Every Sinner Has A Future, Hate The Crime Not The Criminal: Karnataka HC While Reducing Sentence To Fine
The Karnataka High Court, while upholding the conviction, has set aside the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the Trial Court on the accused directing them to pay a fine instead.
The Karnataka High Court has reduced the sentence of a convict in an assault case while observing that the Courts are required to bear in mind that every sinner has a future and that Courts are required to bear in mind that the criminal justice system would “hate the crime and not the criminal.”
The Court partly allowed the Appeal filed by the accused by setting aside the sentence of imprisonment and directing them to pay a fine instead. Under challenge was the decision of the Trial Court which had convicted the accused under Sections 341, 323, 324, and 504 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced them to imprisonment.
A Single Bench of Justice V Srishananda observed, “It is also settled principles of law that Courts are required to bear in mind that every sinner has a future and Courts are required to bear in mind that criminal justice system would hate the crime and not the criminal.”
Advocate Sathisha DJ represented the Appellants, while HCGP Channappa Erappa appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts
In the case on hand, the accused persons and complainant knew each other, as they are parties to civil proceedings in a case. As per the Prosecution, when the complainant her son were restrained by the accused persons. It was alleged that the accused assaulted the complainant with a stone on the right hand and back.
The accused on the other hand contended that the incident as enunciated by the Prosecution did not occur at all and a trivial incident was blown out of proportion by the complainant which the Investigation Agency did not properly appreciate. They further submitted that the Sessions Court convicting the accused resulted in a miscarriage of justice.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court noted that there was a civil dispute between the complainant and the accused persons. “There is no previous complaint even though complainant has stated that there were regular quarrels between the complainant and accused group,” it further noted.
“In the absence of any criminal antecedents placed on record, the accused persons are to be treated as first time offenders. Therefore, learned Sessions Judge was bound to consider the question of granting probation. While considering the decision on the order of sentence, learned Trial Judge did not assign any reason as to why the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, is to be denied to the accused persons, as they have been convicted for the first time,” the Bench explained.
“It is settled principles of law and requires no emphasis that role assigned to a Trial Judge while passing an order of conviction is all together different from the role assigned to the very same Judge while passing appropriate sentence in a given case for the proved offences,” the Court stated.
Consequently, the Court ordered, “Keeping these aspects of the matter in the background when material on record is appreciated, since the incident has occurred at the spur of moment and acquittal of accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 354-B and 506 of IPC have become final, this Court is of the considered opinion that enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand only) to each of the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 504 read with Section 34 of IPC by setting aside the imprisonment ordered by the learned Sessions Judge would meet the ends of justice.”
Accordingly, the High Court partly allowed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Madan & Ors. v. State (Neutral Citation: 2025:KHC:532)
