Featured image for Supreme Court Judgment dated 27-09-2019 in case of petitioner name Guru @ Gurubaran & Others vs State Rep. by Inspector of Pol
| |

Murder Conviction Partially Overturned: Supreme Court Reduces Sentence for Co-Accused

The Supreme Court of India recently ruled on a criminal appeal involving multiple accused individuals charged under Sections 302, 324, and 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The case revolved around the murder of Saroja and injuries inflicted on other individuals during a violent altercation. The Court upheld the murder conviction for the primary accused but reduced the sentence for a co-accused due to a lack of conclusive evidence linking him to the murder.

Background of the Case

The case originated from an incident on March 3, 1998, in which a violent altercation occurred between two families due to a marriage dispute. The prosecution alleged that the altercation resulted in the murder of Saroja and injuries to several others.

The trial court convicted multiple accused persons, including Guru @ Gurubaran (A-1) and Durai @ Durairajan (A-2), under Section 302 IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment. Vettri @ Vetrivell (A-3) was convicted under Section 324 IPC and sentenced to one year of rigorous imprisonment (RI). Narayanan (A-5) and Srinivasan (A-9) were convicted under Section 323 IPC and sentenced to six months of RI. The High Court upheld these convictions.

Arguments of the Appellants

The appellants, represented by their counsel, raised the following key arguments:

  • The altercation was a sudden fight with no premeditation.
  • There was no common intention or unlawful assembly, and hence, Sections 34 and 149 IPC should not apply.
  • Durai @ Durairajan (A-2) did not inflict a fatal injury and should not be held liable under Section 302 IPC.
  • The medical evidence suggested that the injuries inflicted by A-2 were abrasions that could not have caused death.

Arguments of the Respondents (Prosecution)

The State, represented by the prosecution, countered with the following arguments:

  • The accused persons arrived at the scene armed with deadly weapons, indicating premeditation.
  • A-1 attacked Saroja with a sickle (Koduval), causing a fatal head injury.
  • A-2 struck Saroja on the neck with an iron pipe, further injuring her.
  • The other accused persons assaulted family members of the deceased.
  • The medical evidence confirmed that the injuries caused by A-1 led to Saroja’s death.

Supreme Court’s Analysis

1. Establishing Criminal Liability

The Supreme Court examined the nature of the attack and the role of each accused. The Court held that A-1 was directly responsible for Saroja’s death as he inflicted a deep head wound with a sickle, causing a skull fracture and brain hemorrhage.

2. Role of A-2 and Reduced Sentence

The Court noted that A-2 had struck Saroja with an iron pipe, but the medical evidence showed that this injury resulted only in abrasions and was not a contributing factor to her death. Given this, the Court altered A-2’s conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 324 IPC, which pertains to voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons.

3. Applicability of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC

The defense argued that the case fell under Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC, which applies to sudden fights where there is no premeditation. However, the Court rejected this argument, stating that the accused arrived at the scene armed, indicating prior intent.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court issued the following rulings:

  • The conviction and life sentence of A-1 (Guru @ Gurubaran) under Section 302 IPC was upheld.
  • A-2 (Durai @ Durairajan) was convicted under Section 324 IPC instead of Section 302 IPC, and his sentence was reduced to the period already undergone.
  • The convictions and sentences of A-3, A-5, and A-9 were upheld as per the High Court’s ruling.

The Court also canceled A-1’s bail bond and ordered him to be taken into custody to serve the remaining sentence, while A-2’s bail bond was discharged.

Implications of the Judgment

This ruling highlights the importance of analyzing individual roles in group crimes and ensuring that sentencing corresponds to the actual level of culpability. Key takeaways include:

  • Premeditation is a crucial factor in determining whether an act qualifies as murder.
  • Courts must carefully assess whether injuries caused by co-accused contributed to the victim’s death.
  • Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC does not apply if the accused arrive at a scene armed.
  • Revising convictions based on medical evidence ensures proportional justice.

The Supreme Court’s decision ensures a fair balance between punishing violent crimes and recognizing distinctions in levels of culpability among co-accused.


Petitioner Name: Guru @ Gurubaran & Others.
Respondent Name: State Rep. by Inspector of Police.
Judgment By: Justice Deepak Gupta, Justice Aniruddha Bose.
Place Of Incident: Tamil Nadu.
Judgment Date: 27-09-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Guru @ Gurubaran & O vs State Rep. by Inspec Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 27-09-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Murder Cases
See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Judgment by Deepak Gupta
See all petitions in Judgment by Aniruddha Bose
See all petitions in partially allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments September 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category

Similar Posts