Supreme Court Criticizes Trend of Reducing Sentences in Favor of Compensation

The Supreme Court decries the concerning trend of courts prioritizing compensation over sentencing in severe cases, warning that it sends the wrong societal message. The court affirms that restitution should complement rather than replace punishment, underscoring that reformation and deterrence are key objectives of criminal justice.

The Supreme Court has taken a firm stance against what it views as a disturbing trend among certain courts to enhance compensation for victims while reducing sentences for offenders in grave offenses. This practice, according to the apex court, endangers public perception by suggesting that offenders can evade justice through monetary compensation.

A bench led by Justices Rajesh Bindal and Vijay Bishnoi emphasized that improving compensation at the expense of stringent sentencing fails to serve as an effective deterrent. It clarified that the aim of punishment within the criminal justice system is not just retribution but also the reformation of the offender.

In a recent case, the Supreme Court overturned a Madras High Court decision that reduced a prison sentence and increased compensation. The Supreme Court reiterated that the established principles of sentencing require thoughtful consideration of crime severity, societal impact, and victim's rights, maintaining that compensation should support, not substitute, punitive measures.

(With inputs from agencies.)