LexAMIT RANA @ KOKA & ANR. versus THE STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[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 confini
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.