S. 307 IPC | Sentencing Court Not Imposing Life Imprisonment On Convict Cannot Impose Sentence Beyond 10 Years: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that when the sentencing court doesn't deem fit to impose a life sentence for committing an offence of attempt to murder, then the maximum sentence that can be imposed on the convict for committing an offence of attempt to murder could not extend beyond the period of 10 years.
“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.”, the bench comprising Justices CT Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal said.
In essence, the court said that the trial court could not impose a sentence beyond 10 years if the convict were not awarded life imprisonment for committing an offence of attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC.
Section 307 describes the punishment for committing an offence of attempt to murder, where the first part provides a maximum sentence of imprisonment of up to 10 years and a fine, and the second part provides imprisonment for life in case hurt is caused during an attempt to murder.
Moreover, the second part of Section 307 also includes the imposition of such imprisonment as provided in the first part of Section 307.
This means, that if the court doesn't wish to impose life imprisonment punishment on the convict for causing hurt during an attempt to murder then the imposition of punishment couldn't extend beyond the sentence imposed in the first part i.e., not more than 10 years.
In the present case, the accused challenged the imposition of 14 years of imprisonment under the second part of Section 307 IPC.
According to the accused, though hurt was caused to the victim during the attempt to murder, the sentencing court didn't impose the sentence of life imprisonment, therefore, it would be impermissible for the sentencing court to impose 14 years of imprisonment, and the maximum sentence that can be imposed on the accused could be 10 years.
Finding force in the appellant/accused contentions, the Judgment authored by Justice CT Ravikumar observed that it would be impermissible for the sentencing courts to impose 14 years of imprisonment under the second part of Section 307 of IPC.
“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.”, the court said.
“We have taken note of the fact that as a consequence of the attempt to do away with the life of the 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 court concluded.
Counsels For Petitioner(s) Mr. M.C. Dhingra, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Dhingra, AOR
Counsels For Respondent(s) Mr. Neeraj, A.A.G. Mr. Piyush Beriwal, Adv. Mr. Vedansh Anand, Adv. Mr. Rudra Paliwal, Adv. Ms. Damini Garg, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Kumar Chaubey, Adv. Dr. Monika Gusain, AOR
Case Title: AMIT RANA @ KOKA & ANR. Versus THE STATE OF HARYANA
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 500