Supreme Court Modifies Life Sentence to Five Years in Burning Stove Death Case

The case before the Supreme Court involved an appeal by Kalabai against the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, which had dismissed her criminal appeal and upheld her conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The incident in question occurred on August 20, 1999, when Kalabai threw a burning kerosene stove on her sister-in-law, Lalita Bai, leading to fatal burn injuries. The primary legal question before the Supreme Court was the nature of the offense and whether the conviction under Section 302 IPC should be modified.

The Supreme Court’s judgment is a significant one, as it reaffirms the court’s approach towards dealing with cases where the actions of the accused have led to severe harm or death, but where the intention behind the act is a critical factor in determining the severity of the offense. This case provides important insights into the elements of culpable homicide and murder and clarifies the circumstances under which a charge of murder can be reduced to a lesser charge.

Background of the Case

The prosecution argued that on the evening of August 20, 1999, a quarrel broke out between the deceased, Lalita Bai, and her husband, Vijay Singh. During the quarrel, Kalabai, who lived on the ground floor, came to the first floor, picked up a burning kerosene stove, and threw it on the deceased. This caused Lalita Bai’s clothes to catch fire, leading to severe burn injuries. She was admitted to the hospital with 96% burn injuries and later succumbed to her injuries on August 23, 1999. The case was initially registered under Section 307 IPC, as the police had initially believed it to be an attempt to murder. After Lalita Bai’s death, the charge was upgraded to Section 302 IPC, murder.

Following the incident, the police investigated and presented their findings to the court, highlighting the details of the crime and the involvement of Kalabai. The trial court convicted Kalabai under Section 302 IPC and sentenced her to life imprisonment with a fine. The trial court also acquitted Vijay Singh, the deceased’s husband, of the charges related to the murder, concluding that there was insufficient evidence to charge him under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. Kalabai, dissatisfied with the trial court’s verdict, filed an appeal in the High Court, which was dismissed. She then approached the Supreme Court with a further appeal.

Key Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner’s (Kalabai’s) Arguments

• Kalabai had no intention to kill the deceased. The act was a result of a sudden provocation during a domestic dispute.
• The deceased’s medical condition at the time of making her dying declaration was weak, making the declaration unreliable. Specifically, the petitioner argued that the deceased was in no condition to give a clear and accurate statement regarding the events leading to the incident.
• The case should be considered under Section 304 Part II IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) rather than Section 302 IPC, as the act was committed without the intention to kill.
• Reliance was placed on Hari Shanker v. State of Rajasthan, where a similar act of throwing a burning stove was considered as an act likely to cause death but not amounting to murder. Kalabai argued that her case was similar in nature, and a similar leniency should be applied.

Respondent’s (State of Madhya Pradesh’s) Arguments

• The dying declaration was recorded by the Executive Magistrate and was reliable as the deceased was certified fit to give her statement. The respondent argued that the deceased’s statement was clear and consistent with the circumstances of the case.
• The appellant threw a burning stove on the deceased, which any reasonable person would know could cause fatal injuries. The respondent contended that the act demonstrated a clear intent to harm the deceased, even if the specific intention to kill was not established.
• The High Court had rightly upheld the conviction under Section 302 IPC as the act was intentional and aimed at causing death. The respondent emphasized that the appellant’s actions were deliberate, and the use of the burning stove in such a manner constituted a clear intent to kill.

Supreme Court’s Analysis

The Supreme Court, while considering the arguments, limited its review to the question of the nature of the offense. The Court examined the dying declaration, which stated:

“A quarrel was going on between myself and my husband. During the said quarrel, my husband’s sister, Kalabai, who lives on the lower floor, came to my house and said that she would see me. While I was boiling milk, she took the burning kerosene stove and threw it on me, causing my clothes to catch fire.”

The Court noted that while the deceased was in a critical condition, her statement was recorded shortly after the incident, and there was no reason to doubt its veracity. The Court recognized the fact that the appellant had thrown a burning stove at the deceased and that this act would naturally lead to fatal burns. However, the critical question was whether Kalabai had the intention to kill or whether the act was a result of provocation in the heat of the moment. The Court acknowledged that the appellant’s actions had caused death, but the intention to kill was not clear.

Modification of Conviction

The Supreme Court relied on the precedent set in Hari Shanker v. State of Rajasthan, where a similar act was held to be punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC. In that case, the appellant had thrown a burning stove at the deceased, leading to the victim’s death, but the Court found no evidence of premeditation or malice. The same reasoning applied in Kalabai’s case, where the Court found that while the act was dangerous and led to death, there was no evidence that Kalabai intended to kill her sister-in-law.

Therefore, the Court concluded that the present case was also one of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The Court emphasized that even though Kalabai’s actions were reckless and led to death, they did not amount to murder. The Court then modified the conviction from Section 302 IPC (murder) to Section 304 Part II IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), thereby reducing the severity of the charge.

Judgment

The Court partially allowed the appeal and ruled:

• The conviction under Section 302 IPC was modified to Section 304 Part II IPC.
• The life imprisonment sentence was reduced to rigorous imprisonment for five years.

Thus, while holding Kalabai responsible for her actions, the Supreme Court acknowledged that the act was not committed with the intention to cause death but with knowledge of its likely consequences. The judgment is a reminder of the importance of distinguishing between acts of violence committed with malicious intent and those committed recklessly, without premeditation or the intention to kill.

Conclusion

The case highlights the crucial role of intent in criminal law, particularly in cases where severe harm or death has been caused. The Supreme Court’s decision to reduce the charge from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder demonstrates the Court’s nuanced approach in considering the circumstances surrounding the incident. This case serves as a significant reference point for future judgments in similar cases, where the mental state and intention of the accused play a vital role in determining the appropriate charge and sentence.

Petitioner Name: Kalabai.
Respondent Name: State of Madhya Pradesh.
Judgment By: Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice K.M. Joseph.
Place Of Incident: Madhya Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 30-04-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Kalabai vs State of Madhya Prad Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 30-04-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Murder Cases
See all petitions in Attempt to Murder Cases
See all petitions in Judgment by Ashok Bhushan
See all petitions in Judgment by K.M. Joseph
See all petitions in partially allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments April 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category