Penal Code, 1860:
s.300 Exception 4 and s.304 (Par II) – Prosecution of appellant-accused u/s. 302 – For causing death of his daughter (deceased) – Eye-witnesses to the incident turned hostile – Trial Court convicted the accused u/s. 302 relying on Dying Declaration – Imprisonment of life imposed – High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence – On appeal, held: The occurrence was sudden and in a spur of moment without any per-meditation – Therefore, the act of the accused would fall under Exception 4 to s. 300 – The conviction is modified to one u/s. 304 (Part II) – The sentence is reduced to the period already undergone i.e. about eleven years.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The entire occurrence was in a spur of moment. There was quarrel between the father and daughter as to where the bulb was 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. [Para 7][1084-F-G]
2. The conviction of the appellant-accused under Section
302 IPC is modified as the one under Section 304 Part-II IPC. The appellant-accused has undergone about eleven years and eight months of imprisonment. Considering the facts and 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. [Para 8][1084-H; 1085-A-B]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.