The Supreme Court stated that the maximum sentence for attempted murder under Section 307 of the IPC, if life is spared, can only be 10 years.
The Supreme Court overturned a decision by the Appellate Court that had sentenced a man to 12 years of rigorous imprisonment for attempted murder under section 307 of the IPC. The Court clarified that the maximum penalty for this offense, if life imprisonment is not imposed, is only 10 years. This ruling came during an appeal from a man accused of repeatedly harassing his wife and children. Justices B.R. Gavai and K. Vinod Chandran stated, “Section 307, titled ‘attempt to murder,’ allows for a punishment of life imprisonment or a term of up to 10 years and a fine. If life imprisonment is not given, the maximum term can only be 10 years.”
M.P. Parthiban represented the Appellants, while Senior Additional Advocate General V. Krishnamurthy represented the Respondents. The appellant had lost his job while working abroad and returned home to his wife and three children. Unable to find work, he turned to alcohol and began to harass his family. His wife eventually left him to stay with her mother, who ran a small business and could support her and the children. Angered by this, he attacked his mother-in-law with a billhook at her shop, injuring her and his wife, who tried to intervene. He was charged under Sections 498A, 294(b), 307, and 506(II) of the Indian Penal Code, with attempted murder charges for both his mother-in-law and wife. The Trial Court found him guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment. On appeal, the High Court upheld the conviction under Section 307 IPC but reduced the sentence to 12 years of rigorous imprisonment from life. His convictions under Sections 498A and 324 IPC were also confirmed.
The Bench recognized that there was clear premeditation since the appellant went to his mother-in-law’s shop and attacked both her and his wife. A doctor testified about the injuries sustained by both victims. The Bench explained that Section 307, titled “attempt to murder,” allows for a punishment of life imprisonment or up to 10 years in prison along with a fine. They noted that if life imprisonment is not given, the maximum term can only be 10 years. They referred to the case of Amit Rana @ Koka Vs. State of Haryana (2024), which stated that if the court decides against life imprisonment, the punishment cannot exceed what is outlined in the first part of Section 307, I.P.C. The Bench concluded that the 12-year sentence given by the Appellate Court was not valid, as the maximum under Section 307, I.P.C., if life is avoided, is 10 years.
Taking into account all factors, including the relationships involved and the injuries inflicted, the Bench decided that a 7-year sentence would be appropriate under Section 307, IPC, while partially allowing the appeal and upholding the conviction on other charges under 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
