LexGOVIND SINGH versus THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1082
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
GOVIND SINGH
v.
THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
(Criminal Appeal No. 770 of 2019)
APRIL 29, 2019
[R. BANUMATHI AND R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860:
s.300 Exception 4 and s.304 (Par II) – Prosecution of
appellant-accused u/s. 302 – For causing death of his daughter
(deceased) – Eye-witnesses to the incident turned hostile – Trial
Court convicted the accused u/s. 302 relying on Dying Declaration
– Imprisonment of life imposed – High Court confirmed the
conviction and sentence – On appeal, held: The occurrence was
sudden and in a spur of moment without any per-meditation –
Therefore, the act of the accused would fall under Exception 4 to
s. 300 – The conviction is modified to one u/s. 304 (Part II) – The
sentence is reduced to the period already undergone i.e. about eleven
years.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The entire occurrence was in a spur of moment.
There was quarrel between the father and daughter as to where
the bulb was to be put on. In the sudden quarrel and in spur of
the moment, the appellant threw the chimney lamp on his daughter.
The occurrence was sudden and there was no premeditation. The
chimney lamp was burning there, which the appellant had picked
up and thrown on the deceased. Since the occurrence was in
sudden quarrel and there was no premeditation, the act of the
accused would fall under Exception 4 to Section 300.
[Para 7][1084-F-G]
2. The conviction of the appellant-accused under Section
302 IPC is modified as the one under Section 304 Part-II IPC.
The appellant-accused has undergone about eleven years and
eight months of imprisonment. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case and the period of imprisonment which
[2019] 6 S.C.R. 1082
1082
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1083
the appellant-accused has undergone, the sentence of
imprisonment is modified to the period already undergone.
[Para 8][1084-H; 1085-A-B]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 770 of 2019
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.04.2013 of the High Court
of 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. for
the 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 11.04.2013
passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal
No.587 of 2008 in and by which the High Court has affirmed the
conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentence of life
imprisonment 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 inside
the house. At that time, the appellant-father of the deceased came to
her room and took out the bulb saying that he wanted to connect the
same in the courtyard. When deceased asked her father Govind Singh
not to do so, he disconnected the wire. When deceased started
reconnecting the wire, the appellant asked her not to do and abused her
which resulted in wordy quarrel. Out of anger, the appellant-accused
threw burning chimney lamp on the deceased Lalita causing her burn
injuries. Upon hearing the cries of the deceased, her mother (PW-2) and
her friend Dev Kumari (PW-1) rushed near her. Ram Dayal (PW-4)
and Mannu (PW-3) extinguished the fire by pouring water on the
deceased. Immediately thereafter, deceased was taken to Community
Health Centre, Odgi where she was attended by Dr. P.K. Patel (PW-
9). After giving her the preliminary treatment, deceased was referred to
District Hospital, Ambikapur. While deceased was taking treatment at
District Hospital, Ambikapur, she succumbed to her injuries on 30.05.2007.
GOVIND SINGH v. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1084
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
Initially the case was registered under Section 307 IPC which was
subsequently altered into Section 302 IPC. The dying declaration of the
deceased (Ex.P-16) was recorded by PW-21-Executive Magistrate in
the presence of Dr. P.K. Patel (PW-9) who certified as to the fit, mental
condition of the deceased. The eye witnesses Dev Kumari (PW-1),
mother Indira Kunwar (PW-2), Manu Singh (PW-3) and Ram Dayal
(PW-4) did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile.
Mainly relying upon the Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.