Seniority Must Be Calculated From the Date of Initial Appointment, Not Regularization: Madras High Court Rules Section 319 Cr.P.C. | Mere Association Not Enough for Criminal Liability: Karnataka HC Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds ₹25,000 Per Kanal Compensation for Land Acquired for Nangal-Talwara Railway Line, Dismisses Railway’s Appeal No Work No Pay Principle Not Applicable: Orissa High Court Orders Reinstatement and Full Back Wages for Wrongfully Terminated Lecturer No Assault, No Obstruction, Only Words Exchanged: Bombay High Court Quashes Charges of Obstruction Against Advocates Under Section 353 IPC Matrimonial Offences Can Be Quashed Even if Non-Compoundable, When Genuine Compromise Is Reached: J&K HC Plaintiff Entitled to Partition, But Must Contribute Redemption Share to Defendant: Delhi High Court Clarifies Subrogation Rights in Mortgage Redemption Labeling Someone A 'Rowdy' Without Convictions Infringes Personal Liberty And Reputation: Kerala High Court P&H High Court Denies Pensionary Benefits for Work-Charged Employee's Widow; Declares Work-Charged Service Not Eligible for ACP or Pension Benefits Acquittal is Acquittal: Rajasthan High Court Orders Appointment of Candidate Denied Job Over Past FIR At The Bail Stage, Culpability Is Not To Be Decided; Allegations Must Be Tested During Trial: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in SCST Supreme Court Dismisses Challenge to "Secular" and "Socialist" Additions in Constitution Preamble Supreme Court Rejects Res Judicata in Land Allotment Case: Fresh Cause of Action Validates Public Interest Litigation Public Resources Are Not Privileges for the Few: Supreme Court Declares Preferential Land Allotments to Elites Unconstitutional Past antecedents alone cannot justify denial of bail: Kerala High Court Grants Bail Revenue Records Alone Cannot Prove Ownership: Madras High Court Dismisses Temple's Appeal for Injunction Humanitarian Grounds Cannot Undermine Investigation: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Interim Bail in ₹200 Crore Scholarship Scam The Power Under Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 CPC is Drastic and Extraordinary; Should Not Be Exercised Mechanically or Merely for the Asking: Calcutta High Court Telangana High Court Strikes Down Section 10-A: Upholds Transparency in Public Employment Absence of Homogeneous Mixing and Procedural Deficiencies Vitiate NDPS Conviction: Punjab and Haryana High Court Business Disputes Cannot Be Given Criminal Color: Patna High Court Quashes Complaint in Trademark Agreement Case Gujarat High Court Appoints Wife as Guardian of Comatose Husband, Calls for Legislative Framework Standard of Proof in Professional Misconduct Requires 'Higher Threshold' but Below 'Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Delhi High Court Imprisonment Cannot Bar Education: Bombay HC Allows UAPA Accused to Pursue LL.B. High Court Acquits Accused in Double Murder Case, Asserts ‘Suspicion Cannot Replace Proof’ Long separation and irreparable breakdown of marriage must be read as cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Regulation 101 Applies to All Aided Institutions, Including Minority Ones, Says Allahabad High Court Fraud Unravels All Judicial Acts : Jharkhand High Court Orders Demolition of Unauthorized Constructions in Ratan Heights Case Suspicious Circumstances Cannot Validate a Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds 1997 Will Over 2000 Will

Legislative Mandate is Clear: Punishment Cannot Exceed Ten Years Unless Life Imprisonment is Deemed Appropriate: Supreme Court

06 September 2024 7:17 PM

By: sayum


Supreme Court modifies 14-year rigorous imprisonment to 10 years, reaffirms legislative intent on proportional sentencing. The Supreme Court of India has delivered a significant judgment on the interpretation of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which pertains to attempt to murder. The Court reduced the sentence of rigorous imprisonment from 14 years to 10 years, emphasizing the statutory limits of sentencing under the said section. The bench, comprising Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal, highlighted the legislative intent behind the provision, ensuring that punishment remains proportionate to the crime.

Amit Rana @ Koka and another appellant were convicted under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC for attempting to murder Mangtu Ram by inflicting a gunshot injury that left him paralyzed. The trial court sentenced the appellants to 14 years of rigorous imprisonment, a decision upheld by the High Court. The appellants challenged this sentence, arguing that it exceeded the maximum permissible term under Section 307, IPC.

The Supreme Court declined to entertain the appellants' challenge to their conviction but agreed to hear the appeal on the sentence duration. The core issue was whether a sentence of more than ten years could be imposed under Section 307, IPC, when the victim suffers hurt, but life imprisonment is not awarded.

Section 307, IPC, outlines that an attempt to murder can attract a maximum sentence of ten years and fine. However, if the act causes hurt, the offender can be sentenced to life imprisonment or such punishment as mentioned in the first part (ten years and fine). The Court elucidated that the second part of Section 307 does not provide for a sentence exceeding ten years if life imprisonment is not imposed.

"The legislative mandate is clear," the bench observed. "When life imprisonment is not considered appropriate, the punishment cannot exceed ten years. This aligns with the principle of 'culpae poena per esto' — let the punishment fit the crime."

The Court's decision hinged on a detailed interpretation of Section 307, IPC. It emphasized that the provision's first part prescribes a maximum term of ten years unless life imprisonment is deemed appropriate when hurt is caused. This interpretation ensures that the sentencing remains within statutory limits, preserving the principle of proportionality in punishment.

Justice C.T. Ravikumar noted, "When in unambiguous terms the legislature prescribed the maximum corporeal sentence imposable for the conviction under Section 307, IPC, under the first part, 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."

The Supreme Court's judgment in this case underscores the importance of adhering to legislative intent in sentencing. By reducing the appellants' imprisonment term from 14 years to 10 years, the Court reinforced the statutory limits and principles of proportionality in criminal jurisprudence. This ruling is expected to have significant implications for future cases involving attempts to murder, ensuring that sentences remain within the bounds of the law.

Date of Decision: July 22, 2024

Amit Rana @ Koka & Anr. vs. State of Haryana

 

Similar News