Supreme Court Lays Down Comprehensive Guidelines To Prevent Misuse Of POCSO Act In Matrimonial Disputes Land Reforms Act | Joint Application For Pre-Emption By Adjoining Landowners Is Maintainable: Calcutta High Court Ocular Evidence In Conflict With Medical Findings Or Withholding Of Natural Witnesses Vitiates Prosecution Case: Allahabad High Court Compassionate Appointment Claim Must Be Decided Based On Policy Prevalent At Time Of Death: Bombay High Court Section 376 IPC | Failure To Prove Initial Dishonest Intent In Marriage Promise Renders Sexual Relationship Consensual: Allahabad High Court Prolonged Incarceration And Delay In Trial Are Valid Grounds To Invoke Constitutional Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 In UAPA Cases: Delhi High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Insurer Liable To Pay And Recover Compensation For Gratuitous Passengers In Goods Vehicles: Gujarat High Court Proof Of Demand And Acceptance Under PC Act Must Be Evaluated Based On Preponderance Of Probabilities In Rebuttal: Kerala High Court Tenancy Claim | Mere Possession Without Lawful Foundation Or Identification Of Tenanted Land Cannot Confer Occupancy Rights: Karnataka High Court 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Evaded By Claiming Physical Disability If Conduct Indicates Concealment Of Financial Means: Kerala High Court M.P. Municipal Corporation Act | Locus Standi Under Section 307(5) Limited To Residents Of The Municipal Area: Madhya Pradesh High Court Writ Jurisdiction | Belated Challenge To Disciplinary Action After Superannuation Amounts To Laches; Petition Dismissed: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC | Mere Pendency Of Partition Suit Does Not Entitle Plaintiff To Injunction Restraining Reconstruction Of Residential Building: Kerala High Court Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Section 482 CrPC | High Court Quashes FIR Following Private Compromise In Non-Heinous Dispute Arising From Civil Conflict Mere Involvement In Criminal Case Does Not Constitute Moral Turpitude To Deny Public Appointment: Telangana High Court Pendency Of Investigation Cannot Be A Blanket Ground To Deny Permission For Foreign Travel: Rajasthan High Court Fraudulent Representation By Counsel Vitiates Ex Parte Decree: Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds Professional Misconduct As Evidence Of Fraud Writ Jurisdiction | Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Pending Criminal And Departmental Proceedings Renders Petition Liable To Dismissal: Orissa High Court Banking Fraud | Failure Of Bank Official To Conduct Physical Inspection Of Collateral Property Constitutes Criminal Conspiracy And Abuse Of Official Position: Madras High Court Fraud Vitiates Judicial Proceedings: Judgment Obtained Through Misrepresentation And Conflict Of Interest Cannot Be Sustained, Holds Punjab And Haryana High Court Discovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act From Publicly Accessible Place Requires Caution: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Articles At Instance Of Accused Without Independent Corroboration Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court DNA Profile Must Be Supported By Other Conclusive Evidence To Prove Guilt: Supreme Court

Supreme Court Alters Conviction and Sentences Indian Army Lance Naik Under Section 304 (Part I) of IPC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has altered the conviction and sentence of an Indian Army Lance Naik in Criminal Appeal No. 1791 of 2023. The appellant, Lance Naik Gursewak Singh, was earlier convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 69 of the Army Act, 1950, by the Court Martial for an unfortunate incident that occurred in 2004.

The apex court, comprising of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Sanjay Karol, examined the circumstances surrounding the incident and the appellant's conduct during the altercation. The incident involved a sudden fight between the appellant and another soldier, Lance Naik Kala Singh, over the issue of seniority. The appellant, in a heated moment, snatched the rifle from the deceased and fired a single bullet, tragically resulting in the death of the fellow soldier.

In its judgment, the Supreme Court considered the applicability of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC, which deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder in certain situations. The court noted that the incident lacked premeditation or intention to cause death and held that Exception 4 was applicable in this case.

Justice Abhay S. Oka, delivering the judgment, stated, "The appellant, in the facts of the case, cannot be said to have acted in such a cruel manner which will deprive him of the benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC." The court found that the appellant's act was not characterized by cruelty, and he had fired only one bullet despite having more rounds in the rifle.

Taking into account the appellant's good conduct and the period of approximately 9 years and 3 months he had already served in incarceration, the Supreme Court deemed it an appropriate sentence. Consequently, the appellant's conviction was altered to Section 304 (Part I) of IPC, and he was sentenced to the period already served.

Date of Decision: July 27, 2023

Gursewak Singh vs Union of India & Anr.     

Latest Legal News