Top
News Updates

SC Relief To Man Who Killed His Daughter Amidst Quarrel Over Placing A Bulb [Read Judgment]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
29 April 2019 3:36 PM GMT
SC Relief To Man Who Killed His Daughter Amidst Quarrel Over Placing A Bulb [Read Judgment]
x
"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."
Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
599+GST
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

The Supreme Court, on Monday, modified the conviction of a man who was accused of killing his daughter to 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder'.

Govind Singh was awarded life imprisonment by the Trial Court holding him guilty of murdering his daughter Lalita.

In the wordy quarrel between the father and the daughter over where to place a bulb, the accused is said to have thrown a chimney lamp on his daughter which caused burn injury, resulting in her death seven days later.

In his appeal against the Chhattisgarh High Court judgment, which affirmed the Trial Court order convicting him under Section 302 IPC, the bench comprising Justice R. Banumathi and Justice R. Subhash Reddy said:

"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 IPC."

Considering the fact that the accused has undergone about eleven years and eight months of imprisonment, the bench modified the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone and ordered him to be released.

Read Judgment


Next Story
Share it