22 July 2024 Criminal Appeals & Suspension of Sentence >> Criminal Law  

In a recent ruling of Amit Rana Koka & Another v/s State of Haryana, the High Court has partially upheld and modified the sentence for appellants convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for attempted murder. This judgment, rendered on September 21, 2023, provides a nuanced interpretation of the sentencing provisions under Section 307 IPC, focusing on the permissible duration of imprisonment.

Background of the Case:

The appellants had been convicted under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC for their involvement in an attempted murder. Initially, they were sentenced to 14 years of rigorous imprisonment each, along with a fine of Rs. 1,50,000/- and an additional six months of simple imprisonment in case of default. The conviction itself was not challenged, but the appellants contested the severity of the sentence, arguing that it exceeded the maximum permissible term.

Legal Question: Maximum Permissible Sentence:

The core issue before the Court was whether a sentence exceeding ten years of imprisonment is permissible under Section 307 IPC. Section 307 deals with attempts to commit murder and outlines the following sentencing framework:

• Attempt to Murder (First Part): Imprisonment of either description for a term that may extend up to ten years, along with a fine.
• Attempt to Murder with Hurt (Second Part): The offender may be punished with imprisonment for life or such punishment as mentioned in the first part.

The appellants argued that if imprisonment for life was not imposed, the maximum sentence could not exceed ten years. Conversely, the State contended that while life imprisonment is one option, a sentence lesser than life imprisonment, though exceeding ten years, could still be proportionate given the crime's severity.

Court’s Analysis:

The Court closely examined Section 307 IPC and its two parts. It concluded that if the court opts not to impose a life sentence under the second part of Section 307, the maximum permissible sentence is limited to what is prescribed in the first part—i.e., imprisonment for a term extending up to ten years and a fine.

The Court clarified that although the second part allows for imprisonment for life, it does not extend the sentencing range beyond what is outlined in the first part if life imprisonment is not applied. Thus, a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 14 years exceeds the statutory limit when life imprisonment is not imposed.

Modifications to the Sentence:

Acknowledging that the initial sentence of 14 years was beyond the statutory limit, the High Court modified the sentence to align with the maximum permissible term under Section 307 IPC. Consequently, the Court reduced the sentence from 14 years to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment for each appellant, while maintaining the imposed fine.

Conclusion:

This judgment underscores the importance of adhering to statutory sentencing limits and clarifies the boundaries within which courts can operate when imposing sentences for attempted murder. By reducing the appellants’ sentences to 10 years, the High Court ensured that the punishment remained proportionate to the offense, as mandated by law. The modification highlights a critical aspect of legal sentencing, affirming that while courts have discretion in the severity of punishments, they must operate within the confines set by legislative provisions. The appeal was thus allowed in part, and the revised sentences reflect a balanced approach to justice, aligning with the legal framework provided under Section 307 IPC.