LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/amit-rana-koka-anr-vs-the-state-of-haryana-20240722/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Criminal · Reportable judgment

Amit Rana @ Koka & Anr. vs The State of Haryana

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
22 July 2024
Case No.
Criminal Appeal No. 700 of 2024
Result
Partly allowed
Bench
C.T. Ravikumar, Rajesh Bindal
Citation
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 756 : 2024 INSC 543
Acts & Sections
IPC
Supreme Court Reports [2024] 7 S.C.R. 756 : 2024 INSC 543
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.
Headnote

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 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]

Keywords: Attempt to murder · Permissible term of imprisonment · Section 307 IPC · Hurt to victim · Maxim ‘culpae poena per esto’ · Murder Simpliciter

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Swathi H. Prasad, Hony. Associate Editor (Verified by: Liz Mathew, Sr. Adv.). Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

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 supportin
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

All SC judgments →