Supreme Court Reduces Sentence in Assault Case Based on Amicable Settlement: Murali vs. State (2021)

Date of the Judgment: 05 January 2021

Citation: 2021 INSC 1

Judges: N.V. Ramana, J., Surya Kant, J., Aniruddha Bose, J.

Can a prior amicable settlement between a victim and the accused influence the quantum of sentence in a criminal case, particularly when the offenses are not compoundable? The Supreme Court of India recently examined this issue in an appeal concerning convictions for assault. The core question was whether the court could reduce the sentence of the accused based on a settlement, despite the offenses being non-compoundable under the law. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Justices N.V. Ramana, Surya Kant, and Aniruddha Bose, with the opinion authored by Justice N.V. Ramana.

Case Background

The case originated from an incident on 07 August 2005, when Senthil had a verbal argument with Kumar and Krishnan during a volleyball match. Sathya @ Sathiyajothi, the victim, intervened to support his friend Senthil. Subsequently, on 09 August 2005, at around 2:30 PM, the appellants, Rajavelu and Murali, along with Muthu, Kumar, and Krishnan, cornered and assaulted the victim. Murali allegedly struck the victim’s head with a hockey stick, while Rajavelu attempted to inflict a fatal blow to the neck with a Veechu Aruval (a sharp-edged weapon). The victim managed to block the blow, but his left hand and the thumb and finger of his right hand were severed in the process. The victim escaped, and his friend reported the incident. All five individuals were arrested, leading to the registration of Crime No. 531 of 2005 under Sections 147, 148, 341, 352, 323, 324, 307, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Assistant Sessions Judge ­cum­ Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore, found Murali guilty of wrongful restraint and voluntarily causing hurt with a dangerous weapon, sentencing him to three months’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and one month under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Rajavelu was convicted for attempted murder and wrongful restraint, receiving a five-year rigorous imprisonment sentence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and one month under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The other accused were acquitted due to lack of specific allegations. Both Murali and Rajavelu appealed the trial court’s decision. The Additional District­cum­Sessions Judge dismissed their first appeal on 20 August 2013. Their criminal revision petition was also dismissed by the High Court of Madras on 01 November 2018. Subsequently, they approached the Supreme Court seeking special leave to appeal. During the proceedings, the appellants sought to implead the victim to compound the offenses based on a mutual settlement. The Supreme Court issued a limited notice on the quantum of sentence.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• Section 324: “Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.” This section deals with causing hurt using dangerous weapons or means, which was the basis for Murali’s conviction.
• Section 307: “Attempt to murder.” This section pertains to the attempt to commit murder, which was the charge against Rajavelu.
• Section 341: “Punishment for wrongful restraint.” This section deals with the punishment for wrongfully restraining any person and was applied to both Murali and Rajavelu.

Additionally, Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, is relevant:

• Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: This section lists the offenses that can be compounded (settled) by the parties involved. It explicitly states that offenses under Sections 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, are not compoundable. Section 320(9) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, states that, “No offence shall be compounded except as provided by this section.”

Arguments

The arguments in this case primarily revolved around the possibility of reducing the sentence due to the amicable settlement between the parties, despite the offenses being non-compoundable.

• Appellants’ Submissions:
  • The appellants admitted their fault and sought forgiveness from the victim.
  • They argued that they had amicably settled the dispute with the victim, who had also acknowledged their apology.
  • They requested a reduction in their sentence, given the changed circumstances and the settlement.
  • The appellants’ counsel fairly restricted their prayer to reduction of sentence only.
• Victim’s Submissions:
  • The victim acknowledged the apology and confirmed the settlement.
  • The victim’s counsel reiterated that the victim had forgiven the appellants, considering their young age at the time of the incident.
  • The victim supported the reduction of sentence of the appellants.
• Prosecution’s Submissions:
  • The prosecution did not make any specific arguments.

