Full Judgment Text
2024 INSC 543
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Appeal No. of 2024
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.14705 of 2023)
Amit Rana @ Koka & Anr.
…Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Haryana
…Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
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
Signature Not Verified
undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
Digitally signed by Dr.
Naveen Rawal
Date: 2024.07.22
11:31:35 IST
Reason:
Page 1 of 9
SLP (Crl.) No.14705 of 2023
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:-
Page 2 of 9
SLP (Crl.) No.14705 of 2023
“ 307. Attempt to murder.— Whoever does
any act with such intention or knowledge, and
under such circumstances that, if he by that act
caused death, he would be guilty of murder,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to ten
years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt
is caused to any person by such act, the
offender shall be liable either to
[imprisonment for life], or to such punishment
as is hereinbefore mentioned.
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
Page 3 of 9
SLP (Crl.) No.14705 of 2023
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 the proportionate
punishment to the gravity of the offence invites
imposition of imprisonment short of imprisonment for
Page 4 of 9
SLP (Crl.) No.14705 of 2023
life. It is further submitted that when imprisonment for
life is imposable for attempt to murder where the victim
suffered hurt imposition of sentence lesser than
imprisonment for life cannot be said to be beyond the
penal power of the Court.
6. Section 307, IPC, makes it clear that to attract the
said offence the victim need not suffer any kind of bodily
injury. The offence to commit murder punishable under
Section 307, IPC is constituted by the 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 the victim is not a ‘sine qua non’ .
In other words, if a man commits an act with such
intention or knowledge and under such circumstances
that if death had been caused, the offence would have
amounted to murder or the act itself is of such a nature as
would have caused death in the usual course of an event,
but something beyond his control prevented that result,
his act would constitute the offence punishable as an
attempt to murder under Section 307, IPC.
7. Now we will refer to the incident in question which
led to the conviction of the appellants under Section 307,
IPC. In view of the fact that we are not considering the
question of conviction, it is unnecessary to deal with the
Page 5 of 9
SLP (Crl.) No.14705 of 2023
occurrence in detail. PW-5 Dr. Sahil, the then medical
officer attached to PGIMS, Rohtak, deposed that the
complainant (victim) was admitted in the hospital from
09.06.2016 to 02.07.2016 with history of gunshot injury.
He would further depose that he along with Dr. Shubham
removed the foreign body from the spine of the victim-
Mangtu Ram. The indisputable fact is that the victim
became paralysed due to the said spinal injury. Thus, it
can be seen that the attempt to murder the complainant
caused the injury and resultantly he became paralysed.
When that be the consequence of the attempt to murder,
the case would definitely be fallen under the second part
of Section 307, IPC. On scanning the provisions under
Section 307, IPC, we have already found that in case the
victim suffered hurt in terms of the second part of Section
307, IPC, the convict can be sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for life. In the event the court did not
consider that imprisonment for life is not to be imposed
the other option, going by the provision, is only to
impose such punishment as is mentioned in the first part
of Section 307, IPC. The first part, as noticed
hereinbefore, prescribes punishment with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to 10 years and also to pay fine. A bare perusal
Page 6 of 9
SLP (Crl.) No.14705 of 2023
of the second part of Section 307, IPC, would
undoubtedly show that it did not prescribe for imposition
of punishment more than what is prescribed under the
first part thereof. We have already noted that the
maximum imprisonment permissible under the first part
of Section 307, IPC, is “ imprisonment of either description
for a term which may not extent to 10 years and also fine ”.
When in unambiguous terms the legislature prescribed
the maximum corporeal sentence imposable for the
conviction under Section 307, IPC, under the first part
and when the court concerned upon convicting the
accused concerned thought it fit not to impose
imprisonment for life, the punishment to be handed
down to the convict concerned in any circumstance
cannot exceed the punishment prescribed under the first
part of Section 307, IPC. When this be the mandate under
Section 307, IPC, the trial Court in view of its decision not
to award the punishment of imprisonment for life could
not have granted punishment to a term exceeding 10
years. It is to be noted that the respondent-State has not
filed any appeal contending that the punishment
imposed on the appellants is liable to be enhanced to
imprisonment for life thus, we do not deem it necessary
to go into the question whether the punishment is to be
Page 7 of 9
SLP (Crl.) No.14705 of 2023
enhanced. Thus, the question is whether the sentence of
rigorous imprisonment for 14 years is permissible in law
and if not, what should be the comeuppance. The
discussion as above with reference to Section 307, IPC,
would thus go to show that imposition of rigorous
imprisonment for a term of 14 years for a conviction
under Section 307, IPC, is impermissible in law and it is
liable to be interfered with. Since the High Court had not
gone into the question as to how imprisonment for a term
of 14 years or the conviction under Section 307, IPC
would be maintained and in view of our conclusion as
above, the judgment of the High Court confirming the
judgment of the trial Court awarding rigorous
imprisonment for 14 years calls for interference.
8. Since the conviction of the appellants under
Section 307, IPC, is declined to be interfered with by us,
necessarily the punishment for the said offence taking
note of the gravity of the crime has to be imposed. Since
we are not proposing to enhance the sentence to
imprisonment for life and the only option is to bring
down the term of imprisonment from 14 years, there is
absolutely no reason to hear the appellants in-person.
9. We have taken note of the fact that as a
consequence of the attempt to do away with the life of the
Page 8 of 9
SLP (Crl.) No.14705 of 2023
complainant, he had suffered spine injury and became
paralysed in terms of the second part of the Section 307,
IPC, the appellants are to be given the maximum
corporeal sentence imposable under the first part of
Section 307, IPC. Accordingly, the imposition of rigorous
imprisonment for 14 years each to the appellants is
converted to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10
years. The order of sentence with respect to fine is kept
intact. The appeal is thus allowed in part and the
impugned judgment of the High Court and the judgment
of the trial Court in S.T. No.281/2016 qua the appellants
stands modified as above.
10. Pending applications, if any, stands disposed of.
……………………, J.
(C.T. Ravikumar)
……………………, J.
(Rajesh Bindal)
New Delhi;
July 22, 2024.
Page 9 of 9
SLP (Crl.) No.14705 of 2023