MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Spur of the Moment Incident Leads to Conviction Modification: High Court Alters Section 302 to 304 Part-I IPC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan has modified a life imprisonment sentence, demonstrating the nuances of law in cases of sudden and spontaneous disputes. The court, presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Bhandari and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bhuwan Goyal, has set a precedent by altering the conviction of an appellant from Section 302 to Section 304 Part-I of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The appellant, Jasvinder Singh @ Kalu, was originally convicted for murder under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. The case, dating back to an incident on 07.08.2011, involved a dispute over the right of way that escalated into a violent altercation leading to a shooting and death.

In their observation, the Hon’ble justices noted, “the incident took place on the spur of the moment, both the parties are related to each other, there is a land dispute between the parties and dispute pertaining to right of way.” This critical observation formed the basis for reconsidering the conviction under a different section of the IPC.

The court meticulously reviewed the witness testimonies and evidence, highlighting that the altercation was not premeditated but a result of a momentary lapse in judgment. “On the spur of moment, when hot exchanges started between the parties, the appellant opened fire on the deceased,” the court observed, delineating the impulsive nature of the act.

The judgment aligns with a similar situation addressed in the case of Narendra Singh & Anr. Versus State of Rajasthan, where the High Court converted the offence from Section 302 of IPC to Section 304 Part-I IPC. The parallels drawn between the two cases played a crucial role in the court’s decision-making process.

Appellant’s conviction under Section 302 IPC was set aside, and he was instead convicted for offence under Section 304 Part-I IPC, sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment. This ruling not only sheds light on the court’s approach to cases involving sudden disputes but also emphasizes the importance of context in legal judgments.

Represented by Mr. Govind Prasad Rawat, the appellant’s case is a testament to the dynamic nature of legal interpretations in criminal law. The State was represented by Mr. Javed Choudhary, Add.G.A., and the complainant by Mr. Rahul Tiwari, Adv. This judgment is expected to have significant implications for similar cases in the future, where the circumstances of the incident play a pivotal role in determining the appropriate legal course.

Date of Decision: 06/11/2023

Jasvinder Singh @ Kalu VS State Of Rajasthan Through PP 

Latest Legal News