Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

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