Guru @ Gurubaran vs State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police

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 1 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 2 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 A­4 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 eye­ witnesses is similar.

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 (A­5) and Srinivasan (A­9) 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 1 (1997) 7 SCC 41 8 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. Accused­Appellant 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 (A­1) is cancelled. He shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve remaining period of the sentence and bail bond of Appellant No.2 (A­2) is discharged. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.