Supreme Court reduces murder conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder in a case of father throwing burning lamp on his daughter: Govind Singh vs. State of Chhattisgarh (29 April 2019)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 29 April 2019
Citation: (2019) INSC 459
Judges: R. Banumathi, J. and R. Subhash Reddy, J.

Can a sudden quarrel between a father and daughter over a minor issue lead to a charge of murder if it results in death? The Supreme Court of India recently examined this question in a case where a father threw a burning chimney lamp at his daughter during an argument. The court’s decision highlights the distinction between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder, particularly in cases of sudden altercations. This judgment provides valuable insights into the application of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and its exceptions.

Case Background

On May 23, 2007, at 7:30 PM, Lalita was in her room with her friend Dev Kumari (PW-1), while her mother, Indra Kunwar (PW-2), was cooking. Govind Singh, Lalita’s father, entered the room and removed a light bulb, stating he wanted to use it in the courtyard. Lalita objected, leading to a verbal altercation. In a fit of anger, Govind Singh threw a burning chimney lamp at Lalita, causing severe burn injuries. Lalita’s mother and friend rushed to her aid, and with the help of others, the fire was extinguished. Lalita was taken to the Community Health Centre, Odgi, and then referred to the District Hospital, Ambikapur, where she died on May 30, 2007. Initially, the case was registered under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, but was later altered to Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, after Lalita’s death. The trial court convicted Govind Singh under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, based primarily on Lalita’s dying declaration.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, sentencing him to life imprisonment. The High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur upheld this conviction and sentence. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court of India, challenging the conviction and sentence. The Supreme Court limited the scope of the appeal to the nature of the offense and the quantum of sentence.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which defines murder. The relevant part of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, states:

“300. Murder.—Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or—
Secondly.—If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or—
Thirdly.—If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or—
Fourthly.—If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.”

Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, is also crucial, which states:

“Exception 4.—Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The incident occurred in the heat of a sudden quarrel between the father and daughter over a minor issue of where to place a light bulb.
• There was no premeditation on the part of the appellant to cause the death of his daughter.
• The act of throwing the burning lamp was a spur-of-the-moment reaction during the quarrel.
• The case falls under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and should be considered culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The act of throwing a burning lamp was a deliberate act that caused severe burn injuries leading to the death of the victim.
• The dying declaration of the deceased clearly indicates that the appellant intentionally threw the lamp at her.
• The act constitutes murder under Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, as it was done with the knowledge that it could cause death or grievous injury.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The main issue framed by the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the act of the appellant-accused falls under the definition of murder under Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, or whether it falls under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, making it culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Defines murder and its exceptions.
• Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: States that culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel.
• Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: The court considered the definition of murder but found that the facts of the case fell under the exception to the definition.
• Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: The court applied this exception and found that the act was done in a sudden quarrel without premeditation, making it culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
• Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: The court modified the conviction to this section, as the act was found to be culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following points:

• The incident occurred during a sudden quarrel between the father and daughter over a minor issue.
• There was no premeditation on the part of the appellant to cause the death of his daughter.
• The act of throwing the burning lamp was a spur-of-the-moment reaction during the quarrel.
• The case falls under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court reasoned that the incident occurred in a sudden quarrel and there was no premeditation. The Court noted, “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 Court further observed, “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.” The court concluded, “The conviction of the appellant-accused under Section 302 IPC is modified as the one under Section 304 Part-II IPC.”

Key Takeaways

• Distinction between murder and culpable homicide is crucial in criminal law.
• Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, applies to cases of sudden fights without premeditation.
• The absence of premeditation and the presence of a sudden quarrel can reduce the charge from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
• The court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone, considering the facts and circumstances of the case.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellant-accused be released forthwith unless his presence is required in any other case, as he had already undergone the modified sentence.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that when an act is committed in a sudden quarrel without premeditation, it falls under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and is considered culpable homicide not amounting to murder, not murder. This judgment reinforces the importance of considering the circumstances of the incident when determining the nature of the offense.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court modified the conviction of Govind Singh from murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The court found that the incident occurred during a sudden quarrel without premeditation, thus falling under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The sentence was reduced to the period already undergone, and the appellant was ordered to be released.