AMIT RANA @ KOKA & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF HARYANA

                 [2024] 7 S.C.R. 756 : 2024 INSC 543

                       Amit Rana @ Koka & Anr.
                                 v.
                        The State of Haryana
                     (Criminal Appeal No. 700 of 2024)
                                 22 July 2024
             [C.T. Ravikumar* and Rajesh Bindal, JJ.]

                           Issue for Consideration
       The issue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was whether while
       imposing a sentence for an offence punishable under Section
       307 part 2, IPC (attempt to commit murder – causing hurt to any
       person), a term of imprisonment beyond a period of ten years is
       permissible when imprisonment for life is chosen not to be given
       by the Courts below.

                                  Headnotes†
       Penal Code, 1860 – S.307 – Part II – When the Court decided
       not to impose a sentence of imprisonment for life – Can a
       sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 14 years be imposed:
       Held: In case the victim suffered hurt in terms of the second part
       of Section 307, IPC, the convict can be sentenced to undergo
       imprisonment for life – But in the event the court did not consider
       to impose a sentence of imprisonment for life, the other option,
       going by the provision, is only to impose such punishment as is
       mentioned in the first part of Section 307, IPC – In unambiguous
       terms the legislature prescribed the maximum corporeal sentence
       imposable for the conviction under Section 307, IPC, under
       the first part as “imprisonment of either description for a term
       which may not extent to 10 years and also fine” – No appeal
       by the State for enhancement of punishment to imprisonment
       for life – 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. [Para 7]
       Penal Code, 1860 – S.307 and its rationale – Explained:
       Held: Section 307, IPC imbibes the true spirit of the maxim
       ‘culpae poena per esto’ meaning ‘let the punishment be

* Author
[2024] 7 S.C.R.                                                         757

           Amit Rana @ Koka & Anr. v. The State of Haryana


     proportionate to the offence; let the punishment fit the crime’ –
     Three parts to the section: (1) an attempt to murder simpliciter,
     the offence is punishable maximum with a term of imprisonment
     of either description upto ten years and fine – (2) an attempt
     to murder causing hurt to anyone, the offence is punishable
     with imprisonment for life or punishment as stated hereinabove
     in (1); and – (3) an attempt to murder committed by life convict
     causing hurt of any person, the offence may be punishable with
     death. [Paras 3-4]
     Punishment under Penal Code, 1860 – S.307 – When attracted:
     Held: The offence to commit murder punishable under Section
     307, IPC is constituted by the concurrence of mens rea followed
     by actus reus, to commit an attempt to murder though its
     accomplishment or sufferance of any kind of bodily injury to
     the victim is not a ‘sine qua non’ – To attract the offence, the
     victim need not suffer any kind of bodily injury – Causing hurt
     to anyone in the course of an attempt to murder is a sub-set of
     the offence. [Para 6]

                               List of Acts
     The Indian Penal Code, 1860.
                            List of Keywords
     Attempt to murder; Permissible term of imprisonment; Section
     307 IPC; Hurt to victim; Maxim ‘culpae poena per esto’; Murder
     Simpliciter.
                           Case Arising From
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 700
     of 2024
     From the Judgment and Order dated 05.07.2023 of the High Court of
     Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CRAD No. 224 of 2020
                        Appearances for Parties
     M.C. Dhingra, Gaurav Dhingra, Advs. for the Appellants.
     Neeraj, A.A.G., Piyush Beriwal, Vedansh Anand, Rudra Paliwal, Ms.
     Damini Garg, Nikhil Kumar Chaubey, Dr. Monika Gusain, Advs. for
     the Respondent.
758                                                           [2024] 7 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


                  Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                  Judgment
       C.T. Ravikumar, J.
       Leave granted
1.     The captioned appeal is filed to challenge the concurrent conviction
       of the appellants under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the
       Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short the ‘IPC’) and the consequently,
       imposed sentence on them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 14
       years each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty
       thousand only) each and in default to undergo simple imprisonment
       for six months.
2.     On 21.11.2023, after hearing the learned counsel for the appellants
       and looking into the overwhelming conclusive evidence supporting
       the conviction of the appellants under Section 307, IPC, with the
       aid of Section 34, IPC, this Court declined to entertain the Special
       Leave Petition to the extent it seeks to challenge the conviction, and
       issued limited notice confining to the challenge against the award
       of 14 years of rigorous imprisonment for the conviction thereof. The
       challenge is to the effect that in terms of the provisions under Section
       307, IPC a term imprisonment beyond the period of ten years is
       impermissible though in case of hurt during attempt to murder would
       make the convict liable for imprisonment for life. Hence, the scope
       of this appeal is confined only to the question on sentence.
3.     Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel
       appearing for the respondent-State. The rival contention raises a
       question of seminal importance as mentioned, viz., ‘whether a convict
       under Section 307, IPC, can be sentenced to undergo imprisonment,
       of either description, beyond the period of ten years. It is worthwhile
       to extract Section 307, IPC for a proper consideration of the aforesaid
       question. It reads thus:-
            “307. Attempt to murder.—Whoever does any act with
            such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances
            that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty
            of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
            description for a term which may extend to ten years,
[2024] 7 S.C.R.                                                          759

