A1 to A3 filed the criminal appeal against the judgment of conviction and sentence
Case Title: OMANAKKUTTAN Vs. THE STATE OF KERALA (2020 INSC 651)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-000800-000800 / 2020
