Delay in Test Identification & Absence of Motive Fatal to Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man for Murder Tokre Koli or Dhor Koli – Both Stand on Same Legal Footing: Bombay High Court Slams Scrutiny Committee for Disregarding Pre-Constitutional Records Consent Is No Defence When Victim Is Under 16: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Granting Pre-Arrest Bail in Minor Rape Cases Would Send a Harmful Societal Signal: Delhi High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail to Accused Citing POCSO’s Rigorous Standards Void Marriage No Shield Against Cruelty Charges: Karnataka High Court Affirms Section 498A Applies Even In Deceptive and Void Marital Relationships Consolidation Authorities Cannot Confer Ownership Or Alter Scheme Post Confirmation Without Due Process: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Jurisdiction Over Void Post-Scheme Orders Litigation Policy is Not Law, Can’t Enforce Guidelines Through Courts: Rajasthan High Court Refuses to Entertain Quo Warranto Against Additional Advocate General’s Appointment Police and Lawyers Are Two Limbs of Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance in Police Misconduct Incident Sole Testimony, Forensic Gaps, and Withheld Witness: No Conviction Possible: Delhi High Court Affirms Acquittal in Murder Trial Remand Keeps the Dispute Alive – Not Arrears: Bombay High Court Holds SVLDRS Relief Must Be Computed Under Litigation Category Use of ‘Absconding’ in Employment Context Not Defamatory Per Se, But A Privileged Communication Under Exception 7 of Section 499 IPC: Allahabad High Court Daughter’s Right Extinguished When Partition Effected Prior to 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Trial Courts Cannot Direct Filing of Challan After Conviction — Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Directions Against DSP Veer Singh Rule 4 Creates Parity, Not a Parallel Pension Pipeline: Rajasthan High Court Denies Dual Pension to Ex-Chief Justice Serving as SHRC Chairperson Right to Be Heard Must Be Preserved Where Claim Has a Legal Basis: Orissa High Court Upholds Impleadment of Will Beneficiary in Partition Suit Long-Term Ad Hocism Is Exploitation, Not Employment: Orissa High Court Orders Regularization Of Junior Typist After 25 Years Of Service PIL Cannot Be a Tool for Personal Grievances: Supreme Court Upholds Municipal Body’s Power to Revise Property Tax After 16 Years Omission of Accused’s Name by Eyewitness in FIR is a Fatal Lacuna: Supreme Court Acquits Man Convicted of Murder Correction In Revenue Map Under Section 30 Isn’t A Tool To Shift Plot Location After 17 Years: Supreme Court Quashes High Court’s Remand Casteist Abuses Must Be In Public View: Supreme Court Quashes SC/ST Act Proceedings Where Alleged Insults Occurred Inside Complainant’s House Resignation Bars Pension, But Not Gratuity: Supreme Court Draws Sharp Line Between Voluntary Retirement and Resignation in DTC Employee Case

Intention of the accused paramount in determining offense under IPC Section 307: Punjab and Haryana HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently upheld a lower court's order to frame charges against a petitioner accused of attempted murder under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and stated that Intention of the accused paramount in determining offense. The court also dismissed the petitioner's application seeking to substitute the charge with a less severe charge under Section 323 of IPC.

The petitioner, Sukhjeet Singh, had approached the High Court seeking to challenge an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Moga, Punjab, that dismissed his application under Section 228 (1) (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking framing of charges under Section 323 of IPC in substitute of Section 307 of IPC along with other sections as mentioned in the FIR.

The case pertains to an incident that occurred on 3rd January 2020, when a group of Nihang Singhs, led by Sukhjeet Singh, along with other protesters, had gathered outside the Police Station Dharamkot in Moga, Punjab, to demand the arrest of accused persons in a murder case. The police officials present at the station tried to pacify the protesters, but Sukhjeet Singh, in furtherance of the common object of the co-accused, allegedly gave a blow with a sharp-edged weapon on the head of the complainant, SI Guljinderpal Singh.

The court observed that while framing charges under Section 307 of IPC, the court needs to see whether the act was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in this section. The court further held that proof of grievous or life-threatening hurt is not a requirement for the offense under Section 307 of the IPC, and the intention of the accused can be ascertained from the actual injury and surrounding circumstances.

The court found that prima facie case under Section 307 IPC was made out against the petitioner as he had given a blow with a sharp-edged weapon on the head of the complainant. Therefore, the court dismissed the petition, warranting no interference with the order passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Moga.

The court's decision highlights the significance of the intention of the accused in determining the nature of the offense under Section 307 of the IPC. The court's decision also emphasizes that the severity of the injury is not the only criterion in determining the nature of the offense under this section of the IPC.

Sukhjeet Singh vs  State of Punjab 

Latest Legal News