Law Web: Whether Accused Party Armed With Weapons Can Claim Benefit Of Sudden Fight [Exception 4 To S 300 IPC]

It was next urged that the offence was not of murder but

may amount to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. It

has been urged that the case would fall within Exception 4 to

Section 300 IPC, which reads as follows:

“Exception 4 – Culpable homicide is not murder if it is

committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the

heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the

offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel

or unusual manner.”

7. We are of the view that the accused cannot take benefit of

this Exception. 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 out above, 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, we feel

that 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.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1893 OF 2010

GURU @ GURUBARAN Vs STATE REP. BY INSP. OF POLICE

Deepak Gupta, J.

Dated:September 27, 2019

1. This appeal is filed by Accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 9 against

the judgment of the High Court whereby Guru @ Gurubaran (A1)

and Durai @ Durairajan (A2)

have been convicted under Section

302, Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to imprisonment for

life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/each

with default sentence of 3

months rigorous imprisonment (RI). As far as Vettri @ Vetrivell

(A3)

is concerned, he was convicted under Section 324 IPC on

two counts and sentenced to one year RI on each count and fine

of Rs.1000/with

default sentence of 3 months. Narayanan (A5)

and Srinivasan (A9)

along with other accused were convicted

under Section 323 IPC and sentenced to undergo six months RI

and pay fine of Rs.1000/each

with default sentence of 3

months. All the sentences were to run concurrently.

2. The prosecution case is that Parasuraman (PW14),

son of

deceased Saroja and Munusamy Pillai (PW1),

was in love with

Uma, the younger sister of A1.

They both got married and after

the marriage, PW14

lived in his wife’s house. However, Saroja

(deceased) did not approve of this. Thereafter, PW14

came back

to his house. On 03.03.1998, it is alleged that Jayaraman (A4)

assaulted Nagarajan (PW2),

brother of Saroja and brotherinlaw

of PW1.

To settle the dispute, a Panchayat was called the next

day. It is admitted that this Panchayat was called at the instance

of A1.

The Panchayat was to be conducted in the evening.

However, since the Pradhan of the Panchayat was indisposed, the

Panchayat could not be held. Thereafter, PW2,

his sister Saroja

(deceased), his wife Rani (PW7),

Murugan (PW13)

and Naveen

Kumar, son of PW2

and PW7

stood outside the house of PW2

talking amongst themselves. According to him, PW13

had come

to the village because of the Panchayat. While they were

standing there, A1

came armed with a sickle (Koduval), A2

armed with an Iron Pipe, A3

armed with a sickle (Koduval) and

to A9

carrying thick wooden staffs in their hands. It is

alleged that A1

attacked deceased Saroja with a sickle on the

front portion of her head and said that it was only because of her

that the younger sister of A1

has to live separately from her

husband. A2

gave a blow on the back of the neck of Saroja with

an iron pipe. The other accused are alleged to have attacked

Saroja with wooden staffs in their hand. When the family

members of Saroja tried to protect her, all the 9 accused

surrounded her and, as such, they could not protect her.

According to the eyewitnesses,

they were also attacked by the

members of the aggressive party. The version of all the eyewitnesses

is similar.

3. However, there are some discrepancies with regard to the

manner in which the said incident took place. According to PW1,

on the date of Panchayat, first a verbal altercation took place

between the two sides and then the attack took place whereas,

according to PW2

and some of the other eyewitnesses,

the

attack took place without any provocation. We are of the

considered view that for the purpose of deciding this appeal, we

can even presume that there was some verbal altercation

between the two sides.

4. The occurrence is not denied. The main defence is that

there was a free fight on both sides and that there is no evidence

to show that there is prior meeting of minds. The accused had

not been convicted under Section 34 or Section 149 IPC and,

therefore, each individual accused can only be convicted for the

injury attributed to that individual. Therefore, it becomes

relevant to refer to the medical evidence of the autopsy surgeon

Dr. Rajamani, Assistant Surgeon (PW3).

The injuries are as

follows:

“1. An Antemortem red, oblique lacerated wound

measuring 6cm x 1cm x 1cm, exposing the bones over the

left frontal region of scalp, 1 cm away from the midline with

bleeding and blood clots. On Exploring the wound,

echymosis seen behind the scalp over the frontal, parietal,

temporal and back of skull. There is a fracture of frontal

bone measuring 5 cm in length, vertical, para sagittally and

1cm away from midline over the left side, extended to

upwards to fronto parietal junction, and another fracture

line which is adjacent to it and slightly oblique from the

frontal bone to towards fronto parietal junction, 4cm x 1/8

on and on exposing the skull bones blood clots seen over

the membranes of the leftcerebral hemisphere of brain on

the frontal, parietal, temporal and occipital region, of the

brain. Both fractures are involving inner and outer table of

the skull.

2. An abrasions varying size from 3cm to 21/2cm x ¼ cm

with ½ cm different from each other, oblique, placed over

middle 1/3 of right side neck.

3. An AM abrasion 21/2cm x ¼ cm obliquely placed 1cm

away from injury No.2 on right side of neck.

4. An AM swelling whole of the anterior and lateral side

of right side neck. On exposing the injury No.2, 3, 4 minor

blood clots under the skin of neck and congestion of

sternomastoid muscle and blood clots seen in anterior and

lateral side of right side neck.”

5. The doctor states that these injuries caused the death. The

first injury is a lacerated wound and it is urged by

Mr. S. Nagamuthu, learned senior counsel, that this injury could

not have been caused by sickle (Koduval), which is a sharpedged

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 MO1

and, therefore, the

medical evidence fully corroborates the version of all the eyewitnesses.

6. It was next urged that the offence was not of murder but