Govind Singh vs The State Of Chhattisgarh

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 770 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP (CRL.) NO. 6695 OF 2018)

GOVIND SINGH ...Appellant

VERSUS

THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH ...Respondent

JUDGMENT

R. BANUMATHI, J.

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

Signature Not Verified appellant.

Digitally signed by MADHU BALA Date: 2019.04.29

3. Case of prosecution is that on 23.05.2007 at 07.30 PM, 17:14:59 IST Reason:

deceased Lalita was sitting in her room along with her friend Dev 1 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. 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

2 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 dying

declaration (Ex.P-16), the trial court convicted the appellant-

accused under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo

life imprisonment. The High Court affirmed the conviction under

Section 302 IPC and also the sentence of imprisonment imposed

upon the appellant. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before us.

4. By our order dated 10.08.2018, notice was issued only

limited to 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 Chhattisgarh and perused the impugned judgment and

other materials placed on record.

6. The occurrence was at 07.30 PM. While the deceased was

talking with her friend – Dev Kumari (PW-1), the appellant-

accused wanted to take out the bulb as he wanted to connect the

same in the courtyard for which the deceased objected. There

3 was a wordy quarrel between the appellant-father and his

daughter-deceased. In the wordy quarrel, the appellant-accused

threw chimney lamp on the deceased causing her burn injuries.

She sustained injuries on her face, chest and stomach and parts

below the legs. The deceased succumbed to injuries seven days

after the occurrence.

7. The entire occurrence was in a spur of moment. There was

quarrel between the father and daughter as to where the bulb is

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.

8. The conviction of the appellant-accused under Section 302

IPC is modified as the one under Section 304 Part-II IPC. As per

jail certificate, the appellant-accused had undergone about 10

years, 2 months and 25 days as on 26.08.2017. By now, the

appellant-accused has undergone about eleven years and eight

months of imprisonment. Considering the facts and 4 circumstances of the case and the period of imprisonment which

the appellant-accused has undergone, the sentence of

imprisonment is modified to the period already undergone.

9. The conviction of the appellant-accused under Section 302

IPC is modified as conviction under Section 304 Part-II IPC. The

sentence of life imprisonment imposed upon the appellant is

reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant-

accused. The appellant-accused is ordered to be released

forthwith unless his presence is required in any other case.

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

……………………..J. [R. BANUMATHI]

…………………………..J. [R. SUBHASH REDDY]

New Delhi;

April 29, 2019

5