• Criminal trial - Punishment - High Court in part maintaining conviction but reducing the sentence awarded by the trial court for the period already undergone subject to depositing further compensation of Rs.2,000/- to the widow mother of the deceased - Trial Court sentenced him to undergo six months and two years rigorous imprisonment respectively with fine of Rs.2500/- - Court must not only keep in view the rights of the victim of the crime but also the society at large while considering the imposition of appropriate punishment - Meagre sentence imposed solely on account of lapse of time without considering the degree of the offence will be counter-productive in the long run and against the interest of the society.   (S.C.) (177) PLR
  •  Criminal Trial - Quantum of sentence  - It is the duty of the Court awarding sentence to ensure justice to both the parties and therefore undue leniency in awarding sentence needs to be avoided because it does not have the necessary effect of being a deterrent for the accused and does not re-assure the society that the offender has been properly dealt with - It is not a very healthy situation to leave the injured and complainant side thoroughly dissatisfied with a very lenient punishment to the accused  High court reduced the sentence for imprisonment which was R.I. for 10 years for the offence punishable under Section 307 as well as Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC to a period already undergone by the respondents which was of one year and nine months only The order of punishment imposed by the High Court suffers from the vice of being over-lenient even in absence of any mitigating circumstance -  Apex court held the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years in place of period already undergone as awarded by the High court . (2016)3 SCEJ 444