Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
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 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.
6. 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, which reads as follows: “300. Murder – xxx xxx xxx Secondly – xxx xxx xxx Thirdly – xxx xxx xxx Fourthly -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.” GURU @ GURUBARAN & ORS. v. STATE REP. BY INSP. OF POLICE [DEEPAK GUPTA, J.]
8. 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, we find no reason to alter the sentence or conviction of Guru @ Gurubaran (A-1).
9. However, as far as Durai @ Durairajan (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 this Court in the case of Atmaram Zingaraji vs. State of Maharashtra1. There is no appeal by the State. 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. Therefore, the accused can only be held guilty of having committed the offence under Section 324 IPC. He has already undergone imprisonment for around 11 years and, therefore, his conviction under Section 302 IPC is altered to Section 324 IPC and the sentence is reduced to the period of incarceration already undergone. As far as Vettri @ Vetrivell (A-3), Narayanan (A-5) and Srinivasan (A-9) are concerned, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment of the High Court as each has been held guilty for the offence which they have committed.
10. In view of the above, the appeal of Accused Nos. 1, 3, 5 and 9 is dismissed and the appeal of Accused No. 2 is allowed and his conviction is altered from offence punishable under Section 302 IPC to offence punishable under Section 324 IPC and the sentence is reduced to the period of incarceration already undergone.
11. Accused-Appellant Nos.1 & 2 were granted bail vide this Court’s order dated 08.01.2018. In view of the above, bail bond of Appellant No.1 (A-1) is cancelled. He shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve remaining period of the sentence and bail bond of Appellant No.2 (A-2) is discharged. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. Ankit Gyan Appeals disposed of. 1(1997) 7 SCC 41