The innovativeness of the argument lies in the appellants and victim jointly seeking a reduction in sentence based on a settlement, despite the offenses being non-compoundable, which is a departure from the strict interpretation of Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not frame specific issues but dealt with the following:

• Whether the fact of an amicable settlement between the parties can be a relevant factor for reducing the quantum of sentence in a non-compoundable offense.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court followed the ratio in Ram Pujan v. State of UP [(1973) 2 SCC 456]* stating that the fact of compromise can be taken into account while determining the quantum of sentence.
• The Court relied on Ishwar Singh v. State of MP [(2008) 15 SCC 667]* which laid down that the fact of compromise is a relevant circumstance for reducing the sentence.
• The Court also relied on Jetha Ram v. State of Rajasthan [(2006) 9 SCC 255]*, Murugesan v. Ganapathy Velar [(2001) 10 SCC 504]* and Ishwarlal v. State of M.P. [(2008) 15 SCC 671]* as examples where the court had reduced the sentence based on a compromise.
• The Court distinguished Mahesh Chand v. State of Rajasthan [1990 Supp SCC 681]* where the court had ordered for compounding of the offence.
• The Court followed the ratio in Ram Lal v. State of J&K [(1999) 2 SCC 213]*, Bankat v. State of Maharashtra [(2005) 1 SCC 343]*, Mohar Singh v. State of Rajasthan [(2015) 11 SCC 226]*, Nanda Gopalan v. State of Kerala [(2015) 11 SCC 137]* and Shankar v. State of Maharashtra [(2019) 5 SCC 166]* where the court had reduced the sentence based on a compromise.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The amicable settlement between the parties, indicating a genuine reconciliation.
• The young age of the appellants at the time of the incident.
• The absence of any prior enmity between the parties.
• The fact that the appellants had no other criminal antecedents.
• The appellants’ family responsibilities and social obligations.
• The fact that the appellants had already served a significant portion of their sentences.

The Court’s decision was influenced more by the factual circumstances of the case, such as the settlement and the personal circumstances of the appellants, than by strict legal interpretation.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was based on the following:

The Court acknowledged that “Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 does not encapsulate Section 324 and 307 IPC under its list of compoundable offences.” However, it also noted that “the fact of amicable settlement can be a relevant factor for the purpose of reduction in the quantum of sentence.”

The Court relied on the precedent set in Ram Pujan v. State of UP [(1973) 2 SCC 456], where it was held that “the fact of compromise can be taken into account in determining the quantum of sentence.” The court also observed that “the parties to the dispute have mutually buried their hatchet” and that the settlement was not a result of coercion or inducement.

The Court also considered the age of the appellants at the time of the incident, stating that “both appellants too were no older than 20-22 years.” It also noted that “fifteen years have elapsed since the incident” and that the appellants “present little chance of committing the same crime.”

The Court concluded that “it might not serve the interests of society to keep them incarcerated any further” and reduced the sentence to the period already undergone.

There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The decision was unanimous.

Key Takeaways

• Amicable settlements can be a significant factor in reducing sentences, even in non-compoundable offenses.
• Courts may consider the age of the accused, the circumstances of the crime, and subsequent behavior when determining sentences.
• The judgment emphasizes the importance of reconciliation and the potential for offenders to reform.
• This decision may influence future cases where settlements are reached in serious criminal matters.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the sentence of both appellants be reduced to the period already undergone by them. Consequently, they were set free, and their bail bonds were discharged.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that while offenses under Sections 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, are not compoundable under Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, an amicable settlement between the parties can be a relevant factor in reducing the quantum of sentence. This case reinforces the principle that courts can consider the specific circumstances of a case and the potential for reconciliation when determining sentences, even in serious criminal matters. The judgment does not introduce a new legal principle but applies existing principles to a specific set of facts, emphasizing the court’s discretion in sentencing.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Murali vs. State highlights the importance of amicable settlements in criminal cases, even when the offenses are non-compoundable. The Court reduced the sentences of the appellants based on their settlement with the victim, their young age at the time of the incident, and their lack of prior criminal history. This judgment emphasizes that the courts can consider various factors beyond the strict letter of the law when determining the appropriate sentence, particularly in cases where genuine reconciliation has occurred and the interests of justice are served by a more lenient approach.