Attempt to Murder Case: Supreme Court Reduces Sentence in 39-Year-Old Dispute

The case of Pramod Kumar Mishra vs. The State of U.P. revolves around an attempt to murder charge dating back to 1984. The Supreme Court was called upon to decide whether the five-year rigorous imprisonment sentence imposed on the appellant was appropriate given the mitigating circumstances.

Background of the Case

On August 12, 1984, the complainant, Kapil Deo Misir (PW1), was returning home when he saw the appellant, Pramod Kumar Mishra, and two others allegedly destroying crops in his field. When PW1 intervened, he was attacked with lathis and a ballam (spear), resulting in serious injuries. The police registered an FIR (Case Crime No. 67 of 1984) under Section 307 IPC (Attempt to Murder).

The case was tried before the II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Varanasi. While two co-accused were acquitted, Pramod Kumar Mishra was convicted and sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment. His appeal before the Allahabad High Court was dismissed in 2019. He then moved the Supreme Court, which admitted the case only on the quantum of sentence, not the conviction.

Legal Issues Raised

The Supreme Court had to determine:

Whether the five-year sentence was justified given the mitigating factors.
Whether the passage of 39 years since the incident warranted a reduction in sentence.
Whether a fine and shorter imprisonment could serve as an adequate punishment.

Petitioner’s Arguments (Pramod Kumar Mishra)

The appellant, through his counsel, argued:

The incident was part of a long-standing land dispute, with no premeditated intent to kill.
The case was 39 years old, and the appellant had already suffered enough due to the prolonged trial.
There were no prior criminal antecedents against him.
His involvement was limited, as he was only the nephew of the primary accused.
A lesser sentence, along with a fine, would serve justice while allowing him to reintegrate into society.

Respondent’s Arguments (State of U.P.)

The prosecution maintained that the appellant had attacked the complainant with a ballam, causing serious injuries.
The conviction under Section 307 IPC was justified as per the trial court and High Court findings.
Given the seriousness of the offense, the sentence should not be reduced.

Supreme Court’s Ruling

The Supreme Court considered the principles of sentencing and observed that both aggravating and mitigating factors must be balanced.

1. Passage of Time and Rehabilitation

The Court noted that 39 years had passed since the incident.
Since then, the appellant had lived without any further criminal record.
The Court cited previous cases, such as Mohammad Giassudin vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (1977), emphasizing the need for a reformative approach in sentencing.

2. No Premeditation or Criminal Record

The Court found that the crime arose out of a spontaneous dispute rather than a planned attack.
The appellant had no past convictions, further supporting the argument for leniency.

3. Reduction of Sentence

The Supreme Court reduced the sentence from 5 years to 3 years of rigorous imprisonment.
The appellant was also ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000 within six weeks.
If the fine was not paid, the appellant would have to serve an additional 3 months of imprisonment.
The fine was directed to be paid to the complainant as compensation.

Impact of the Judgment

This ruling sets an important precedent:

Sentencing must consider rehabilitation: The Court acknowledged that excessive imprisonment serves no purpose when an individual has reformed.
Fine as an alternative punishment: The ruling highlights how financial compensation can serve as a just alternative to prolonged imprisonment.
Old cases require a different approach: The Court recognized the undue hardship of a lengthy trial and reduced the sentence accordingly.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Pramod Kumar Mishra vs. The State of U.P. reflects a balanced approach to criminal sentencing. By reducing the sentence and imposing a fine, the Court ensured that justice was served while considering the reformative aspect of punishment. This case serves as an important precedent in sentencing policies, particularly for cases involving long delays in trial and appeals.

Petitioner Name: Pramod Kumar Mishra.
Respondent Name: The State of U.P..
Judgment By: Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Sanjay Karol.
Place Of Incident: Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 04-09-2023.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: pramod-kumar-mishra-vs-the-state-of-u.p.-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-04-09-2023.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Attempt to Murder Cases
See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Fraud and Forgery
See all petitions in Legal Malpractice
See all petitions in Judgment by Abhay S. Oka
See all petitions in Judgment by Sanjay Karol
See all petitions in partially allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments September 2023
See all petitions in 2023 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category