GOVIND SINGH versus THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH on 29 April 2019

[2019] 6 S.C.R. 1082

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2019] 6 S.C.R.

A

GOVIND SINGH

v.

THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

(Criminal Appeal No. 770 of 2019)

BAPRIL 29, 2019

[R. BANUMATHI AND R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.]

Penal Code, 1860:

s.300 Exception 4 and s.304 (Par II) – Prosecution ofCappellant-accused u/s. 302 – For causing death of his daughter(deceased) – Eye-witnesses to the incident turned hostile – TrialCourt convicted the accused u/s. 302 relying on Dying Declaration– Imprisonment of life imposed – High Court confirmed theconviction and sentence – On appeal, held: The occurrence wassudden and in a spur of moment without any per-meditation –DTherefore, the act of the accused would fall under Exception 4 tos. 300 – The conviction is modified to one u/s. 304 (Part II) – Thesentence is reduced to the period already undergone i.e. about elevenyears.

Partly allowing the appeal, the CourtE

HELD: 1. The entire occurrence was in a spur of moment.There was quarrel between the father and daughter as to wherethe bulb was to be put on. In the sudden quarrel and in spur ofthe moment, the appellant threw the chimney lamp on his daughter.The occurrence was sudden and there was no premeditation. TheFchimney lamp was burning there, which the appellant had pickedup and thrown on the deceased. Since the occurrence was insudden quarrel and there was no premeditation, the act of theaccused would fall under Exception 4 to Section 300.[Para 7][1084-F-G]

G

2. The conviction of the appellant-accused under Section302 IPC is modified as the one under Section 304 Part-II IPC.The appellant-accused has undergone about eleven years andeight months of imprisonment. Considering the facts andcircumstances of the case and the period of imprisonment which H

the appellant-accused has undergone, the sentence ofimprisonment is modified to the period already undergone.[Para 8][1084-H; 1085-A-B]

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal AppealNo. 770 of 2019

From the Judgment and Order dated 11.04.2013 of the High Courtof Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Crl. A. No. 587 of 2008

Ram Lal Roy, Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari, Advs. for the Appellant.

Pranav Sachdeva, Ms. Neha Rathi, Jatin Bhardwaj, Advs. forthe Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal arises out of judgment and order dated 11.04.2013passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Criminal AppealNo.587 of 2008 in and by which the High Court has affirmed theconviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentence of lifeimprisonment imposed upon the appellant.

3. Case of prosecution is that on 23.05.2007 at 07.30 PM,deceased Lalita was sitting in her room along with her friend Dev Kumari(PW-1); while her mother Indra Kunwar (PW-2) was cooking food insidethe house. At that time, the appellant-father of the deceased came toher room and took out the bulb saying that he wanted to connect thesame in the courtyard. When deceased asked her father Govind Singhnot to do so, he disconnected the wire. When deceased startedreconnecting the wire, the appellant asked her not to do and abused herwhich resulted in wordy quarrel. Out of anger, the appellant-accusedthrew burning chimney lamp on the deceased Lalita causing her burninjuries. Upon hearing the cries of the deceased, her mother (PW-2) andher friend Dev Kumari (PW-1) rushed near her. Ram Dayal (PW-4)and Mannu (PW-3) extinguished the fire by pouring water on thedeceased. Immediately thereafter, deceased was taken to CommunityHealth Centre, Odgi where she was attended by Dr. P.K. Patel (PW-9). After giving her the preliminary treatment, deceased was referred toDistrict Hospital, Ambikapur. While deceased was taking treatment atDistrict Hospital, Ambikapur, she succumbed to her injuries on 30.05.2007.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

AInitially the case was registered under Section 307 IPC which wassubsequently altered into Section 302 IPC. The dying declaration of thedeceased (Ex.P-16) was recorded by PW-21-Executive Magistrate inthe presence of Dr. P.K. Patel (PW-9) who certified as to the fit, mentalcondition of the deceased. The eye witnesses Dev Kumari (PW-1),mother Indira Kunwar (PW-2), Manu Singh (PW-3) and Ram DayalB(PW-4) did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile.Mainly relying upon the dying declaration (Ex.P-16), the trial courtconvicted the appellant-accused under Section 302 IPC and sentencedhim to undergo life imprisonment. The High Court affirmed the convictionunder Section 302 IPC and also the sentence of imprisonment imposedCupon the appellant. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before us.4. By our order dated 10.08.2018, notice was issued only limitedto the nature of offence and the quantum of sentence.

5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused and the learned counsel appearing for the State of ChhattisgarhDand perused the impugned judgment and other materials placed on record.

6. The occurrence was at 07.30 PM. While the deceased wastalking with her friend – Dev Kumari (PW-1), the appellant-accusedwanted to take out the bulb as he wanted to connect the same in thecourtyard for which the deceased objected. There was a wordy quarrelEbetween the appellant-father and his daughter-deceased. In the wordyquarrel, the appellant-accused threw chimney lamp on the deceasedcausing her burn injuries. She sustained injuries on her face, chest andstomach and parts below the legs. The deceased succumbed to injuriesseven days after the occurrence.

F

7. The entire occurrence was in a spur of moment. There wasquarrel between the father and daughter as to where the bulb is to beput on. In the sudden quarrel and in spur of the moment, the appellantthrew the chimney lamp on his daughter. The occurrence was suddenand there was no premeditation. The chimney lamp was burning thereGwhich the appellant had picked up and thrown on the deceased. Sincethe occurrence was in sudden quarrel and there was no premeditation,the act of the accused would fall under Exception 4 to Section 300.

8. The conviction of the appellant-accused under Section 302 IPCis modified as the one under Section 304 Part-II IPC. As per jail certificate, H

the appellant-accused had undergone about 10 years, 2 months and 25days as on 26.08.2017. By now, the appellant-accused has undergoneabout eleven years and eight months of imprisonment. Considering thefacts and circumstances of the case and the period of imprisonmentwhich the appellant-accused has undergone, the sentence ofimprisonment is modified to the period already undergone.

9. The conviction of the appellant-accused under Section 302 IPCis modified as conviction under Section 304 Part-II IPC. The sentenceof life imprisonment imposed upon the appellant is reduced to the periodalready undergone by the appellant-accused. The appellant-accused isordered to be released forthwith unless his presence is required in anyother case.

10. The appeal is partly allowed in the above terms.

Kalpana K. Tripathy

Appeal partly allowed.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H