MURALI VS. STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE [JANUARY 05, 2021]

Advertisements

INTRODUCTION
This case, Murali vs State Rep By Its Inspector Of Police, concerned the sentences imposed on two appellants, Murali and Rajavelu. Both were convicted of assaulting the victim, Sathya. The crux of the case did not lie in challenging the convictions themselves, but rather the severity of the sentences handed down by the lower courts. The appellants argued for leniency due to a variety of factors, including a recent reconciliation with the victim.

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. A verbal altercation arose during a volleyball match between Senthil and Kumar/Krishnan. Sathya, presumably a friend of Senthil, intervened in the argument to support him. This act triggered a further escalation.
2. Murali and Rajavelu, along with three other unidentified individuals, attacked Sathya. The details of the assault are not explicitly mentioned, but the judgement refers to Sathya sustaining “severe injuries.”
3. Murali allegedly struck Sathya on the head with a hockey stick, indicating a potentially planned and violent assault.
4. The prosecution argued, and the lower courts presumably accepted, that Rajavelu attempted to kill Sathya. The weapon used by Rajavelu is described as a “Veechu Aruval” (sharp-edged object), further suggesting a deliberate attempt to inflict serious harm. Fortunately, Sathya was able to defend himself to some extent, preventing a potentially fatal attack by Rajavelu. He then managed to escape the assault.
5. A friend of Sathya, identified as PW1 in the judgement, reported the crime to the authorities. All five individuals involved in the attack, including Murali and Rajavelu, were arrested.
6. The case was registered under Sections 147, 148, 341, 352, 323, 324, 307 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Murali was convicted for wrongful restraint and causing hurt with a dangerous weapon (Sections 341 & 324), while Rajavelu faced convictions for attempt to murder and wrongful restraint (Sections 307 & 341). The judgement also mentions specific sentences imposed by the trial court, but these are not elaborated upon in this section.

ISSUES RAISED

1. Did the lower courts impose an excessively harsh sentence on Murali and Rajavelu, considering the circumstances of the case?
2. Should a recent reconciliation between the appellants and the victim (Sathya) be a factor in reducing the sentence, even though the offences involved (attempt to murder and assault) are not compoundable?
3. Should the young age of the appellants at the time of the offence (around 20 years old) and their lack of prior criminal history be considered for leniency in sentencing?
4. Can the court achieve a balance between the rehabilitative purpose of sentencing and the need to punish the crime, especially considering the severity of the assault and attempted murder?

CONTENTIONS OF APPEALENT

1. The appellants argued for a reduction in sentence due to reaching a recent amicable settlement with the victim, Sathya.
2. They emphasised their young age (around 20 years old) at the time of the assault, suggesting a degree of impulsiveness and potential for rehabilitation.
3. The appellants highlighted their clean criminal records, indicating this to be an isolated incident.
4. They brought attention to their family responsibilities, implying a potential positive impact on society if released and able to fulfil those duties.
5. The appellants argued that they had already served a substantial part of their sentences, demonstrating some degree of punishment endured.

CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT

The respondent (State rep. by the Inspector of Police) argued that the appellants:

1. Committed serious offences punishable under Sections 307 (attempt to murder) and 324 (causing hurt by dangerous weapons) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
2. Should receive the sentences originally imposed by the trial court, as the offences were not compoundable under Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).

JUDGEMENT 

A fight broke out between the victim’s group and the accused’s group following a verbal altercation during a volleyball match. The victim was allegedly hit on the head with a hockey stick and attacked with a sharp object by the accused. The victim sustained injuries to his hand and fingers.

Murali was charged with wrongful restraint and voluntarily causing hurt with a dangerous weapon under Sections 341 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) respectively. Rajavelu was charged with attempt to murder and wrongful restraint under Sections 307 and 341 of the IPC respectively.

The lower courts (trial court and high court) concurred and found both the accused guilty. The Supreme Court acknowledged that the offences were not compoundable under Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). Despite the non-compoundable nature of the offences, the Supreme Court reduced the sentence considering the following factors: Amicable settlement between the victim and the accused, young age of the accused at the time of the incident (no prior criminal history), significant time elapsed since the incident (over 15 years). The accused being the sole breadwinners of their families and part of the sentence already served by the accused.

The Supreme Court of India ruled on the case of Murali and Rajavelu who were accused of attempting to murder and wrongfully restrain the victim. The lower courts found them guilty, but the Supreme Court acknowledged that the offences were serious and not eligible for a settlement. However, considering that the victim and the accused had reconciled, the accused were young with no prior criminal history, and a significant amount of time had passed since the incident, the Supreme Court reduced their sentence to the time already served.

ANALYSIS

The Supreme Court reviewed the case of Murali and Rajavelu, who were convicted of attempted murder and wrongful restraint. While the Court upheld the convictions, they reduced the sentence due to several factors. The victim and the accused had reconciled, the accused were young with no prior criminal history, and a significant amount of time had passed since the incident. The Court also considered the remorse shown by the accused and their role as breadwinners for their families. Ultimately, the reduced sentence reflected the Court’s consideration of both the severity of the crimes and the efforts towards rehabilitation.

CONCLUSION

The Supreme Court upheld the convictions of Murali and Rajavelu for attempted murder and wrongful restraint. However, recognizing the remorse shown by the accused, their reconciliation with the victim, and the significant time elapsed since the incident, the Court opted for leniency.  Considering these factors along with the accused’ young age at the time of the crime and their role as family breadwinners, the Court reduced their sentences to the time already served. This judgement highlights the Court’s ability to balance the seriousness of the crimes with the potential for rehabilitation.

REFERENCES

1. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/145116477/#:~:text=Consequently%2C%20a%20concurrent%20sentence%20of,rigorous%20imprisonment%20under%20Section%20341
2. https://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/browse/Case?caseId=001202520000&title=murali-vs-state-rep-by-the-inspector-of-police
3. https://lawsuitcasefinder.com/casedetail?id=U2FsdGVkX19tqfwKKzDMwW0nQebh78plo2rzPOSUvHNXd6PcnUMgs5

This article is written by Shreyansh Nanda student of SOA National Institute of Law (SNIL), Law college in Bhubaneswar, Odisha; Intern at Legal Vidhiya

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.

Admin