Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
GURVINDER SINGH GILL, JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Inderjit Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Jasjit Singh Bedi, J.
1. This order shall dispose of two criminal appeals i.e. CRA-48-DB-2005 preferred by the accused-appellant, namely, Inderjit Singh against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04/07.12.2004 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sangrur and the other appeal bearing No. CRA-172-DB-2005 preferred by the accused-appellant, namely, Yash Kamal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04/07.12.2004 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sangrur.
2. The FIR in the present case came to be registered on 02.07.2003. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence was passed on 04/07.12.2004 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sangrur. The appeals preferred against the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence have come up for final hearing now i.e. after a period of 211/2 years from the date of registration of the FIR.
3. For the sake of convenience, the facts being are taken from CRA-48-DB-2005.
4. The present case was registered on the statement Ex. PE of Surinder Kumar (PW3) resident of Sunam. Devinder Kumar, now deceased was his son. According to statement Ex.PE of Surinder Kumar, a day prior to 01.07.2003, there had been an alter
The court ruled that the actions of the appellants amounted to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, reducing their conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 Part II IPC due to lack of intent.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of legal provisions and case laws to determine the nature of the offence and the intention of the accused.
The court ruled that a sudden quarrel without premeditation led to a conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC, rather than murder under Section 302 IPC.
The court modified the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, emphasizing the absence of premeditation and the nature of the altercation as a sudden fight.
Murder and attempt to murder – In a case of free fight between parties where both parties have sustained injuries, benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 can be extended.
The court ruled that the incident was a sudden fight, reducing the conviction of appellant No.1 from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 part-II of IPC.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC in cases of sudden fights and the absence of premeditation, leading to a conviction under Section....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
