Supreme Court Reduces Sentence in Attempt to Murder Case: Pramod Kumar Mishra vs. State of U.P. (2023)

Date of the Judgment: 04 September 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 791
Judges: Abhay S. Oka J., Sanjay Karol J.
Can a court reduce a sentence imposed for an attempt to murder, considering the passage of time and other mitigating factors? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, reducing the sentence of an accused convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. This judgment highlights the importance of balancing aggravating and mitigating factors when determining an appropriate sentence. The bench was composed of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Sanjay Karol, with the judgment authored by Justice Sanjay Karol.

Case Background

On 12th August 1984, at approximately 6:00 AM, Kapil Deo Misir (PW1) was on his way home when he witnessed Pramod Kumar Mishra, along with other co-accused, damaging his crops of arhar and junhari in his field. When PW1 intervened, the accused, armed with lathis and ballam, attacked him, causing injuries that led to him losing consciousness. Following the incident, an FIR (Case Crime No. 67 of 1984) was registered at 7:30 AM on the same day under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against Jawahar @ Munna Mishra (A1), Pramod Mishra (A2, the present appellant), and Suresh Mishra (A3). PW1 was the complainant in the case.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The investigation was conducted by S.I. Gauri Shankar Singh (PW7), who filed a chargesheet against Jawahar @ Munna Mishra (A1), Pramod Mishra (A2, the present appellant), and Suresh Mishra (A3). The Trial Court registered the case as S.T. No. 51 of 1985 and framed charges against the accused under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The Trial Court convicted Pramod Kumar Mishra (A2) under Section 307 of the IPC and sentenced him to 5 years rigorous imprisonment, while acquitting Jawahar (A1) and Suresh (A3). The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad upheld the Trial Court’s decision on 19.04.2019. The Supreme Court, on 10.02.2023, issued a notice limited to the question of the sentence awarded to the appellant.

Legal Framework

The primary legal provision in this case is Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with the offense of attempt to murder. It states:

“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 murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.”

Arguments

The arguments before the Supreme Court were primarily focused on the quantum of the sentence imposed on the appellant, Pramod Kumar Mishra. The appellant argued for a reduction in sentence, citing the passage of time since the incident, the acquittal of the other co-accused, and the absence of any prior criminal record. The State, on the other hand, defended the sentence imposed by the lower courts, arguing that the nature of the offense warranted the punishment.

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The incident occurred 39 years ago.
• The co-accused were acquitted.
• There are no prior criminal antecedents of the appellant.
• The appellant did not act in a premeditated manner.

State’s Submissions:

• The offense of attempt to murder under Section 307 of the IPC is a serious offense.
• The sentence imposed was just and proper considering the nature of the crime.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the sentence imposed by the Trial Court and upheld by the High Court is just and proper?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

• Jagmohan Singh v. State of U.P. [1973] 1 SCC 20 – Supreme Court of India: This case emphasized the need to consider aggravating and mitigating circumstances in awarding sentences.
• Mohammad Giassudin v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1977] 3 SCC 287 – Supreme Court of India: This case highlighted the rehabilitative aspect of sentencing and the need to focus on the individual rather than just retribution.
• Narinder Singh & Ors. V. State of Punjab & Anr. [2014] 6 SCC 466 – Supreme Court of India: This case discussed the goals of sentencing, including incapacitation, deterrence, rehabilitation, and restoration.
• State of Uttar Pradesh v. Sanjay Kumar [2012] 8 SCC 537 – Supreme Court of India: This case emphasized the need to balance aggravating and mitigating factors when determining a just sentence.
• Purushottam Dashrath Borate & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra [2015] 6 SCC 652 – Supreme Court of India: This case highlighted the need for stricter sentencing in cases of violent crimes against women.
• Jasbir Singh v. Tara Singh & Ors. [2016] 16 SCC 441 – Supreme Court of India: This case discussed the mitigating factors to be considered while imposing a sentence.
• Vetrivel v. State represented by its Deputy Superintendent of Police & Anr. [2022 SCCOnline SC 73] – Supreme Court of India: This case reduced the sentence considering mitigating factors like prior quarrel between the parties.
• Paneer Selvam v. State of Tamil Nadu Criminal Appeal No. 871 of 2023 – Supreme Court of India: This case reduced the sentence considering lack of premeditation.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Deals with the offense of attempt to murder.

Judgment

The Supreme Court, after considering the submissions and authorities, partly allowed the appeal. The court reduced the sentence imposed on the appellant from 5 years rigorous imprisonment to 3 years of rigorous imprisonment. Additionally, the appellant was directed to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000, to be paid to the complainant as compensation. The court considered the following factors:

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on Jagmohan Singh v. State of U.P. [1973] 1 SCC 20* to emphasize the need to consider aggravating and mitigating factors in awarding sentences.
• The Court referred to Mohammad Giassudin v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1977] 3 SCC 287* to highlight the rehabilitative aspect of sentencing.
• The Court cited Narinder Singh & Ors. V. State of Punjab & Anr. [2014] 6 SCC 466* to discuss the goals of sentencing.
• The Court used State of Uttar Pradesh v. Sanjay Kumar [2012] 8 SCC 537* to emphasize the need to balance aggravating and mitigating factors.
• The Court also noted Purushottam Dashrath Borate & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra [2015] 6 SCC 652* to highlight the need for stricter sentencing in cases of violent crimes against women.
• The Court considered Jasbir Singh v. Tara Singh & Ors. [2016] 16 SCC 441* to discuss the mitigating factors to be considered.
• The Court referred to Vetrivel v. State represented by its Deputy Superintendent of Police & Anr. [2022 SCCOnline SC 73]* and Paneer Selvam v. State of Tamil Nadu Criminal Appeal No. 871 of 2023* to support its decision to reduce the sentence.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the mitigating factors presented by the appellant. The court emphasized the passage of 39 years since the incident, the acquittal of the other co-accused, the absence of prior criminal antecedents, and the lack of premeditation. The court also highlighted the rehabilitative aspect of sentencing, noting that the focus should be on reforming the individual rather than just retribution. The Court also considered the fact that there was old enmity between the complainant and A1 and the appellant was the nephew of A1. The Court noted that the appellant did not act in a premeditated manner.

Logical Reasoning:

The court considered that “39 years have passed since the date of offence and both the other accused persons have come to be acquitted.” The court also noted that “there are no criminal antecedents of the appellant that have been brought on record” and that “from the record, it cannot be said that the appellant acted in a premeditated manner, whatsoever.”

Key Takeaways

• Courts must consider mitigating factors when determining sentences, even in serious offenses like attempt to murder.
• The passage of time since the offense can be a significant mitigating factor.
• The absence of prior criminal records and premeditation can lead to a reduction in sentence.
• Sentencing should focus on rehabilitation and not just retribution.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the appellant to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000 within 6 weeks, to be paid to the complainant as compensation. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. The appellant was also directed to undergo the remaining period of his sentence.

Specific Amendments Analysis

Not Applicable in this case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that while sentencing for an offense, the courts must consider all mitigating factors, including the passage of time, the absence of prior criminal records, and the lack of premeditation. This case reinforces the principle that sentencing should be aimed at rehabilitation and not just retribution. There is no change in the previous position of the law.

Conclusion

In the case of Pramod Kumar Mishra vs. State of U.P., the Supreme Court reduced the sentence of the appellant from 5 years to 3 years rigorous imprisonment, along with a fine of Rs. 50,000, emphasizing the importance of considering mitigating factors in sentencing. This judgment highlights the need for a balanced approach to sentencing, focusing on rehabilitation and individual circumstances rather than just the severity of the offense.