Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Fraudulent Sale of Vehicle During Hire Purchase Renders Agreement Void: Gauhati High Court Upholds Decree for Refund of ₹4.90 Lakhs Unsigned Written Statement Can’t Silence a Defendant: Hyper-Technical Objections Must Yield to Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Default Bail | No Accused, No Extension: Delhi High Court Rules Custody Extension Without Notice as Gross Illegality Under Article 21 Gratuity Can Be Withheld Post-Retirement for Proven Negligence Under Service Rules – Payment of Gratuity Act Does Not Override CDA Rules: Calcutta High Court Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction

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