A bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih noticed, “Undue leniency may cause public confidence within the justice system to plummet, whereas extreme severity could result in injustice.” The court docket made this commentary whereas dismissing a plea in search of an extra discount of an eight-year sentence awarded to a 20-year-old convicted in a case of deadly assault.
Based on the report by TOI's Dhananjay Mahapatra, the youth had attacked and killed a person throughout an altercation arising from a long-standing dispute involving his sister's sexual assault. The convict bore a grudge towards the household of a person accused of raping his sister, who later gave start to a toddler on account of the assault. The accused had gone together with his household to the rapist's dwelling to debate a proposal for marriage between the 2 households, however the talks turned heated.
Throughout the quarrel, the rapist's brother tried to calm tensions, however the accused, overcome by anger and resentment, fetched an axe from a close-by home and struck a deadly blow.
Advocate Rahul Kaushik, representing the convict, argued that the incident was not premeditated and requested leniency, noting that the excessive court docket had already lowered the trial court docket's authentic 10-year sentence to eight years.
Justice Datta, nonetheless, mentioned there was no adequate “sudden provocation” to justify lowering the conviction from homicide to culpable murder. For the reason that excessive court docket had already exercised discretion to decrease the sentence, the Supreme Court docket declined to intrude additional and dismissed the enchantment. (With inputs from TOI)
