Supreme Court Restores Three-Year Sentence, Sets Aside High Court’s Reduction in Stabbing Case

A bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and Vijay Bishnoi heard an appeal challenging the Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) order that had confirmed conviction but reduced the sentence of two accused in a 2009 stabbing to the period already undergone and enhanced the fine. The appeal arose from a criminal revision by the accused after the Trial Court and the District Sessions Fast Track Mahila Court had convicted them for offences under Sections 307, 326 and 324 IPC.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned High Court order insofar as it reduced the substantive sentence, and restored the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court. The Court held that the High Court erred in exercising revisionary powers by reducing the sentence to the short period already served without adequate reasoning and by treating enhanced monetary payment as a substitute for appropriate custodial punishment. The Court emphasized that "The supreme objective of law is the protection of society and creating a deterrence against crime by imposing adequate punishment." The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "In light of the above discussion, we are of the view that the impugned judgment warrants interference and is, therefore, set aside. Further, the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 28.11.2013 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Assistant Sessions Judge, Sivagangai and later confirmed by the District Sessions Fast Track Mahila Court, Sivagangai, are affirmed. The appeal stands allowed." The Court directed the accused to surrender before the Trial Court within four weeks and to serve the remaining part of the three-year rigorous imprisonment sentence after adjustment for the period already undergone; failure to surrender would invite appropriate steps by the Trial Court.

Background
The prosecution alleged that on 06.06.2009 at about 3.00 PM the two private respondents and two others attacked the victim in Thiruppachethi with knives and sticks, causing multiple stab injuries to the chest, left rib, abdomen and right palm. Medical evidence (PW9) recorded four stab injuries which could be life-threatening if not promptly treated. A charge sheet was filed under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 326 and 307 IPC; the Trial Court convicted the two private respondents under Sections 307, 326 and 324 IPC and sentenced each to three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000, holding no separate sentences necessary for the other counts.

On appeal the District Sessions Fast Track Mahila Court confirmed conviction and sentence. In Criminal Revision Crl. R.C. (MD) No.121/2016, the High Court confirmed guilt but modified the sentence to the period already undergone (about two months) and, while increasing the fine to Rs.50,000 each (total Rs.1,00,000) directed the amount to be paid to the victim’s wife. The High Court took note that more than ten years had elapsed, that the victim had been murdered subsequently by others, and that the accused offered to pay compensation.

The appellant (victim’s wife) challenged the reduction of sentence before the Supreme Court, contending that lapse of time and monetary payment did not justify reducing a sentence commensurate with the gravity of the offence. The State supported the appellant, while the private respondents did not dispute culpability but sought leniency and reiterated willingness to pay Rs.1,00,000 as compensation. The Supreme Court reviewed sentencing principles established in its precedents, reiterated that compensation could not be treated as a substitute for punishment, and stressed that undue sympathy resulting in inadequate sentences would undermine public confidence and fail the object of deterrence and protection of society. The Court therefore set aside the High Court’s modification and affirmed the original conviction and sentence; it disposed of pending applications and directed surrender within four weeks.

Case Details:
Case No.: 2026 INSC 164; CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. ……………..OF 2026 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRIMINAL) NO. 7495 OF 2021)
Case Title: Parameshwari v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. A. Velan, Advocate (for Parameshwari)
For the Respondent(s): Mr. V. Krishnamurthy, Additional Advocate General (for State of Tamil Nadu); Mr. M.P. Parthibhan, Advocate (for Private Respondents)

Source: 2026 CaseBase(SC) 134