Sentence for Attempt to Murder Reduced for Non-Habitual Offender Following Proportionate and Reformative Sentencing Principles

The appellant was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Sagar, in Sessions Trial No. 87/2021 for the attempted murder of one Surendra Singh by firing a shot from a country-made pistol that struck the victim's left elbow.

The Trial Court sentenced him to 10 years RI under Section 307 of the IPC, 2 years RI under Section 25(1-B)(A) of the Arms Act, and 3 years RI under Section 27 of the Arms Act.

The appellant appealed to the High Court, but his counsel limited the challenge solely to the quantum of the sentence, seeking a reduction based on the appellant’s lack of criminal antecedents and the period of incarceration already undergone (approximately 3 years and 26 days).

1. Whether the substantive sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment for conviction under Section 307 IPC is proportionate given the mitigating circumstances of the appellant.

2. Whether the conviction recorded by the Trial Court warrants interference.

The court applied Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) regarding attempt to murder and Sections 25(1-B)(A) and 27 of the Arms Act regarding the illegal possession and use of firearms.

It further relied on the judicial principle of "proportionate and reformative sentencing," which dictates that punishment must be balanced against the nature of the offender and the circumstances of the crime.

The procedural framework was governed by Section 415(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, and Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973.

The High Court affirmed the conviction, noting that the prosecution successfully proved the appellant fired a weapon with the intent to kill.

However, in evaluating the sentence, the Court noted that the appellant was not a habitual offender and had no prior criminal record.

Applying the principle of proportionality, the Court determined that while the act was serious, the 10-year sentence was excessive in light of the mitigating factors and the reformative goals of the justice system.

The Court concluded that the ends of justice would be met by a reduction in the duration of imprisonment while maintaining the conviction itself.

The court held that the substantive sentence of 10 years RI be reduced to 7 years RI.

The appellant is to be released upon completion of the modified seven-year term, provided he is not required in any other case, while the fine and default stipulations remain unchanged.