GURU @ GURUBARAN & ORS. versus STATE REP. BY INSP. OF POLICE

Citation: [2019] 12 S.C.R. 1064 · Decided: 27-09-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DEEPAK GUPTA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1064
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 12 S.C.R.
GURU @ GURUBARAN & ORS.
v.
STATE REP. BY INSP. OF POLICE
(Criminal Appeal No.1893 of 2010)
SEPTEMBER 27, 2019
[DEEPAK GUPTA AND ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 302, 323 and 324 – Murder – There
was some dispute between the parties – Prosecution case was that
panchayat was called to settle the dispute – Since, Pradhan of the
Panchayat was indisposed, the Panchayat was not held – Thereafter,
PW-2, his sister victim-deceased, his wife PW-7, PW-13 and son of
PW-2 were standing outside the house of PW-2 and talking among
themselves – While they were standing, all accused persons (A-1,
A-2, A-3, A-5 and A-9) came armed with sickles, iron pipe and
wooden staffs and attacked victim – Victim died – High Court
convicted A-1 & A-2 u/s. 302 IPC, A-3 u/s. 324 IPC and A-5 & A-9
u/s. 323 IPC – Accused contended that there was a free fight on
both sides and that there was no evidence to show that there was
prior meeting of minds and further urged that offence was not of
murder but culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Held: The
version of all the eye-witnesses against the accused persons was
similar – Medical evidence also fully corroborated the version of
all the eye-witnesses – Insofar benefit of Exception 4 to s.300 is
concerned, evidence indicated that all accused persons came armed
– The fact they were armed indicated that the occurrence did not
take place in the heat of passion, upon a sudden quarrel – A-1 had
hit the deceased on head with a sickle with such a great force causing
fracture of the skull, bringing the case within clause ‘Fourthly’ of
s.300 IPC – Therefore, there is no reason to alter the sentence and
conviction of A-1 – However, A-2 had given blow with an iron pipe
on back of the neck of the deceased, which only caused abrasions
– Therefore, his conviction u/s.302 altered to s.324 IPC – Insofar
as conviction of A-3, A-5 and A-9 is concerned, there is no reason
to interfere with the judgment of the High Court.
[2019] 12  S.C.R. 1064
1064
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1065
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The doctor states that the injuries caused the
death of the victim. The first injury is a lacerated wound and it is
urged by the accused persons, that this injury could not have
been caused by sickle (Koduval), which is a sharp-edged weapon.
A sickle is an instrument mainly meant for cutting grass and crops.
The inner side is sharp but the outer side is blunt. While using it
as an instrument of agriculture only, the sharp edge is used but
while using it as a weapon of offence, more often than not, it will
be the outer side which will be used to hit the victim. The doctor
has opined that the injury could have been caused by a sickle
which is MO-1 and, therefore, the medical evidence fully
corroborates the version of all the eye-witnesses. [Para 5]
[1068-G-H; 1069-A]
2. The accused cannot take benefit of Exception 4 to s.300
IPC. It has come in evidence that all the accused persons came
armed. Two were armed with sickles, one with an iron pipe and
the other with wooden staffs. Even if it is assumed that they may
not have come with the intention of killing, the fact that they
were armed, clearly indicates that the occurrence did not take
place in the heat of passion, upon a sudden quarrel. As pointed
earlier, both sides were coming to attend a Panchayat to settle a
dispute. Where was the need to carry arms if the intention was
only to settle a dispute? Even otherwise, Exception 4 is not
applicable because the manner in which the blow was given right
on the middle of the head, brings this case squarely within clause
“Fourthly” of Section 300 IPC. [Para 7] [1069-D-E]
3. A-1 should have known that the act which he is
performing, of hitting the deceased on the head with a sickle
with such great force causing fracture of the skull, is so dangerous
that it would have imminently caused death. Therefore, there is
no reason to alter the sentence or conviction of A-1.
[Para 8] [1070-A]
4. However, as far as A-2 is concerned, since the High Court
has held that neither Section 34 nor Section 149 IPC are
applicable, each accused will only be responsible for his own acts
and injuries. In this behalf, reference was made to a judgment of
GURU @ GURUBARAN & ORS. v. STATE REP. BY INSP.
OF POLICE
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1066
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 12 S.C.R.
this Court in the case of Atmaram Zingaraji vs. State of
Maharashtra. There is no appeal by the State. As f

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.