Convicts cannot be jailed beyond 10 years: SC on punishment for attempted murders
The Supreme Court on Monday held that a person convicted of an attempted murder cannot be sentenced to rigorous imprisonment exceeding 10 years unless the punishment is imprisonment for life.
Clarifying a significant point of law regarding the sentencing under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), a bench of justices CT Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal highlighted the legislature’s intention and mandated the adherence to the prescribed maximum sentence for attempted murder cases under the first part of Section 307, IPC.
The court noted that the legislative prescription is unequivocal in terms of the punishment for attempted murder. Specifically, the first part of Section 307, IPC, prescribes a maximum sentence of ten years imprisonment while the second part entails life term if such acts cause injuries to the victim.
“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.” held the bench.
This interpretation firmly restricts the courts from imposing a sentence exceeding ten years unless the convict is sentenced to imprisonment for life. Notably, 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.
The court further highlighted that if the convict under the second part of Section 307, IPC, is not sentenced to life imprisonment, the only other permissible punishment is as prescribed under the first part — 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 ten years and a fine. The second part addresses situations where the victim suffers hurt, making the convict liable to imprisonment for life or to such punishment as mentioned in the first part.
“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 offense; let the punishment fit the crime,” noted the court, underlining the principle of proportionality in sentencing and emphasising that punishment must fit the crime. The court stressed that Section 307, IPC, inherently adheres to this principle by prescribing specific punishments for different circumstances under the section.
Analysing the provisions under Section 307, IPC, the bench concluded that the second part of the section does not authorise a punishment beyond what is specified in the first part (which is 10 years in jail) unless it is imprisonment for life.
The clarification of the legal provisions under Section 307, IPC came as the bench heard an appeal by two convicts sentenced to 14 years in jail in an attempted 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. However, the court disagreed, stating that if life imprisonment is deemed disproportionate, the maximum permissible punishment reverts to what is prescribed under the first part of Section 307, IPC – ten years in jail.
The ruling establishes clear boundaries for sentencing in attempted murder cases, as it reinforced the legislative intent and the proportionality principle in providing a clear interpretation of the sentencing provisions.