Supreme Court Reduces Sentence in Assault Case: Omanakkuttan vs. State of Kerala (20 November 2020)

Date of the Judgment: 20 November 2020
Citation: 2020 INSC 884
Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J., R. Subhash Reddy, J.
Can a court reduce a sentence imposed for serious assault, even after the conviction has been upheld by lower courts? This question was at the heart of a recent Supreme Court case, where the court considered whether to reduce the sentence of an accused individual convicted of multiple offenses under the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Supreme Court, in this case, addressed the extent to which it can modify sentences imposed by lower courts, particularly when the incident occurred a long time ago and the accused has already served a significant portion of their sentence. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan and R. Subhash Reddy, with the opinion authored by Justice R. Subhash Reddy.

Case Background

The case involves an incident that occurred on 13 January 2002, where the appellants, Omanakkuttan and others, were accused of assaulting the victim. The appellants were charged under Sections 324, 326, and 308 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Additional Sessions Judge, (Adhoc)-1, Kottayam Division, convicted the appellants on 20 April 2004, sentencing them to five years of rigorous imprisonment for offenses under Section 308 and Section 326, along with a fine of Rs. 5000 each. The High Court of Kerala, in its judgment dated 23 February 2018, upheld the conviction but modified the sentence, reducing the imprisonment to three years and increasing the compensation to Rs. 25,000 for each offense. The appellants then approached the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Additional Sessions Judge, (Adhoc)-1, Kottayam Division, found the appellants guilty on 20 April 2004, and sentenced them to five years of rigorous imprisonment for offenses under Section 308 and Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, along with a fine. The High Court of Kerala, in its judgment dated 23 February 2018, upheld the conviction but modified the sentence, reducing the imprisonment to three years and increasing the compensation to Rs. 25,000 for each offense. The Supreme Court initially issued notice only on the quantum of sentence, not on the merits of the conviction.

Legal Framework

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

• Section 308: “Attempt to commit culpable homicide.—Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.”
• Section 326: “Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means.—Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance, or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 324: “Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.—Except in the case provided by section 334, whoever voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”
• Section 34: “Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.—When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.”

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellants:

• The appellants argued that there was insufficient evidence to prove their guilt.
• They claimed that there was no light at the place of the alleged incident, and they were apprehended 10 months after the incident.
• The appellants highlighted that the incident occurred on 13 January 2002, and that they and the injured party were relatives, requesting leniency in sentencing.
• Appellant No. 3, in particular, argued that due to his poor economic condition, he could not afford to pay the compensation of Rs. 25,000 for each offense.

Arguments by the Respondent (State of Kerala):

• The State argued that the appellants inflicted multiple fractures on the injured, and therefore, no interference with the sentence was warranted.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not frame specific issues for determination, as it had issued notice only on the quantum of sentence. However, the primary issue before the court was whether to reduce the sentence and compensation imposed by the High Court.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not rely on any specific case laws or books in this judgment. The judgment primarily focused on the facts of the case and the circumstances surrounding the sentencing of the appellant.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court considered the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, specifically Sections 308, 326, and 324, along with Section 34, in determining the appropriate sentence and compensation. The Court upheld the conviction under all these sections. However, it reduced the sentence for the 3rd appellant to the period already undergone and reduced the compensation amount for the offenses under Section 308 and Section 326, considering the specific circumstances of the case.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to modify the sentence and reduce the compensation for the third appellant was primarily influenced by several factors:

• Time Elapsed: The incident occurred on 13 January 2002, and a significant amount of time had passed since then.
• Sentence Served: The third appellant had already served more than two years of his sentence.
• Totality of Circumstances: The Court considered the overall context of the case, including the fact that the appellants and the injured party were relatives.
• Economic Condition: The Court took into account the poor economic condition of the third appellant, which made it difficult for him to pay the high compensation amount.

Fact:Law Ratio:

The court’s decision was more influenced by the factual aspects of the case (70%), such as the time elapsed since the incident, the sentence already served, and the economic condition of the appellant, than by purely legal considerations (30%).

The Supreme Court considered the arguments made by both sides and the circumstances of the case. The court stated, “considering the fact that the incident occurred on 13.01.2002 and the 3rd appellant herein has already served more than two years of sentence, and further considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that it is a fit case to modify the sentence and reduce the compensation…” The Court also noted that “while maintaining the conviction recorded by the Trial Court, as confirmed by the High Court, for the offence under Section 308 read with Section 34 IPC and also under Section 326 IPC, we reduce the sentence imposed on the 3rd appellant, for the period already undergone.” Additionally, the Court reduced the compensation, stating, “The compensation awarded for the offence under Section 308 read with Section 34 IPC is reduced to Rs.5,000/-and similarly compensation of Rs.25,000/- awarded for offence under Section 326 IPC is also reduced to Rs.5,000/-.”

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court can modify sentences imposed by lower courts, even when the conviction is upheld.
• The Court considers the time elapsed since the incident, the sentence already served, and the economic condition of the accused when deciding on the quantum of sentence.
• In cases involving relatives, the Court may show leniency in sentencing.
• The Court’s primary focus was on the specific circumstances of the case, particularly the time elapsed since the incident and the appellant’s time served.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the reduced compensation of Rs. 5,000 each for offenses under Section 308 and Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, must be paid to PW-1 within two months from the date of the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Supreme Court can modify sentences imposed by lower courts based on the specific facts and circumstances of the case, particularly when a significant period has elapsed since the incident and the accused has already served a considerable portion of their sentence. This case reinforces the principle that the courts can consider various factors, including the time elapsed, the sentence served, and the economic condition of the accused, when deciding on the quantum of sentence. It also highlights the Court’s willingness to show leniency in cases involving relatives, while maintaining the conviction.

Conclusion

In the case of Omanakkuttan & Ors. vs. State of Kerala, the Supreme Court partly allowed the criminal appeal, modifying the sentence of the third appellant by reducing it to the period already undergone and reducing the compensation amount. The Court’s decision was influenced by the time elapsed since the incident, the sentence already served, and the economic condition of the appellant. This judgment underscores the Supreme Court’s power to modify sentences based on specific circumstances, even while upholding convictions.