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

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