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

J U D G M E N T

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

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

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