According to the Supreme Court, the centripodal question in the case is whether the high court has kept itself alive to the precedents pertaining to sentencing or has been guided by some kind of unfathomable and incomprehensible sense of individual mercy absolutely ignoring the plight and the pain of the victim; a young girl who had sustained an acid attack, a horrendous assault on the physical autonomy of an individual that gets more accentuated when the victim is a young woman.
“……the approach of the High Court shocks us and we have no hesitation in saying so. When there is medical evidence that there was an acid attack on the young girl and the circumstances having brought home by cogent evidence and the conviction is given the stamp of approval, there was no justification to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone.
“We are at a loss to understand whether the learned Judge has been guided by some unknown notion of mercy or remaining oblivious of the precedents relating to sentence or for that matter, not careful about the expectation of the collective from the court, for the society at large eagerly waits for justice to be done in accordance with law, has reduced the sentence,” it said.
The bench has set aside the high court judgment and restored the sentence imposed by the trial court.
“when a substantive sentence of thirty days is imposed, in the crime of present nature, that is, acid attack on a young girl, the sense of justice, if we allow ourselves to say so, is not only ostracized, but also is unceremoniously sent to “V?naprastha”. It is wholly impermissible,” the bench remarked.
It also directed the accused to pay a compensation of Rs 50,000 and the state to pay a compensation of Rs 3 lakh to the victim.
Written and Published by http://www.livelaw.in/