In a significant legal ruling by the Supreme Court, the murder conviction in the case of State vs. Kalabai has been altered. The Court’s decision reflects a thorough examination of the facts and justice being served in the case. Read on to learn more about this crucial judgment.
Facts
- The appellant filed a criminal appeal in the High Court challenging her conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC.
- The High Court, in its judgment dated 25.03.2014, dismissed the Criminal Appeal filed by the appellant, upholding her conviction and sentence.
- The trial court found the appellant guilty of murder based on the evidence on record and the dying declaration of the deceased recorded on 21.08.1999.
- The appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2,000/-, while the husband of the deceased, Vijay Singh, was acquitted of the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.
- Husband of the deceased got her admitted in M.Y. Hospital, Indore.
- Chargesheet was submitted against both Kalabai and Vijay Singh under Section 302 IPC.
- 24 witnesses have been produced by the prosecution in support of their case.
- On 20.08.1999, a quarrel between Lalita Bai and her husband, Vijay Singh, occurred.
- The appellant, who is the sister-in-law of the deceased, intervened during the quarrel.
- A case under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC was registered on 20.08.1999.
- Lalita Bai, while receiving treatment, died on 23.08.1999 before being able to give her statement.
- The Executive Magistrate-cum-Naib Tehsildar recorded Lalita Bai’s statement when she was fit to give it.
- The appellant threw a burning stove on the deceased, causing severe burn injuries.
- A Police Inspector reached the hospital upon receiving information about the incident.
Also Read: Entitlement to Back Wages: Upholding Justice
Arguments
- The appellant’s counsel argues that there was no motive for the appellant to kill the deceased.
- The appellant’s counsel contends that the appellant should not have been convicted under Section 302 IPC as there was neither intention nor motive to cause the death of the deceased.
- It is pointed out that the deceased was not in a fit physical condition to record her statement, as per the MLC report which mentioned the patient was restless, afebrile, and pulse not palpable.
- The counsel submits that the patient was so feeble and restless that she was unable to give a correct version of the incident.
- The dying declaration was rightly relied upon by the Courts below.
- The appellant cannot raise submissions against the reliability of the dying declaration.
- The appellant’s reliance on the judgment in Hari Shanker vs. State of Rajasthan is refuted by the State counsel.
- The deceased’s physical condition was certified by a Doctor as fit to record her statement.
- The burn injury on the neck and head was only 8% as noted by the High Court.
Also Read: Remand Order Upheld: Legal Analysis in The Case of The National Investigation Agency vs. The State
Analysis
- The dying declaration of the deceased was recorded within a few hours of admission, stating that a quarrel was happening between herself, her husband, and the appellant who lived in the lower floor of the house.
- The act of throwing a burning stove on a person signifies knowledge that it could cause death.
- The High Court relied on the dying declaration of the deceased, where she described the incident in detail.
- The appellant was found guilty of throwing a burning stove on the deceased, resulting in severe burns.
- There was no evidence presented regarding any strained relations between the appellant and the deceased.
- The trial court did not specifically address whether the act was done with the intention to cause death.
- The Court concluded that since the appellant threw a burning stove on the deceased, it would have been evident to him that the act could cause fatal burns.
- Medical evidence indicated the cause of death as burning and related complications.
- The limited scope of the appeal was to determine the nature of the offense committed by the appellant based on the facts presented.
- There was no indication of intent to kill the deceased, rather the act stemmed from a dispute over a financial matter.
- The appellant’s action of throwing the burning stove on the deceased resulted in the latter’s death due to burns received.
- In a similar case cited, the appellant was provoked by a financial dispute to commit a similar act.
- The appellant’s lack of enmity with the deceased was noted, indicating a specific motive behind the act.
- The appellant’s counsel relied on a previous judgement where a similar act resulted in the death of the victim.
- The appellant’s submissions were limited to discussing the nature of the offense due to the specific notice issued in the present case.
- The appellant’s act of throwing a burning stove on the deceased was likely to cause burns resulting in death, leading to an offence under Section 304 Part II IPC.
- The conviction under Section 302 was altered to Section 304 Part II IPC, and the sentence of life imprisonment was reduced to rigorous imprisonment for five years.
- Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant can be said to have committed an offence under Section 304 Part II IPC.
- The quarrel leading to the act happened suddenly, but it cannot be considered merely a rash and negligent act.
Also Read: Supreme Court Ruling on Recruitment Rules Challenge
Decision
- Partly allowed the appeal of the appellant
- Conviction of the appellant changed from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC
- Sentence reduced from life imprisonment to rigorous imprisonment for five years
Case Title: KALABAI Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-000763-000763 / 2019
