Supreme Court Reduces Sentence for Assault Convicts Citing Amicable Settlement and Changed Circumstances

Despite Non-Compoundable Offences under IPC Sections 324, 307, and 341, Court Considers Reconciliation and Youth of Accused to Curtail Punishment

In a significant judgment delivered on January 5, 2021, the Supreme Court of India reduced the sentences of two convicts, Murali and Rajavelu, involved in a violent assault case, emphasizing the role of amicable settlement and the changed circumstances of the accused in determining the quantum of punishment.

The case arose from a violent incident dated August 9, 2005, where the victim, Sathya, was severely assaulted by the appellants and their associates following a verbal altercation during a volleyball match. Murali was found guilty of voluntarily causing hurt with a dangerous weapon (a hockey stick), and Rajavelu was convicted for attempting to murder the victim by attacking him with a sharp-edged weapon (Veechu Aruval). The victim suffered grievous injuries, including severance of fingers and a serious neck injury that was fortunately deflected.

Initially, Murali was sentenced to three months' rigorous imprisonment under Sections 324 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), while Rajavelu received five years' rigorous imprisonment under Sections 307 and 341 IPC. The High Court of Madras upheld these convictions in 2018. However, upon reaching the Supreme Court, the appellants sought to compound the offences based on a mutual settlement with the victim.

The Court acknowledged that Sections 324 and 307 IPC are non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), and thus, legally, the offences could not be compounded. Nonetheless, the Court observed that the fact of an amicable settlement between the parties, especially after a lapse of fifteen years, is a crucial factor that could influence sentencing.

Drawing upon precedents including Ram Pujan v. State of UP (1973), Ishwar Singh v. State of MP (2008), and other landmark rulings, the Court highlighted that while compounding non-compoundable offences is impermissible, a compromise can justify reducing the sentence already imposed. The Court noted that the parties, who live in the same society and are on friendly terms now, had matured and forgiven each other. The appellants had no prior criminal records and were young adults at the time of the offence.

Considering these factors, including the nature of the incident as a spontaneous altercation during a sports match without prior enmity, the Court exercised its discretion to reduce the sentence of both appellants to the period already served. Murali had undergone more than half of his sentence, and Rajavelu had served over one year and eight months.

The Court’s decision underscores an evolving judicial approach that balances the letter of the law with the societal interest in reconciliation, rehabilitation, and the individual circumstances of the accused. This judgment also reaffirms the principle that while the law protects victims and deters crime, it also recognizes the potential for restoration and harmony among parties.

Statutory provisions

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 324, 307, 341; Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 320

Murali v. State (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 1796013