Section 9 A&C Act Relief Available Until Award Is Actually Enforced, Even After It Becomes Enforceable: Telangana High Court Matrimonial Litigations Must Not Degenerate Into Contests Of Mutual Humiliation By Weaponising Private Images: Delhi High Court Unarmed Witnesses’ Inaction Against Armed Assailants Justified By Instinct Of Self-Preservation; Testimony Cannot Be Discarded: Allahabad High Court Ocular Evidence Outweighs Motive: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Based On Reliable Eyewitness Testimony Arrest Illegal If Written 'Grounds Of Arrest' Not Furnished To Accused; Communication Of Mere 'Reasons' Insufficient: Bombay High Court Absence Of Territorial Jurisdiction No Ground To Quash FIR At Threshold If Allegations Disclose Cognizable Offence: Calcutta High Court Proof Of Demand Is Sine Qua Non For PC Act Conviction; Voice Recordings Inadmissible Without Sec 65-B Certificate: Chhattisgarh HC Section 91 IEA | Disposition Of Immovable Property Cannot Be Proved By Oral Evidence If Written Document Not Produced: Delhi High Court NRC Legacy Data Extracts Inadmissible Without Section 65B Certificate; PAN Card & EPIC Not Proof Of Citizenship: Gauhati High Court Testimony Of Injured Witness Entitled To Great Weight; Minor Contradictions Due To Lapse Of Memory Cannot Discard Prosecution Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Kerala High Court Remands Teacher Seniority Dispute For Fresh Consideration To Verify If Senior Teacher Relinquished Promotion Claim Receipt Of DNA Report After Testimony Doesn't Automatically Confer Right To Recall Witness For Further Cross-Examination: Madhya Pradesh High Court Possession Of 'Bhang' Not An Offence Under NDPS Act, Specific Definition Excludes It: Jharkhand High Court Acquits Man Trial Court Cannot Reject Request For Handwriting Expert Merely Because Signatures Are On Photocopies: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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