Skip to content
Home » Murali v. State rep. by the Inspector of Police

Murali v. State rep. by the Inspector of Police

Criminal Law – Reduction of Sentence – Compromise between parties – the fact of amicable settlement can be a relevant factor for the purpose of reduction in the quantum of sentence.

The parties to the dispute have mutually buried their hatchet. The separate affidavit of the victim inspires confidence that the apology has voluntarily been accepted given the efflux of time and owing to the maturity brought about by age. There is no question of the settlement being as a result of any coercion or inducement. Considering that the parties are on friendly terms now and they inhabit the same society, this is a fit case for reduction of sentence.

At the time of the incident, the victim was a college student, and both appellants too were no older than 20­22 years. The attack was in pursuance of a verbal altercation during a sports match, with there being no previous enmity between the parties. It does raise hope that parties would have grown up and have mended their ways. Indeed, in the present case, fifteen years have elapsed since the incident. The appellants are today in their mid­-thirties and present little chance of committing the same crime.

The appellants have no other criminal antecedents, no previous enmity, and today are married and have children. They are the sole bread earners of their family and have significant social obligations to tend to. In such circumstances, it might not serve the interests of society to keep them incarcerated any further.

Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 307, 324, 341.  

Case Law Reference

  1. Shankar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 5 SCC 166
  2. Mohar Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (2015) 11 SCC 226
  3. Nanda Gopalan v. State of Kerala, (2015) 11 SCC 137
  4. Ishwarlal v. State of M.P., (2008) 15 SCC 671
  5. Ishwar Singh v. State of M.P., (2008) 15 SCC 667
  6. Jetha Ram v. State of Rajasthan, (2006) 9 SCC 255
  7. Bankat v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 1 SCC 343
  8. Murugesan v. Ganapathy Velar, (2001) 10 SCC 504
  9. Ram Lal v. State of J&K, (1999) 2 SCC 213
  10. Mahesh Chand v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1988 SC 2111
  11. Ram Pujan v. State of U.P., (1973) 2 SCC 456

Citations : 2021 (219) AIC 189 : AIR 2021 SC 472 : 2021 (1) ALD (Cri) 702 : 2021 CriLJ 1174 : 2021 (1) Crimes 96 : JT 2021 (1) SC 147 : 2021 (1) MWN (Cr) 75 : 2021 (1) RCR (Criminal) 509 : (2021) 1 SCC 726 : 2021 (1) UC 117


For Petitioner(s) Mr. Ramakrishna Reddy, Adv. Mr. A. Rajarajan, Adv. Mr. K. Paari Vendhan, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Jayanth Muth Raj, Sr. Adv./AAG,T.N. Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, AOR Mr. RajaRajeshwaran,S. Adv. Mr. Aditya Chadha, Adv. Mr. T. Harish Kumar, Adv. Mr. Raghunatha Sethupathy, Adv. Ms. Hemlata Rawat, Adv. Mr. Aayushmaan Vatsyayana, Adv. Mr. Deepak Anand, AOR

Case Number : CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.24 & 25 /2021 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) 10813 & 10814 of 2019]

Case Link :

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 1 Average: 5]