A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The Supreme Court of India addressed the extent of permissible sentencing under Section 307, IPC (Attempt to Murder), focusing on whether rigorous imprisonment exceeding ten years could be imposed in cases where life imprisonment was not chosen by lower courts. The case clarified that in absence of life imprisonment, the maximum sentence is limited to the first part of Section 307, prescribing a maximum of ten years’ imprisonment and fine. The Court upheld the conviction under Section 307 read with Section 34, IPC but reduced the appellants’ rigorous imprisonment from fourteen to ten years while maintaining the fine imposed by the trial and High Courts.

Keywords:

Attempt to murder, Section 307 IPC, Sentencing limits, Hurt to victim, Proportional punishment.

B) CASE DETAILS

• i) Judgment Cause Title: Amit Rana @ Koka & Anr. v. The State of Haryana
• ii) Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 700 of 2024
• iii) Judgment Date: 22 July 2024
• iv) Court: Supreme Court of India
• v) Quorum: Hon’ble Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal
• vi) Author: Justice C.T. Ravikumar
• vii) Citation: [2024] 7 S.C.R. 756
• viii) Legal Provisions Involved: Section 307, IPC (Indian Penal Code, 1860)
• ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case: None
• x) Related Law Subjects: Criminal Law, Sentencing Law, Indian Penal Code (IPC)

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The appellants were convicted under Section 307 read with Section 34, IPC, for a gunshot injury that left the victim permanently paralyzed. They were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of fourteen years along with a fine. The conviction was upheld by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The appellants approached the Supreme Court challenging the quantum of punishment, contending that under Section 307, IPC, a term of imprisonment beyond ten years was impermissible unless life imprisonment was imposed.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The appellants caused grievous injury to the victim, Mangtu Ram, by firing at him, leading to permanent paralysis due to a spinal injury. The medical evidence corroborated the severity of the injury and established a clear intent to murder. The trial court convicted the appellants under Section 307 read with Section 34, IPC, sentencing them to fourteen years’ rigorous imprisonment. The High Court upheld this punishment, rejecting their plea for a reduction in sentence.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the imposition of rigorous imprisonment for fourteen years under Section 307, IPC, is permissible when life imprisonment is not awarded?
2. What are the sentencing parameters under the first and second parts of Section 307, IPC?

F) PETITIONERS’/APPELLANTS’ ARGUMENTS

1. Statutory Limit of Ten Years: The appellants contended that in the absence of life imprisonment, the maximum permissible sentence under Section 307, IPC, is ten years as per the first part of the section.
2. Disproportionate Sentence: They argued that the trial court and High Court exceeded the statutory limit by imposing fourteen years’ rigorous imprisonment, which is impermissible and disproportionate.
3. Nature of Offence: The appellants highlighted that the imposition of a sentence less than life imprisonment indicates the lower courts did not consider the offence to warrant the harshest penalty.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. Severity of Injury: The respondent-State justified the fourteen-year sentence by emphasizing the gravity of the injury, which resulted in permanent paralysis of the victim.
2. Judicial Discretion: The State argued that the lower courts appropriately exercised their discretion to impose a proportionate sentence, considering the facts and circumstances.
3. Life Imprisonment Option: The respondent maintained that while life imprisonment was a statutory option, the alternative penalty could exceed ten years if justified by the crime’s heinous nature.

H) JUDGMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that under Section 307, IPC:

• The legislature prescribes three sentencing options: up to ten years’ imprisonment, life imprisonment, or death (in specific aggravated cases).
• If the courts opt against life imprisonment, the maximum permissible sentence defaults to ten years’ imprisonment as per the first part of Section 307.
• The fourteen-year sentence imposed by the lower courts exceeded the statutory limit and was impermissible.

b. Obiter Dicta: The Court reiterated the principle of proportionality in sentencing, emphasizing that punishment must fit the crime while adhering to statutory limits.

c. Guidelines:

1. When life imprisonment is not imposed, the sentencing court must adhere to the ten-year limit prescribed in the first part of Section 307, IPC.
2. Sentences exceeding this statutory cap are ultra vires and liable to interference.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment harmonizes judicial discretion with legislative intent, reaffirming the principle of proportionality in sentencing under Section 307, IPC. It prevents courts from exceeding statutory sentencing caps in the absence of life imprisonment, ensuring uniformity and adherence to the rule of law.

J) REFERENCES

Important Cases Referred:

1. None cited directly but principles derived from Section 307, IPC jurisprudence.

Important Statutes Referred:

1. Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 307