The bench of Justices B R Gavai and K Vinod Chandran partly allowed a criminal appeal filed by Ganesan against the high court's order, which modified his sentence from life imprisonment to that of 12 years of jail. The apex court, though confirmed his conviction, awarded him seven-year jail term for attacking his mother-in-law with a billhook.

 

"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," the bench said.

 

According to the facts of the case, the appellant, who was working abroad lost his employment and returned to his family, comprising  his wife and three children. Unable to get any employment, he took to the bottle and perpetrated continuous harassment on 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, which the appellant believed was due to the instigation of the mother-in-law, with clear premeditation, he went to the shop of the mother-in-law with a billhook and attacked her. The wife, who tried to save her mother,r also suffered injuries.

 

The appellant was booked under Sections 498A, 294(b), 307 and 506(II) of the IPC; the attempt to murder being levelled on two counts, as committed against the mother and daughter.

 

The trial court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to imprisonment for life under Section 307 as against the mother-in-law, three years rigorous imprisonment under Section 498A with a fine respectively of Rs 30,000 and Rs 20,000, as also three years simple imprisonment and seven years RI under sections 324 (as against the wife) and 506(II) respectively.

 

On appeal, the high court sustained the conviction under Section 307 IPC and the sentence was reduced to 12 years rigorous imprisonment from life imprisonment and acquitted the appellant under Section 506(II), IPC while confirming the conviction and sentence under Sections 498A and 324 IPC; with further direction that the sentences will run concurrent.

 

In the present appeal before the apex court, notice was issued only on the quantum of sentence by an order on November 21, 2022. Thus, the conviction stood affirmed, as had been found by the high court, by virtue also of the unshaken testimony of the injured witnesses, which evidence had to be accorded a special status in law.

 

The court also noted it could not be disputed that there was premeditation insofar as the appellant, having come to the shop of the mother-in-law, one of the injured, in a scooter carrying a billhook with him. Immediately, on reaching the shop, he attacked his mother-in-law and his wife, who tried to save her mother also suffered injuries, court pointed out. 

 

The doctor who examined both the injured, before court, spoke of the grievous injuries suffered by the mother-in-law but had categorically stated in the chief examination itself that the injuries sustained by the wife of the appellant were simple injuries and the wound certificate issued to the contrary was a mistake, the top court pointed out.

 

The bench cited Jagat Bahadur Vs State of Madhya Pradesh (1996), wherein relying on the decisions of various high courts, it was held that the appellate court was not competent to impose a punishment higher than the maximum that could have been imposed by the trial court. It was held that an appellate court being “a court of error”, i.e. a court established for correcting an error, it could not go beyond the competence of the trial court and if it does that, it would not be correcting an error. The power of the appellate court to pass a sentence has to be measured by the power of the court from whose judgment an appeal has been brought before it.

 

The bench also pointed out that the top court also in Amit Rana alias Koka Vs State of Haryana (2024) held that a bare perusal of the second part of Section 307 of IPC would undoubtedly show that it did not prescribe for imposition of punishment more than what is prescribed under the first part thereof. The maximum imprisonment permissible under the first part of Section 307 is 10 years and fine. 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, IPC.

 

"On this reasoning, the sentence of 12 years rigorous imprisonment granted by the appellate court cannot be sustained; since the maximum sentence under Section 307, IPC, if life is avoided, can only be a maximum of 10 years," the bench said.

 

Considering the entire circumstances, the relationship between the parties and injuries caused, the court opined that a sentence of 7 years rigorous imprisonment would suffice under Section 307, IPC.

 

Accordingly, the court modified the sentence in the appellate judgment under Section 307. The court also confirmed the sentence handed over under the other penal provisions of the IPC by saying those would run concurrently as directed by the appellate court.