           Amit Rana @ Koka & Anr. v. The State of Haryana


           and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to
           any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either
           to [imprisonment for life], or to such punishment as is
           hereinbefore mentioned.
           Attempts by life-convicts.— [When any person offending
           under this section is under sentence of [imprisonment for
           life], he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.]”
4.   A perusal of Section 307, IPC, would make it clear that it really imbibes
     the true spirit of the maxim ‘culpae poena per esto’ – means ‘let the
     punishment be proportionate to the offence; let the punishment fit
     the crime.’ It itself prescribes three types of sentences imposable
     on a convict thereunder. If it is an attempt to murder simpliciter, the
     offence is punishable maximum with by a term of imprisonment of
     either description upto ten years and fine. The last part of Section
     307 prescribes death sentence as the only punishment when the
     offender during the commission of the crime is under the sentence
     of imprisonment for life and hurt is caused to the victim.
5.   We are concerned with the second part of Section 307, where
     victim suffers hurt. There can be no doubt with respect to the
     position that the convict under this part can be sentenced to
     undergo imprisonment for life. The parties are at issue only on
     the expression in the second part ‘or to such punishment as is
     hereinbefore mentioned’. The learned counsel for the appellants
     would contend that the said expression limits the maximum sentence
     imposable, when imprisonment for life is found not to be imposed,
     to what is mentioned in the first part viz., imprisonment of either
     description up to ten years and fine. A feeble attempt was made
     by the learned counsel for the state to justify the imposition of
     sentence of imprisonment for 14 years contending that the nature
     of the bodily injury sustained by the victim and its aftermath were
     taken into consideration by the trial Court and the High Court
     found that imprisonment for life would be disproportionate and
     the proportionate punishment to the gravity of the offence invites
     imposition of imprisonment short of imprisonment for life. It is further
     submitted that when imprisonment for life is imposable for attempt
     to murder where the victim suffered hurt imposition of sentence
     lesser than imprisonment for life cannot be said to be beyond the
     penal power of the Court.
760                                                            [2024] 7 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


6.     Section 307, IPC, makes it clear that to attract the said offence
       the victim need not suffer any kind of bodily injury. The offence to
       commit murder punishable under Section 307, IPC is constituted by
       the concurrence of mens rea followed by actus reus, to commit an
       attempt to murder though its accomplishment or sufferance of any
       kind of bodily injury to the victim is not a ‘sine qua non’. In other
       words, if a man commits an act with such intention or knowledge
       and under such circumstances that if death had been caused, the
       offence would have amounted to murder or the act itself is of such
       a nature as would have caused death in the usual course of an
       event, but something beyond his control prevented that result, his
       act would constitute the offence punishable as an attempt to murder
       under Section 307, IPC.
7.     Now we will refer to the incident in question which led to the conviction
       of the appellants under Section 307, IPC. In view of the fact that we
       are not considering the question of conviction, it is unnecessary to
       deal with the occurrence in detail. PW-5 Dr. Sahil, the then medical
       officer attached to PGIMS, Rohtak, deposed that the complainant
       (victim) was admitted in the hospital from 09.06.2016 to 02.07.2016
       with history of gunshot injury. He would further depose that he along
       with Dr. Shubham removed the foreign body from the spine of the
       victim-Mangtu Ram. The indisputable fact is that the victim became
       paralysed due to the said spinal injury. Thus, it can be seen that the
       attempt to murder the complainant caused the injury and resultantly
       he became paralysed. When that be the consequence of the attempt
       to murder, the case would definitely be fallen under the second part
       of Section 307, IPC. On scanning the provisions under Section 307,
       IPC, we have already found that in case the victim suffered hurt in
       terms of the second part of Section 307, IPC, the convict can be
       sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. In the event the court did
       not consider that imprisonment for life is not to be imposed the other
       option, going by the provision, is only to impose such punishment as
       is mentioned in the first part of Section 307, IPC. The first part, as
       noticed hereinbefore, prescribes punishment with imprisonment of
       either description for a term which may extend to 10 years and also
       to pay fine. A bare perusal of the second part of Section 307, IPC,
       would undoubtedly show that it did not prescribe for imposition of
       punishment more than what is prescribed under the first part thereof.
       We have already noted that the maximum imprisonment permissible
[2024] 7 S.C.R.                                                        761

           Amit Rana @ Koka & Anr. v. The State of Haryana


     under the first part of Section 307, IPC, is “imprisonment of either
     description for a term which may not extent to 10 years and also
     fine”. When in unambiguous terms the legislature prescribed the
     maximum corporeal sentence imposable for the conviction under
     Section 307, IPC, under the first part and 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. It is to be noted
     that the respondent-State has not filed any appeal contending that
     the punishment imposed on the appellants is liable to be enhanced
     to imprisonment for life thus, we do not deem it necessary to go into
     the question whether the punishment is to be enhanced. 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. Since the High Court had
     not gone into the question as to how imprisonment for a term of 14
     years or the conviction under Section 307, IPC would be maintained
     and in view of our conclusion as above, the judgment of the High
     Court confirming the judgment of the trial Court awarding rigorous
     imprisonment for 14 years calls for interference.
8.   Since the conviction of the appellants under Section 307, IPC, is
     declined to be interfered with by us, necessarily the punishment for
     the said offence taking note of the gravity of the crime has to be
     imposed. Since we are not proposing to enhance the sentence to
     imprisonment for life and the only option is to bring down the term
     of imprisonment from 14 years, there is absolutely no reason to hear
     the appellants in-person.
9.   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,
762                                                                [2024] 7 S.C.R.

                           Digital Supreme Court Reports


       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 appeal is thus allowed in part and the impugned
       judgment of the High Court and the judgment of the trial Court in
       S.T. No.281/2016 qua the appellants stands modified as above.
10. Pending applications, if any, stands disposed of.

       Result of the case: Criminal Appeal partly allowed.



       †
           Headnotes prepared by: Swathi H. Prasad, Hony. Associate Editor
                                   (Verified by: Liz Mathew, Sr. Adv.)