Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     When Two Accused Face Identical Charges, One Cannot Be Convicted While the Other is Acquitted: Supreme Court Emphasizes Principle of Parity in Acquittal    |     Supreme Court Limits Interim Protection for Financial Institutions, Modifies Order on FIRs Filed by Borrowers    |     Kerala High Court Grants Regular Bail in Methamphetamine Case After Delay in Chemical Analysis Report    |     No Sign of Recent Intercourse; No Injury Was Found On Her Body Or Private Parts: Gauhati High Court Acquits Two In Gang Rape Case    |     Failure to Disclose Relationship with Key Stakeholder Led to Setting Aside of Arbitral Award: Gujarat High Court    |     Strict Compliance with UAPA's 7-Day Timeline for Sanctions is Essential:  Supreme Court    |     PAT Teachers Entitled to Regularization from 2014, Quashes Prospective Regularization as Arbitrary: Himachal Pradesh High Court    |     Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Anonymity Protections for Victims in Sensitive Cases: Right to Privacy Prevails Over Right to Information    |     Certified Copy of Will Admissible Under Registration Act, 1908: Allahabad HC Dismisses Plea for Production of Original Will    |     Injuries on Non-Vital Parts Do Not Warrant Conviction for Attempt to Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court Modifies Conviction Under Section 307 IPC to Section 326 IPC    |     Classification Based on Wikipedia Data Inadmissible; Tribunal to Reassess Using Actual Financial Records: PH High Court Orders Reconsideration of Wage Dispute    |     Mere Delay in Initiation Does Not Justify Reduction of Damages: Jharkhand High Court on Provident Fund Defaults    |     Legatee Can Continue Suit Without Probate, But Decree Contingent on Probate Approval: Orissa High Court    |     An Award that Shocks the Conscience of the Court Cannot Stand, Especially When Public Money is Involved: Calcutta HC Reduces Quantum by Half    |     Trademark Transaction Within Territoriality Principle Subject to Indian Tax Laws: Bombay High Court Dismisses Hindustan Unilever's Petition on Non-Deduction of TDS    |     Concealment of Material Facts Bars Relief under Article 226: SC Reprimands Petitioners for Lack of Bonafides    |     Without Determination of the Will's Genuineness, Partition is Impossible: Supreme Court on Liberal Approach to Pleading Amendments    |     Candidates Cannot Challenge a Selection Process After Participating Without Protest : Delhi High Court Upholds ISRO's Administrative Officer Recruitment    |     Invalid Bank Guarantee Invocation Found Fatal to Recovery Claim: Delhi High Court Dismisses GAIL’s Appeal    |     Adverse Remarks in APAR Recorded Without Objectivity and Likely Motivated by Bias: Delhi High Court Quashes Biased APAR Downgrade of CRPF Officer    |    

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 

Similar News