LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the accused can claim the benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in a case of sudden fight.
CASE TYPE: Criminal Law
Case Name: Guru @ Gurubaran & Ors. vs. State
Judgment Date: 27 September 2019
Date of the Judgment: 27 September 2019
Citation: (2019) INSC 988
Judges: Deepak Gupta, J. and Aniruddha Bose, J.
Can a fight that occurs after a verbal altercation be considered a sudden fight? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case where a death occurred during a clash. The court examined whether the accused could claim the benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, which reduces murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder in cases of sudden fights without premeditation. This judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench consisting of Justice Deepak Gupta and Justice Aniruddha Bose.
Case Background
The case revolves around a dispute between families. Parasuraman (PW-14), son of the deceased Saroja and Munusamy Pillai (PW-1), married Uma, the younger sister of Guru @ Gurubaran (A-1). Saroja did not approve of this marriage, and PW-14 eventually returned to his own house. On March 3, 1998, Jayaraman (A-4) allegedly assaulted Nagarajan (PW-2), Saroja’s brother. To resolve this, a Panchayat was called for the next day at the instance of A-1. However, the Panchayat was postponed due to the Pradhan’s unavailability. Later that evening, while PW-2, Saroja, Rani (PW-7), Murugan (PW-13), and Naveen Kumar were talking outside PW-2’s house, they were attacked by A-1 and others.
According to the prosecution, A-1 attacked Saroja with a sickle, A-2 hit her with an iron pipe, and A-3 and others used wooden staffs. Saroja sustained fatal injuries and died. The prosecution’s case is that the accused came prepared for a fight, while the defense claimed it was a sudden fight without prior planning.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| March 3, 1998 | Jayaraman (A-4) allegedly assaulted Nagarajan (PW-2). |
| March 4, 1998 | A Panchayat was called to settle the dispute, but was postponed. Later that evening, the attack on Saroja occurred. |
Course of Proceedings
The High Court convicted Guru @ Gurubaran (A-1) and Durai @ Durairajan (A-2) under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for murder, sentencing them to life imprisonment. Vettri @ Vetrivell (A-3) was convicted under Section 324 of the IPC for causing hurt with a dangerous weapon. Narayanan (A-5) and Srinivasan (A-9), along with other accused, were convicted under Section 323 of the IPC for voluntarily causing hurt. The accused then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:
- Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Defines murder and specifies the circumstances under which culpable homicide amounts to murder. Exception 4 to Section 300 states:
“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.” - Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Deals with voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.
- Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Deals with voluntarily causing hurt.
The Court also analyzed the “Fourthly” clause of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which states:
“If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.”
Arguments
Arguments on behalf of the Appellants (Accused):
- The incident occurred during a sudden fight, and there was no premeditation.
- The case falls under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), thus it is not murder but culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
- The accused did not take undue advantage or act in a cruel or unusual manner.
- The medical evidence suggests that the injury caused by A-1 could not have been caused by the sharp edge of the sickle.
- Since Section 34 and Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) were not applied, each accused should only be held liable for their individual actions.
Arguments on behalf of the Respondent (State):
- The accused came armed to the scene, which indicates premeditation.
- The attack was not a result of a sudden quarrel, as the accused came prepared.
- The manner of the attack, especially the blow to the head with a sickle, falls under clause “Fourthly” of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), making it murder.
- The medical evidence corroborates the eye-witness accounts.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions (Appellants) | Sub-Submissions (Respondent) |
|---|---|---|
| Nature of the Incident | ✓ Sudden fight without premeditation. ✓ Verbal altercation preceded the attack. |
✓ Accused came armed, indicating planning. ✓ Attack was not a result of a sudden quarrel. |
| Applicability of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC | ✓ Case falls under Exception 4, reducing murder to culpable homicide. ✓ No undue advantage taken or cruel manner of attack. |
✓ Exception 4 does not apply as accused came armed. |
| Individual Liability | ✓ Each accused liable only for their individual acts. | ✓ The manner of the attack brings it under clause “Fourthly” of Section 300 IPC. |
| Medical Evidence | ✓ Injury caused by A-1 could not have been caused by the sharp edge of the sickle. | ✓ Medical evidence corroborates the eye-witness accounts. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:
- Whether the accused can claim the benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in a case of sudden fight.
