'No Bad Blood': Delhi Court Gives 9 Months Jail To Man Who Tried To Kill Kin

New Delhi: In an unusual ruling, a Delhi court has sentenced a man to a mere nine months of imprisonment in a 2017 attempt to murder case where he attacked his cousin after being denied money to buy liquor.

The convict however will walk free as he has already undergone detention for a little over nine months.

Court Gives 9 Months Jail To Man Who Attacked Cousin

Under the erstwhile Indian Penal Code, applicable in the present case, the offence of attempt to murder is punishable with imprisonment up to 10 years and a fine. If a person is hurt by the offence, the imprisonment can be extended to life.

The court took a lenient view while deciding the quantum of sentence after noting the victim’s submissions about forgiving the convicted cousin and claiming both were "living in harmony" after resolving their differences.

Additional Sessions Judge Vishal Pahuja was hearing the arguments on sentencing against Naveen Kumar who was convicted under Section 307 (attempt to murder) of IPC.

According to the prosecution, an inebriated Kumar attacked his cousin Mukesh with a surgical blade after claiming that a few days ago, the victim refused him money to buy liquor.

The incident occurred on November 17, 2017, and Mahesh suffered serious injuries on his vital body parts, it said.

In an order passed on November 25, the court said, "Complainant (Mahesh) who is present in the court today has submitted that convict is his cousin brother, hence, there is no bad blood between them so he does not want any monetary compensation from the convict and also prays for lenient view against the convict in terms of punishment." The court underscored the victim had forgiven the convict for his deeds and resolved all the disputes and had been "living in harmony" for the past several years.

The court noted Kumar did not have a criminal history and had a "good social background".

It said, "Convict (also) has a medical record pertaining to mental illness for which he has been under treatment for the last 20 years." The court sentenced Kumar to rigorous imprisonment of nine months and a fine of Rs 20,000, saying it had balanced the aggravating and mitigating factors.

Kumar, however, got the reprieve of Section 428 of CrPC, which allows the period of detention undergone by an accused to be set off against their sentence.

"As the convict has remained in judicial custody for nine months 17 days as per the record, therefore the benefit of Section 428 CrPC be given to the convict and the period already undergone in custody be adjusted against the sentenced period," the court said.

Crucially, the court convicted Kumar after rejecting the plea of insanity taken by his counsel.

It said at the time of committing the offence, Kumar was not suffering from any mental disorder and he was very much aware of his violent act.

"If the words and actions of the accused clearly demonstrate that he is capable of understanding the nature of his act during the commission of offence, he cannot take the benefit of plea of insanity," held the court.

Expert Speak Given the nature of court's unusual sentencing in the light of the offence, PTI sought the opinion of legal experts.

Senior criminal lawyer Vikas Pahwa noted the judiciary in India endeavoured to balance the principles of justice with the nuances of individual cases.

"The lenient sentence may be influenced by several mitigating factors, including the victim’s explicit request for leniency, the out-of-court settlement between the parties and the convict’s clean antecedents,” said Pahwa.

He said such instances while "not the norm" were not entirely rare either and courts often considered the wishes of the victim, especially in cases where the dispute is familial or where reconciliation has been achieved.

"This approach reflects a humane side of justice, recognising the purpose of punishment is not only retribution but also reform and rehabilitation. We have instances where even the FIR and chargesheets under Section 307 of the IPC have been quashed by invoking in the jurisdiction of the high court when the parties have settled their disputes and buried the hatchet,” he said.

Pahwa opined though IPC Section 307 prescribed a maximum punishment of life imprisonment, depending on the gravity of the act and its intent, its quantum was always determined on a case-to-case basis, considering both aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

Advocate Dhruv Gupta, on the other hand, said the court noted the "peculiar circumstances" of the case and took a lenient view.

He said generally, in cases of stabbing with a sharp-edged weapon and where the victim suffered injuries, a sentence ranging between five to seven years of imprisonment could be given.

Depending upon the gravity of the offence, a sentence of up to life imprisonment can also be given for attempt to murder cases, he said.