The Supreme Court reduced the sentence of an 80-year-old accused in a 1992 homicide case to the period already undergone, citing his advanced age and long lapse of time. The Court held that sending an elderly person back to prison at this stage would be harsh, stressing that “courts are not supposed to be insensitive.”
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has reduced the sentence of an 80-year-old accused in a homicide case to the period already undergone, observing that courts cannot be insensitive, especially while dealing with elderly persons. The Court held that sending the appellant back to prison at such an advanced stage of life would be harsh and inadvisable.
The Bench of Justice N.V. Anjaria and Justice K. Vinod Chandran was hearing a criminal appeal arising out of a judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
The High Court had earlier altered the conviction of the appellant from murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC, and had sentenced him to seven years of rigorous imprisonment.
While upholding the conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC, the Supreme Court took note of the advanced age of the appellant and the fact that he had already undergone more than six years of incarceration.
The Bench made a significant observation while considering the question of sentence and stated:
“The appellant is more than 80 years of age at present. Since the appellant is an old and aged person, and in the December of his life, it would be harsh and inadvisable to send him behind bars again at this stage. The courts are not supposed to be insensitive.”
The appellant was represented before the Court by Aftab Ali Khan, AOR, while the respondent State of Madhya Pradesh was represented by B.P. Singh, Deputy Advocate General.
The case relates to an incident that occurred in December 1992 in a village in Madhya Pradesh. According to the prosecution, a quarrel broke out between two groups following an altercation involving the sons of the parties.
It was alleged that several accused persons assembled and assaulted the deceased with axes and lathis, causing serious head injuries. Initially, an FIR was registered for offences including attempt to murder, but after the injured person succumbed to his injuries, the offence was converted to murder.
A cross-FIR was also lodged by the present appellant, in which he claimed that he himself had been assaulted and that he had acted in self-defence during the incident.
The trial court convicted the appellant and other accused persons for offences including murder and rioting, and sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment. On appeal, the High Court came to the conclusion that the incident was a result of a sudden quarrel and a free fight, without premeditation.
ALSO READ: Delhi Court Upholds Medha Patkar’s Jail Term & Rs 10 Lakh Fine for Defaming LG VK Saxena
It held that there was no unlawful assembly or common object to commit murder. Accordingly, the High Court altered the conviction of the appellant from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC and imposed a sentence of seven years’ rigorous imprisonment along with a fine.
Aggrieved by the modified conviction and sentence, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court closely examined the evidence on record, including the eyewitness accounts and the medical evidence.
It agreed with the High Court’s findings that the incident arose out of a sudden quarrel and amounted to a free fight between two groups. The Court noted that the appellant had inflicted only a single blow with a lathi on the head of the deceased, which unfortunately proved fatal.
The Bench observed that although the appellant could be attributed with the knowledge that such an act was likely to cause death, the facts did not disclose the intention required to constitute the offence of murder.
It therefore affirmed the reasoning of the High Court and held that the conviction of the appellant under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, was justified.
While dealing with the issue of sentence, the Court took into account the long passage of time since the incident, the period of incarceration already undergone by the appellant, and his present age of more than 80 years.
The Court emphasised that sending the appellant back to prison at this stage of his life would serve no meaningful purpose.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Reduces Remaining Jail Term After Compromise Between Parties | Analysis
The Bench held that the ends of justice would be met by reducing the sentence to the period already undergone. It accordingly concluded that,
“in view of the advanced age of the appellant and considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, while upholding the conviction of the appellant under Section 304, Part II, IPC, the sentence of the appellant is reduced to what is already undergone, to be substituted accordingly”.
As a result, the appeal was dismissed subject to the modification of sentence, and all pending applications were disposed of.
Case Title:
Shrikrishna v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Citation: 2026 INSC 45.
Read Judgement:
Read More Reports On Jail Term
