Ganesan vs The State of Tamilnadu Rep. by Inspector of Police

2025 INSC 158 Non-reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 860 OF 2023 (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO.11560 OF 2022)

GANESAN … APPELLANT

-VERSUS-

THE STATE OF TAMILNADU REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE … RESPONDENT

J U D G M E NT

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

The appellant, who was working abroad lost his employment

and returned to his family, comprising of 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 also

suffered injuries.

2. The appellant was booked under Sections 498A, 294(b), 307 Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by and 506(II) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, “the I.P.C.”); the attempt to DEEPAK SINGH Date: 2025.02.07 17:40:44 IST Reason:

murder being levelled on two counts, as committed against the mother and

1 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 (RI) under Section 498A with a fine respectively of Rs.

30,000 and Rs. 20,000, as also three years simple imprisonment (SI) 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 I.P.C. and the sentence was

reduced to 12 years RI from life imprisonment and acquitted the appellant under

Section 506(II), I.P.C. while confirming the conviction and sentence under Sections

498A and 324 I.P.C.; with the further direction that the sentences will run concurrent.

3. In the present appeal, before this Court, notice was issued only

on the quantum of sentence, by order dated 21.11.2022. The conviction, thus, stands

affirmed, as has been found by the High Court, by virtue also of the unshaking

testimony of the injured witnesses, which evidence it is trite has to be accorded a

special status in law.

4. It cannot be disputed that there was premeditation in so far as

the appellant/accused 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. The doctor who examined both the injured, before court, spoke of

the grievous injuries suffered by the mother-in-law but has 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.

5. The Trial Court having imposed life imprisonment, the

Appellate Court modified it and converted it to 12 years RI. Section 307 with the

2 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.

6. In Jagat Bahadur Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh1 relying on the

decisions of various High Courts, it was held that the Appellate Court is 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.

7. This Court also in Amit Rana @ Koka Vs. State of Haryana2

held that a bare perusal of the second part of Section 307 of I.P.C. 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, I.P.C.

8. On the above reasoning, the sentence of 12 years R.I. granted

by the Appellate Court cannot be sustained; since the maximum sentence under

Section 307, I.P.C., if life is avoided, can only be a maximum of 10 years.

1 (1966) 2 SCR 822 2 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1763

3 Considering the entire circumstances, the relationship between the parties and

injuries caused, we are of the opinion that a sentence of 7 years R.I. would suffice

under Section 307, IPC. Accordingly, we modify sentence in the Appellate judgment

under Section 307, as above. The sentence handed over, under the other penal

provisions of the I.P.C. stands confirmed which sentences shall run concurrently as

directed by the Appellate Court. The Criminal Appeal stands partly allowed.

........................................., J.

[B.R. GAVAI]

........................................., J.

[K. VINOD CHANDRAN]

NEW DELHI;

FEBRUARY 07, 2025.

4