In a recent landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India reduced the sentence of two convicts, Amit Rana @ Koka and another, who were previously sentenced to 14 years of rigorous imprisonment for attempting to murder Mangtu Ram. The case, titled Amit Rana @ Koka & Anr. vs. State of Haryana (Criminal Appeal No. of 2024, arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 14705 of 2023), was presided over by Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Rajesh Bindal.
Incident Overview
The incident occurred on June 9, 2016, when the appellants shot Mangtu Ram, causing a severe spinal injury that left him paralyzed. The trial court convicted the appellants under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced them to 14 years of rigorous imprisonment, which was later upheld by the High Court.
Legal Issues Involved
The primary legal issue in this case was whether the sentence of 14 years of rigorous imprisonment was permissible under Section 307 of the IPC, which deals with attempts to murder. Section 307 IPC states:
“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, 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.”
Supreme Court’s Observations
Bench noted that Section 307 IPC embodies the principle of culpae poena per estoโ”let the punishment be proportionate to the offence; let the punishment fit the crime.” The court emphasized that the maximum punishment under the first part of Section 307 IPC is ten years of imprisonment unless the victim suffers hurt, in which case life imprisonment can be imposed.
The court observed that the trial court had not opted for life imprisonment, thus making the 14-year sentence legally impermissible. The court stated:
“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.”
Decision
The Supreme Court reduced the sentence from 14 years to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment, maintaining the fine of Rs. 1,50,000 each. The court concluded:
“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.”
Also Read
Case Details
– Appellants: Amit Rana @ Koka and another
– Respondent: State of Haryana
– Bench: Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Rajesh Bindal
