Offender's youth and voluntary victim compensation justify sentence reduction in attempted murder convictions.

The Appellants (brothers) were convicted by the Trial Court for an incident occurring on December 17, 2021.

During a village fair, a dispute arose when the Appellants allegedly harassed the niece of the victim, Satyaryan (PW-2). Satyaryan intervened to settle the matter.

Shortly after, the Appellants arrived at Satyaryan’s stall; Appellant Manku abused and slapped Satyaryan, while Appellant Nikhilish stabbed Satyaryan in the abdomen with a knife.

Medical evidence confirmed a life-threatening rupture of the stomach pylorus and internal bleeding requiring emergency surgery.

The Trial Court sentenced both to seven years of rigorous imprisonment (RI) under Section 307 and 307/34 of the IPC.

The Appellants challenged the conviction and sought a reduction in sentence, citing their youth and the fact that they paid ₹65,000–₹85,000 for the victim's medical treatment.

1. Whether Appellant Nikhilish Kenwar is liable for attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC.

2. Whether Appellant Manku Kenwar shared a "common intention" with Nikhilish under Section 34 IPC to attract liability for the stabbing.

3. Whether the sentence imposed is proportionate considering the reformative steps (financial aid for treatment) taken by the Appellants.

The court applied Section 307 of the IPC (Attempt to Murder) and Section 34 of the IPC (Common Intention).

Regarding common intention, the court relied on Constable Surendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand (2025), establishing that prosecution must prove a "meeting of minds".

It further cited Mohan Singh v. State of Punjab (1963), which defines Section 34 as constructive liability where acts are done in concert pursuant to a pre-arranged plan.

The court also referenced Shiva Ram v. State of U.P. (1973), noting that common intention can develop on the spot.

On sentencing, the court invoked the reformative theory from Mohammad Giasuddin v. State of A.P. (1977), emphasizing that punishment should aim at rehabilitation rather than mere retribution.

The court found the testimony of the victim (PW-2) and eyewitnesses (PW-4, PW-5, PW-10) consistent and corroborated by medical reports (PW-3, PW-7), establishing that Nikhilish inflicted a life-threatening injury.

Regarding common intention for Manku, the court observed that the brothers arrived together after a prior dispute; Manku initiated the assault by slapping the victim, which facilitated Nikhilish’s immediate knife attack.

This "action-in-concert" satisfied the requirements of Section 34 IPC.

However, on the matter of sentencing, the court noted that the Appellants were young (19 and 21 years old), had no prior criminal record, and importantly, provided significant financial assistance for the victim's surgery during the trial.

Applying the reformative principle, the court determined that while the conviction was sound, a reduction in the duration of imprisonment was justified.

However, it partially allowed the appeals regarding the sentence, reducing the term of rigorous imprisonment from seven years to two years and six months for both Appellants.

The fine amounts and default sentences remained unchanged, and the period already served in custody was ordered to be set off.