“Courts Are Not Supposed To Be Insensitive”: Supreme Court Reduces Imprisonment Sentence Of 80 Year Old Accused In 1992 Homicide Case

The Bench took note of the advanced age of the appellant, and held that it would be harsh and inadvisable to send him back to prison at this stage.

The Court was hearing a criminal appeal arising from a judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had altered the appellant’s conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for seven years.

A Bench comprising Justice N.V. Anjaria and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, while upholding the conviction, observed: “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 by Aftab Ali Khan, AOR, while the respondent State was represented by B.P. Singh, Deputy Advocate General.

Background

The case arose out of an incident that took place in December 1992 at a village in Madhya Pradesh, where a quarrel broke out between two groups following an altercation involving the sons of the parties. According to the prosecution, several accused persons assembled and assaulted the deceased with axes and lathis, resulting in fatal head injuries.

An FIR was registered initially for offences including attempt to murder, which was later converted to murder after the injured succumbed to his injuries. A cross-FIR was also lodged by the appellant, alleging that he had been assaulted and had acted in self-defence.

The trial court convicted the appellant and other accused persons for offences including murder and rioting, sentencing the appellant to life imprisonment. On appeal, the High Court altered the conviction of the appellant from Section 302 to Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, holding that the incident was a free fight without premeditation, and imposed a sentence of seven years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine.

Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence as modified by the High Court, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.

Court’s Observation

The Supreme Court examined the evidence on record, including ocular testimony and medical evidence, and agreed with the High Court that the incident was a result of a sudden quarrel and free fight between two groups, without the formation of an unlawful assembly or a common object to commit murder.

The Court noted that the appellant had inflicted a single blow with a lathi on the head of the deceased, which proved fatal, and that medical evidence corroborated the prosecution's version. It held that while the appellant could be attributed with knowledge that such an act was likely to cause death, the facts did not disclose intention sufficient to attract the offence of murder.

Affirming the High Court’s reasoning, the Bench held that the conviction of the appellant under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, was justified, as the act fell within culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Turning to the question of sentence, the Court took note of the period of incarceration already undergone by the appellant, which aggregated to over six years. It further noted that the appellant was more than 80 years old at the time of consideration of the appeal.

The Court observed that sending the appellant back to prison at such an advanced age, after a long lapse of time since the incident, would be harsh and inadvisable. Emphasising that courts are not expected to be insensitive, the Bench held that the ends of justice would be met by reducing the sentence to the period already undergone.

Therefore, the Bench 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”.

Conclusion

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed subject to modification of sentence, and all pending applications stood disposed of.

Cause Title: Shrikrishna v. State of Madhya Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 45)

Appearances

Appellant: Aftab Ali Khan, AOR; Shubhranshu Padhi, AOR as Amicus Curiae, with Advocates Pranav Giri, Jay Nirupam, D. Girish Kumar, Ekansh Sisodia and Ritik Sharma

Respondent: B.P. Singh, Deputy Advocate General, with Advocates Aditya Vaibhav Singh and Sarad Kumar Singhania, AOR

Click here to read/download Judgment