Attempt To Murder| Actions Were Not Premeditated: SC Reduces Sentence Of Convict From 5 To 3 Years Rigorous Imprisonment
The Supreme Court in an attempt to murder case noted that the Accused had no prior criminal record, and there was no evidence to show that the actions were pre-meditated. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Court reduced the sentence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) of the Appellant from five years to three years of rigorous imprisonment.
The Appellant was convicted of attacking a person trying to protect his crops from the Appellant and his co-accused. The High Court affirmed the Trial Court’s conviction of the Appellant.
“There are no criminal antecedents of the appellant that have been brought on record. Further, from the record, it cannot be said that the appellant acted in a premeditated manner, whatsoever…Therefore, in the interest of justice and in consideration of the abovementioned mitigating factors, this Court reduces the sentence imposed on the appellant - accused from 5 years rigorous imprisonment to 3 years of rigorous imprisonment”, the Bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Sanjay Karol noted.
Senior Advocate Vinod Prasad appeared for the Appellant, and Advocate Garvesh Kabra appeared for the Respondent.
At 6:00 AM, Kapil Deo Misir (PW1) witnessed Pramod Kumar Mishra (Appellant) and a group of people destroying his crops on his way home. PW1 attempted to stop them, but they responded by attacking him with Lathis and Ballam. As a result, PW1 was injured and lost consciousness. Following the incident, PW1 reported it to the police, who filed an FIR against Jawahar @ Munna Mishra (A1), Pramod Mishra (A2/Appellant), and Suresh Mishra (A3). The accused individuals were investigated, and a chargesheet was submitted. The case went to trial, with the accused being charged under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The trial Court convicted the Appellant under Section 307 IPC while acquitting the others due to a lack of evidence.
A Criminal Appeal was filed challenging the order and judgment of the High Court, confirming the judgment and order of the Trial Court. The Trial Court sentenced him to undergo five years of rigorous imprisonment.
The Court noted that the issue to ascertain was whether the sentence imposed by the Trial Court and as upheld by the High Court is just and proper. It referred to the cases of Jagmohan Singh v. State of U.P. [ (1973) 1 SCC 20] and Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr [(2014) 6 SCC 466] and reiterated that the conviction decision should be based on the specific facts of each case.
The Court further emphasised that India currently lacks a statutory sentencing policy and therefore, examined the objectives behind sentencing and the factors that should be considered when imposing punishments.
The Court noted that attempting to commit murder under Section 307 IPC is punishable with up to 10 years of imprisonment and if the act has caused harm to the person, the punishment may extend to life imprisonment and a fine.
Furthermore, the Court said, "... it can be seen that 39 years have passed since the date of offence and both the other accused persons have come to be acquitted. From a reading of the impugned order, it is a matter of record that there was old enmity between the complainant and A1 relating to the piece of land where the offence came to be committed, while pertinently, the appellant (A2) is the nephew of A1."
Accordingly, the Court partly allowed the Appeal and reduced the sentence to three years of rigorous imprisonment.
Cause Title: Pramod Kumar Mishra v. The State of U.P. (2023 INSC 791)
