The Supreme Court has ruled that a person convicted in an attempt to murder case cannot be sentenced to rigorous imprisonment exceeding 10 years unless the punishment was imprisonment for life.
The Bench of Justice CT Ravikumar and Justice Rajesh Bindal on Monday passed the order, while highlighting the intention and adherence to the prescribed maximum sentence for attempted murder cases under the first part of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The Bench noted that the legislative prescription was unequivocal in terms of the punishment for attempted murder. The first part of Section 307 IPC specifically prescribed a maximum sentence of 10 years imprisonment, while the second part entailed a life term if such acts caused injuries to the victim.
The Court said 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 thought it fit not to impose imprisonment for life, the punishment to be handed down to the convict in any circumstance cannot exceed the punishment prescribed under the first part of Section 307, IPC.
This interpretation firmly restricted the courts from imposing a sentence exceeding 10 years unless the convict was sentenced to imprisonment for life.
An attempt to commit murder has been retained as an offence with identical provisions under Section 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which came into effect from July 1, added the top court of the country.
It further highlighted that if a convict under the second part of Section 307, IPC was not sentenced to life imprisonment, the only other permissible punishment as prescribed under the first part was a term, which may extend up to 10 years and a fine.
Section 307 IPC deals with the punishment for attempted murder and is divided into two parts. The first part pertains to attempts to commit murder, punishable with imprisonment up to 10 years and a fine. The second part addresses situations where the victim suffers hurt, making the convict liable to imprisonment for life or such punishment as mentioned in the first part.
The Bench observed that a perusal of Section 307 IPC would make it clear that it really imbibed the true spirit of the maxim ‘culpae poena per esto,’ which meant ‘let the punishment be proportionate to the offense; let the punishment fit the crime’.
The Court underlined the principle of proportionality in sentencing and emphasising that the punishment must fit the crime. It stressed that Section 307 IPC inherently adhered to this principle by prescribing specific punishments for different circumstances under the section.
It said the second part of the Section did not authorise a punishment beyond what was specified in the first part (10 years in jail) unless it was imprisonment for life.
The Bench made the clarification regarding legal provisions under Section 307 IPC, while hearing an appeal filed by two convicts sentenced to 14 years in jail in an attempt to murder case.
Haryana’s Additional Advocate General Neeraj, assisted by Advocate Piyush Beriwal, argued that the nature of bodily injury and its aftermath justified the imposition of 14 years of imprisonment.
The Apex Court rejected the arguments, noting that if life imprisonment was deemed disproportionate, the maximum permissible punishment would revert to what was prescribed under the first part of Section 307, IPC – 10 years in jail.
The Apex Court ruling has established clear boundaries for sentencing in attempted murder cases, reinforcing the legislative intent and the proportionality principle in providing a clear interpretation of the sentencing provisions.