Bombay High Court Upholds Life Sentence for Attempted Murder; Refuses Reduction Despite Victim’s Recovery, Citing Head Gunshot, Intent, Gravity and Sentencing Principles Under Section 307 IPC
Victim’s Survival and Healthy Life No Ground to Reduce Section 307 Sentence: Bombay High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment for Head Gunshot
Facts
The appellant, Jeevan Devram Shirsath, challenged his conviction and sentence imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge-2, Kalyan, in Sessions Case No. 320 of 2015. He had been convicted under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life with a fine of ₹1,00,000, besides three-year concurrent sentences under Sections 3 read with 25 and 7 read with 27 of the Arms Act. He had been acquitted of conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC and offences under the Maharashtra Police Act; the other tried co-accused were acquitted.
The prosecution case was that on 7 June 2015 at about 3:45 p.m., the appellant called complainant Sarfaraj Akbarali Sayyed to Vallipeer Chowk near S. Kumar Jewellers, Kalyan. The appellant allegedly arrived with two associates in a Hyundai Accent and fired a gunshot at the complainant’s head, causing an injury above his right eye/eyebrow. His associates allegedly exhorted him to kill the complainant.
The complainant was taken to Fortis Hospital and underwent surgery. The prosecution attributed the attack to a money dispute between the complainant and the appellant.
The Trial Court found that the bullet had entered the complainant’s brain and could not safely be removed because doing so posed a risk to his life. It regarded the daytime shooting in a public place, from close range and directed at the head, as sufficiently grave to warrant life imprisonment.
Issues
The appellant ultimately did not challenge the conviction on merits. His counsel confined the appeal substantially to the quantum of sentence.
The principal issues therefore were:
- Whether imprisonment for life under the second part of Section 307 IPC should be reduced in the circumstances of the case.
- Whether the complainant’s eventual recovery and ability to lead a normal life justified a lesser sentence.
- Whether the absence of repeated firing, the appellant’s lengthy incarceration, lack of previous criminal antecedents and family circumstances constituted sufficient mitigating factors.
- Whether the Supreme Court decisions in Amit Rana @ Koka v. State of Haryana and Ganesan v. State of Tamil Nadu required the sentence to be brought within the ten-year maximum prescribed in the first part of Section 307.
- How aggravating and mitigating circumstances ought to be balanced while exercising appellate sentencing discretion.
Appellant’s Arguments
The appellant argued that Section 307 IPC does not prescribe a mandatory minimum sentence and therefore punishment must depend upon the individual facts of each case.
His counsel emphasised that although the complainant had suffered a firearm injury to the brain, he ultimately survived, had no permanent life-threatening complication and had been leading a normal and healthy life for approximately eleven years.
It was also argued that:
- there was only one gunshot;
- the appellant did not repeatedly attack the complainant despite alleged instigation from co-accused;
- he had undergone approximately 11 years and 10 months of incarceration;
- he was a first-time offender without criminal antecedents; and
- he was married and had a three-year-old child, demonstrating potential for rehabilitation.
The appellant therefore requested that the sentence be reduced to the period already undergone.
He relied particularly upon Amit Rana @ Koka and Ganesan, where Supreme Court sentences under Section 307 had been reduced.
State and Complainant’s Arguments
The State strongly opposed reduction of sentence.
It argued that the appellant’s intention was apparent from:
- procurement of a country-made firearm;
- firing at the complainant from close range;
- deliberately aiming at the head, a vital part of the body; and
- the surrounding circumstances demonstrating awareness that the act was likely to cause death.
The complainant’s counsel adopted and supported the State’s submissions.
Analysis of the Law
1. Section 307 focuses on intention and the act, not merely its ultimate result
The High Court relied upon State of M.P. v. Saleem @ Chamaru and State of M.P. v. Kashiram.
These decisions establish that conviction under Section 307 does not require an injury which would ordinarily cause death. The decisive question is whether the act was committed with the requisite intention or knowledge and in circumstances attracting the section.
The actual result of the attack is not determinative.
The Court therefore rejected the argument that the victim’s eventual recovery substantially diminished the seriousness of the offence.
It held that for the second part of Section 307, what matters is that hurt was caused pursuant to an act performed with the requisite intention or knowledge. Whether the victim later fully recovers concerns the consequence of the act, not the culpability underlying it.
2. Section 307 contains a distinct sentencing structure when hurt is caused
The second part of Section 307 applies where hurt is actually caused during the attempt.
In such circumstances, the statute permits imprisonment for life.
The appellant relied upon Supreme Court judgments holding that where the court chooses not to impose life imprisonment, the alternative term sentence cannot exceed the ten-year maximum prescribed in the first part of Section 307.
