Compromise Can Reduce Sentence, Not Conviction: Supreme Court Clarifies in Criminal Appeal

The Supreme Court recently allowed a plea filed by two men seeking reduction of their sentence to the period already undergone in view of a compromise reached with the complainant couple.

A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Prasanna B Varale, while upholding the conviction of Venkatesh and another, ordered their release after reducing the sentence to the period of two years and three months already undergone by them, out of the five-year jail term imposed earlier.

The appellants had been convicted by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem, for offences under Section 326 IPC and Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992.

Under Section 326 IPC, they were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years along with a fine of Rs 5,000 each, and in default of payment, to undergo six more months of rigorous imprisonment. Under Section 3(1) of the TNPPDL Act, they were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years with a fine of Rs 5,000 each, and in default, to undergo six more months of rigorous imprisonment.

The appellants had challenged their conviction before the Madras High Court. However, by a judgment dated July 7, 2023, the high court dismissed their appeal and directed them to undergo the remaining sentence, while observing that the period of imprisonment already undergone would be set off under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Aggrieved, the appellants approached the Supreme Court. Court issued notice to the respondents, limited only to the question of quantum of sentence.

During the hearing, counsel for the appellants submitted that they had already completed two years and three months of incarceration under Section 326 IPC. He urged the court to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone, particularly as a compromise and settlement had been arrived at between the parties. It was also pointed out that the appellants had served nearly half of the sentence imposed on them.

Opposing the plea, the State counsel submitted that there was no merit in the appeal, but left it to the court to pass appropriate orders.

Taking note of the submissions and the facts of the case, the bench observed that out of the five-year sentence imposed on the appellants, they had already completed two years and three months. Court also noted that notice had been issued only on the question of sentence.

Accordingly, while upholding the conviction, the Supreme Court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone and directed that the appellants be released forthwith from jail, if they were not required in any other case.

Case Title: Venkatesh & Anr Vs State Represented by The Inspector of Police
Bench: Justices B V Nagarathna and Prasanna B Varale