Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.
Amit Rana @ Koka & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.14705 of 2023)
Decided on : 22-07-2024
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 307 read with Section 34 – [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Section 109 read with Section 3(5)] – Attempt to murder – Common intention – Conviction and sentence – To attract offence under Section 307, IPC victim need not suffer any kind of bodily injury – Offence to commit murder punishable under Section 307, IPC is constituted by concurrence of mens rea followed by actus reus, to commit an attempt to murder though its accomplishment or sufferance of any kind of bodily injury to victim is not a ‘sine qua non’ – If a man commits an act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if death had been caused, offence would have amounted to murder or the act itself is of such a nature as would have caused death in usual course of an event, but something beyond his control prevented that result, his act would constitute offence punishable as an attempt to murder under Section 307, IPC – Since High Court had not gone into the question as to how imprisonment for a term of 14 years or conviction under Section 307, IPC would be maintained, judgment of High Court confirming judgment of trial Court awarding rigorous imprisonment for 14 years calls for interference – Imposition of rigorous imprisonment for 14 years each to appellants converted to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years – Order of sentence with respect to fine kept intact. (Paras 6, 7 and 9)
Facts of the case:
Captioned appeal is filed to challenge concurrent conviction of the appellants under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and consequently, imposed sentence on them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 14 years each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,50,000/- each and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
Findings of Court:
Since High Court had not gone into the question as to how imprisonment for a term of 14 years or conviction under Section 307, IPC would be maintained and Judgment of High Court confirming judgment of trial Court awarding rigorous imprisonment for 14 years calls for interference.
Result : Appeal allowed in part.
JUDGMENT :
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
Leave granted
1. The captioned appeal is filed to challenge the concurrent conviction of the appellants under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short the ‘IPC’) and the consequently, imposed sentence on them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 14 years each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only) each and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
2. On 21.11.2023, after hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and looking into the overwhelming conclusive evidence supporting the conviction of the appellants under Section 307, IPC, with the aid of Section 34, IPC, this Court declined to entertain the Special Leave Petition to the extent it seeks to challenge the conviction, and issued limited notice confining to the challenge against the award of 14 years of rigorous imprisonment for the conviction thereof. The challenge is to the effect that in terms of the provisions under Section 307, IPC a term imprisonment beyond the period of ten years is impermissible though in case of hurt during attempt to murder would make the convict liable for imprisonment for life. Hence, the scope of this appeal is confined only to the question on sentence.
3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State. The rival contention raises a question of seminal importance as mentioned, viz., ‘whether a convict under Section 307, IPC, can be sentenced to undergo imprisonment, of either description, beyond the period of ten years. It is worthwhile to extract Section 307, IPC for a proper consideration of the aforesaid question. It reads thus:-
Attempts by life-convicts. — [When any person offending under this section is under sentence of [imprisonment for life], he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.]”
4. A perusal of Section 307, IPC, would make it clear that it really imbibes the true spirit of the maxim ‘culpae poena per esto’ – means ‘let the punishment be proportionate to the offence; let the punishment fit the crime.’ It itself prescribes three types of sentences imposable on a convict thereunder. If it is an attempt to murder simpliciter, the offence is punishable maximum with by a term of imprisonment of either description upto ten years and fine. The last part of Section 307 prescribes death sentence as the only punishment when the offender during the commission of the crime is under the sentence of imprisonment for life and hurt is caused to the victim.
5. We are concerned with the second part of Section 307, where victim suffers hurt. There can be no doubt with respect to the position that the convict under this part can be sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The parties are at issue only on the expression in the second part ‘or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned’. The learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the said expression limits the maximum sentence imposable, when imprisonment for life is found not to be imposed, to what is mentioned in the first part viz., imprisonment of either description up to ten years and fine. A feeble attempt was made by the learned counsel for the state to justify the imposition of sentence of imprisonment for 14 years contending that the nature of the bodily injury sustained by the victim and its aftermath were taken into consideration by the trial Court and the High Court found that imprisonment for life would be disproportionate and th
Attempt to murder – To attract offence under Section 307, IPC victim need not suffer any kind of bodily injury – Offence to commit murder punishable under Section 307, IPC is constituted by concurren....
The conviction for attempt to murder was upheld based on sufficient evidence, while the sentences were reduced for being excessive.
Proof of grievous or life-threatening hurt is not essential for the offence punishable u/s 307 of the IPC. The intention of the accused can be ascertained from the actual injury and surrounding circu....
Murder – There cannot be any sentence/punishment less than imprisonment for life if an accused is convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.
Court finds alteration of conviction from S.307 to S.308 IPC justified due to nature of injuries and circumstances of the case.
The conviction under Section 307 IPC requires proof of intention to cause death or grievous bodily harm, which was established despite the injuries being classified as simple.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
