SLP Filed by Man Accused of Killing Infant Boomerangs; SC Refuses His Counsel’s Plea To Withdraw SLP [Read Order]
‘We, therefore, issue notice to the petitioner, returnable in three weeks as to why the trial court order of conviction and sentence be not restored.’
A special leave petition boomeranged on a murder accused.
Ramji Lal was convicted by the trial court for ‘murdering’ a baby of 9-10 months. On his appeal to the high court, the bench modified the conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
During the admission of SLP filed by him challenging the high court order, the bench of Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice Dhananjay Y. Chandrachud made a prima facie observation that the conversion of the offence to Section 304 II IPC and imposition of a sentence of five years by the high court was incorrect and unjustified.
“Having gone through the record, we are, prima facie, of the view that the conversion of the offence to Section 304 II IPC and imposition of sentence of 5 years was incorrect and unjustified…,” the bench observed in the order.
Faced with this situation, the counsel for Ramji Lal sought leave to withdraw the petition, which was declined by the bench. “We must record that the learned counsel for the petitioner sought leave to withdraw the present petition. The liberty to withdraw the petition is declined,” the bench said.
The bench then issued a notice to the State and Ramji Lal as to why the trial court order of conviction and sentence be not restored.
This was a case of a dispute between neighbours turning violent. The high court, reappreciating the evidence, had come to the conclusion that the accused had inflicted a ‘lathi’ blow on his neighbour, which missed him and accidentally hit the head of the baby Kavita, who then was in the lap of her grandfather.
While altering conviction, the bench had observed: “It is apparent, while attacking Deenanath, Kavita, who was in his lap accidentally received the head injury and it can not be inferred from facts and circumstances of the case that the appellants intended to kill the child of 9-10 months. It was outcome of sudden fight in heat of passion upon sudden quarrel with no motive per se to kill her, as the incident appears to have occurred all of a sudden.”Read the Order Here