Maximum Sentence For Attempt To Murder U/S.307 IPC, If Life Is Avoided, Can Only Be 10 Years: Supreme Court
The Apex Court was considering an appeal filed by a man accused of perpetrating continuous harassment on his wife and children.
The Supreme Court set aside an order of the Appellate Court granting 12 years rigorous imprisonment for attempt to murder under section 307 of the IPC and explained that the maximum sentence under this provision, if life is avoided, can only be a maximum of 10 years.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal filed by a man who was accused of perpetrating continuous harassment on his wife and children.
The Division Bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran held, “Section 307 with the nominal heading “attempt to murder” provides for a punishment of, either imprisonment for life or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years and fine. The threshold term of imprisonment, if life is avoided, can only be 10 years and not more.”
AOR M.P. Parthiban represented the Appellants while Senior Additional Advocate General V. Krishnamurthy represented the Respondents.
Factual Background
The appellant, who was working abroad lost his employment and returned to his family, comprising of his wife and three children. Unable to get any employment, he took to the bottle and harassed his wife and children. The wife, thus, left him to live with her mother who had a small business and was capable of looking after the daughter and her children. Enraged by the desertion, he went to the shop of the mother-in-law with a billhook and attacked her. The wife who tried to save her mother also suffered injuries.
The appellant was booked under Sections 498A, 294(b), 307 and 506(II) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; the attempt to murder was levelled on two counts, as committed against the mother and daughter. The Trial Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. On appeal, the High Court sustained the conviction under Section 307 I.P.C and the sentence was reduced to 12 years RI from life imprisonment. His conviction and sentence under Sections 498A and 324 I.P.C was confirmed.
Reasoning
The Bench noticed the undisputed fact that there was premeditation in so far as the appellant/accused had come to the shop of the mother-in-law and attacked her as well as his wife. The doctor who examined both the injured, before the court, spoke of the injuries suffered by the mother-in-law and the wife of the appellant. Explaining that Section 307 with the nominal heading “attempt to murder” provides for a punishment of, either imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years and fine, the Bench stated that the threshold term of imprisonment, if life is avoided, can only be 10 years.
Reference was made to the judgment in Amit Rana @ Koka Vs. State of Haryana (2024) wherein it was observed that when the court thinks it fit, not to impose imprisonment for life, the punishment in no circumstance can exceed the punishment prescribed under the first part of Section 307, I.P.C. “On the above reasoning, the sentence of 12 years R.I. granted by the Appellate Court cannot be sustained; since the maximum sentence under Section 307, I.P.C., if life is avoided, can only be a maximum of 10 years”, the Bench held.
“Considering the entire circumstances, the relationship between the parties and injuries caused, we are of the opinion that a sentence of 7 years R.I. would suffice under Section 307, IPC”, the Bench held while partly allowing the appeal and confirming the conviction under the other penal provisions of the I.P.C.
Cause Title: Ganesan v. the State of Tamilnadu Rep. By Inspector of Police (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 158)
Appearance:
Appellants: AOR M.P. Parthiban, Advocates Ankur Prakash, Priyanka Singh, Bilal Mansoor, Shreyas Kaushal, S. Geyolin Selvam, Alagiri K
Respondents: Senior Additional Advocate General V. Krishnamurthy, AOR Sabarish Subramanian, Advocates Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Azka Sheikh, Danish Saifi