A sub-issue that the Court dealt with was whether the accused can be held liable for murder or only for the individual injuries they caused.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the accused can claim the benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) | A-1’s conviction under Section 302 IPC was upheld; A-2’s conviction was altered to Section 324 IPC. | The court held that since the accused came armed, Exception 4 is not applicable. The manner of the attack by A-1 falls under clause “Fourthly” of Section 300 IPC. A-2’s injuries were not fatal and hence, he was convicted under Section 324 IPC. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was used | Legal Point |
|---|---|---|---|
| Atmaram Zingaraji vs. State of Maharashtra [(1997) 7 SCC 41] | Supreme Court of India | Referred to for the principle that each accused is responsible for his own acts and injuries, when Section 34 or 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is not applicable. | Individual liability in the absence of common intention. |
| Section 300, Indian Penal Code (IPC) | Statute | The court analyzed Exception 4 to Section 300 and clause “Fourthly” of Section 300 to determine if the act was murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder. | Definition of murder and exceptions to it. |
| Section 324, Indian Penal Code (IPC) | Statute | The court used this provision to convict A-2 for causing hurt with a dangerous weapon. | Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means. |
| Section 323, Indian Penal Code (IPC) | Statute | The court used this provision to convict A-3, A-5 and A-9 for voluntarily causing hurt. | Voluntarily causing hurt. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| The incident occurred during a sudden fight, and there was no premeditation. | Rejected. The court held that since the accused came armed, it indicated that the incident was not a result of a sudden fight. |
| The case falls under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), thus it is not murder but culpable homicide not amounting to murder. | Rejected. The court held that the accused could not take benefit of Exception 4 as they came armed and the manner of the attack by A-1 fell under clause “Fourthly” of Section 300 IPC. |
| The accused did not take undue advantage or act in a cruel or unusual manner. | Partially Accepted. While the court did not find the manner of the attack by A-1 to be cruel, it held that the accused came armed and hence could not claim benefit of Exception 4. |
| The medical evidence suggests that the injury caused by A-1 could not have been caused by the sharp edge of the sickle. | Rejected. The court accepted the doctor’s opinion that the injury could have been caused by the sickle. |
| Since Section 34 and Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) were not applied, each accused should only be held liable for their individual actions. | Accepted. The court held that each accused is responsible for his own acts and injuries. A-2’s conviction was altered to Section 324 IPC. |
| The accused came armed to the scene, which indicates premeditation. | Accepted. The court held that the fact that the accused came armed indicated that the incident was not a result of a sudden quarrel. |
| The attack was not a result of a sudden quarrel, as the accused came prepared. | Accepted. The court held that the accused came armed and hence the attack was not a result of a sudden quarrel. |
| The manner of the attack, especially the blow to the head with a sickle, falls under clause “Fourthly” of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), making it murder. | Accepted. The court held that the blow on the head with a sickle by A-1 was imminently dangerous and fell under clause “Fourthly” of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). |
| The medical evidence corroborates the eye-witness accounts. | Accepted. The court held that the medical evidence fully corroborated the version of all the eye-witnesses. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- Atmaram Zingaraji vs. State of Maharashtra [(1997) 7 SCC 41]*: The Supreme Court used this case to support its view that each accused is responsible for his own acts and injuries when Section 34 or 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is not applicable.
- Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): The court analyzed Exception 4 to Section 300 and clause “Fourthly” of Section 300 to determine if the act was murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
- Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): The court used this provision to convict A-2 for causing hurt with a dangerous weapon.
- Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): The court used this provision to convict A-3, A-5 and A-9 for voluntarily causing hurt.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the fact that the accused came armed to the scene, which indicated that the incident was not a result of a sudden fight but a planned attack. The court also emphasized the severity of the blow inflicted by A-1 on the deceased’s head, which was deemed imminently dangerous and fell under clause “Fourthly” of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court also relied on the principle that each accused is responsible for his own acts and injuries when Section 34 or 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is not applicable, leading to the alteration of A-2’s conviction from murder to hurt.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Accused came armed | 40% |
| Severity of the blow by A-1 | 30% |
| Individual Liability | 20% |
| Medical evidence | 10% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
Logical Reasoning:
The court considered the argument that the injury by A-1 could not have been caused by the sharp edge of the sickle, but rejected it, relying on the doctor’s testimony. The court also considered the argument that each accused should be held liable only for their individual acts, which was accepted, leading to the alteration of A-2’s conviction.
The court stated, “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.” The court further noted, “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.” The court also observed, “As far as A-2 is concerned, he is alleged to have given a blow with an iron pipe on the back of the neck of the deceased. This resulted in injury numbers 2 and 3. They are merely abrasions and could not have caused death.”
The majority opinion was delivered by Justice Deepak Gupta, with Justice Aniruddha Bose concurring.
Key Takeaways
- In cases of sudden fights, the accused cannot claim the benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) if they come armed to the scene.
- The manner of the attack, especially if it is imminently dangerous and likely to cause death, can lead to a conviction for murder under clause “Fourthly” of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
- Each accused is responsible for their own acts and injuries when Section 34 or 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is not applicable.
- Medical evidence plays a crucial role in determining the nature of the injuries and the cause of death.
Directions
The bail bond of Appellant No.1 (A-1) was cancelled, and he was directed to be taken into custody to serve the remaining period of his sentence. The bail bond of Appellant No.2 (A-2) was discharged.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that if the accused comes armed to the scene, they cannot claim the benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in a case of sudden fight. This ruling reinforces the principle that premeditation can be inferred from the fact that the accused came armed to the scene. The court also clarified that in the absence of common intention, each accused is responsible for their own acts and injuries. This ruling reaffirms the position of law that the manner of the attack, especially if it is imminently dangerous and likely to cause death, can lead to a conviction for murder under clause “Fourthly” of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Conclusion
In the case of Guru @ Gurubaran & Ors. vs. State, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of A-1 for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) because he attacked the deceased with a sickle on the head, which was deemed imminently dangerous. However, the court altered the conviction of A-2 from murder to causing hurt under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), as the injuries caused by him were not fatal. The court emphasized that since the accused came armed, they could not claim the benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and each accused was responsible for their own acts and injuries.