The Bombay High Court accepted that legal proposition but held that it did not assist the appellant because the Trial Court had expressly and consciously chosen life imprisonment.
Precedent Analysis
Amit Rana @ Koka v. State of Haryana
In Amit Rana, the accused had initially received 14 years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 307.
The Supreme Court held that where life imprisonment is not imposed, a fixed-term sentence under Section 307 cannot exceed the ten-year maximum contained in the first part. It therefore reduced the 14-year term to ten years.
The Bombay High Court distinguished the case.
Amit Rana did not hold that life imprisonment under the second part of Section 307 is impermissible. Rather, it concerned the legality of imposing a fixed term exceeding ten years after the sentencing court had chosen not to award life imprisonment.
Ganesan v. State of Tamil Nadu
Ganesan similarly held that if life imprisonment is avoided, the alternative punishment cannot exceed ten years. In that case a 12-year sentence was ultimately reduced to seven years based on the factual circumstances.
Again, the High Court held that this principle did not prevent life imprisonment where the factual gravity warranted it.
The Court summarised the governing principle: if the court concludes that life imprisonment is unwarranted, the fixed term cannot exceed the first-part limit. But where the court finds that life imprisonment itself is warranted, Amit Rana and Ganesan do not compel reduction.
Ahsan v. State of U.P.
The Court found Ahsan factually closer.
There, a country-made pistol had been fired at the victim’s head, causing grievous injury. The Supreme Court upheld life imprisonment, emphasising that sentencing requires consideration of the nature and gravity of the offence, manner of commission, motive, injuries, weapon and other aggravating or extenuating factors.
The Supreme Court in Ahsan held that where those circumstances have been properly assessed by the courts below, appellate interference with sentence is limited.
The Bombay High Court applied that reasoning directly.
Parameshwari v. State of Tamil Nadu
The High Court also relied upon the Supreme Court’s recent sentencing judgment in Parameshwari, 2026 INSC 164.
That decision emphasised that sentencing must balance:
- proportionality between offence and punishment;
- the individual facts and evidence;
- impact of the crime upon society; and
- aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
It also cautioned appellate courts against reducing sentences mechanically or capriciously.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court found several powerful aggravating circumstances.
First, the appellant had procured a firearm, indicating preparation rather than a wholly spontaneous assault.
Second, he fired from close range and specifically targeted the complainant’s head, one of the most vital parts of the human body.
Third, the bullet entered and remained lodged in the complainant’s brain because surgical removal was considered dangerous to his life. The treating doctor regarded the injury as grievous and potentially fatal.
Fourth, the incident occurred during the day in a public place.
The Court held that the victim’s survival and subsequent normal life could not retrospectively alter the intention and knowledge accompanying the appellant’s act.
It also rejected the submission that lack of repeated firing demonstrated absence of intention to kill. The nature of the weapon, target, proximity and resulting brain injury were sufficient to sustain the Trial Court’s sentencing assessment.
Although the Court considered the mitigating circumstances relied upon by the appellant—including his long incarceration and family situation—it found them insufficient to outweigh the gravity of the offence.
After independently examining the record despite the appellant declining to challenge conviction on merits, the Bench concluded that the Trial Court had correctly regarded the offence as sufficiently serious to deny leniency.
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court refused to reduce the life sentence.
It held that the Supreme Court rulings in Amit Rana and Ganesan did not establish that punishment under Section 307 must invariably be capped at ten years. They merely establish that where life imprisonment is not chosen, a fixed-term sentence cannot exceed the ten-year ceiling under the first part of Section 307.
In the present case, the Trial Court had expressly chosen life imprisonment after considering the deliberate close-range gunshot to the complainant’s head, the grievous brain injury, the weapon used and the circumstances of the offence.
Applying the principles in Saleem, Kashiram, Ahsan and Parameshwari, the High Court found no case for interference with the quantum of punishment.
The criminal appeal was therefore dismissed, and all pending applications were disposed of.
Case Details
Case: Jeevan Devram Shirsath v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Court: Bombay High Court, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 1196 of 2018 with Interim Application No. 1057 of 2026
Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:36971-DB
Bench: Justice Manish Pitale and Justice Shreeram V. Shirsat
Reserved On: 6 August 2026
Pronounced On: 8 September 2026
Original Offences: Section 307 IPC; Sections 3 read with 25 and 7 read with 27, Arms Act
Result: Appeal dismissed; conviction and life imprisonment under Section 307 IPC left undisturbed; Court refused to reduce sentence despite long incarceration and victim’s recovery.
