Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Article 21-A Cannot Be Held Hostage to Transfer Preferences: Allahabad High Court Upholds Teacher Redeployment to Enforce Pupil–Teacher Ratio Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Paying Tax Does Not Legalise Illegality: Bombay High Court Refuses to Shield Alleged Unauthorized Structure Beneficial Pension Scheme Cannot Be Defeated By Cut-Off Dates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs EPFO To Follow Sunil Kumar B. Guidelines On Higher Pension Claims Equity Aids the Vigilant, Not Those Who Sleep Over Their Rights: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Revive 36-Year-Old Pay Parity Claim Students Cannot Be Penalised For Legislative Invalidity: Supreme Court Protects Degrees Granted Before 2005 Yash Pal Verdict Restructuring Without Fulfilment of Conditions Cannot Defeat Insolvency: Supreme Court Reaffirms Default as the Sole Trigger Under Section 7 IBC Section 100-A CPC Slams The Door On Intra-Court Appeals In RERA Matters”: Allahabad High Court Declares Special Appeal Not Maintainable Mental Distance Between ‘May Be’ and ‘Must Be’ Is Long: Patna High Court Acquits Six in Murder Case Built on Broken Chain of Circumstances Where Corruption Takes Roots, Rule of Law Is Replaced by Rule of Transaction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar Mere Voter List and Corrected SSC Certificate Cannot Prove Paternity: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects 21-Year-Old Bid for DNA Test in Partition Appeal Section 147 NI Act Makes Offence Compoundable At Any Stage: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Concurrent Convictions in Cheque Bounce Case After Settlement Bald Allegations of Adultery Based on Suspicion Cannot Dissolve a Marriage: Jharkhand High Court Once a Document Is Admitted in Evidence, Its Stamp Defect Cannot Be Reopened: Madras High Court

"Lack of Premeditation and Intent" - Punjab and Haryana High Court Alters Conviction in Father's Murder Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has altered the conviction of Balvir Singh, previously found guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the murder of his father. The Division Bench, comprising Justices Gurvinder Singh Gill and Gurbir Singh, has reclassified the conviction to Section 304 Part II IPC, citing a lack of premeditation and intent in the commission of the crime.

The case stemmed from a tragic incident that occurred in the village of Khanal Kalan, where Balvir Singh was accused of murdering his father, Suraj Mall, using a wooden log. Initially, the Additional Sessions Judge-I in Sangrur had sentenced Singh to life imprisonment, along with a fine of Rs. 20,000.

During the appeal, the Division Bench scrutinized the evidence and testimonies, including those from family members, who described the appellant as a quarrelsome person addicted to intoxicants. The Court noted, "The appellant's intoxication not a defense under Section 85 IPC as it was self-administered."

In their observation, the judges stated, "The deceased was the father of the appellant who was asking money from him for intoxication. When his father refused to give money to him, then appellant started beatings him. There was no premeditation to cause death." This remark underscored the Court's rationale behind altering the conviction.

Referring to similar precedents, the Court concluded that the act was done with the knowledge that death was likely but without the intention to cause death or serious injury. As a result, the appellant's sentence was reduced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment.

The judgment has drawn attention to the complexities involved in assessing the intent behind violent acts, especially within familial settings. The Court's decision to alter the conviction highlights a nuanced understanding of the factors contributing to such tragic incidents.

Legal experts view this judgment as a significant commentary on the interpretation of intent and premeditation in criminal law, particularly in cases involving family disputes and substance abuse. The decision is expected to set a precedent for future cases with similar circumstances.

Date of Decision: 15-12-2023

Balvir Singh Vs. State of Punjab

 

Latest Legal News