In a landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of India, the case of R v. Vettri @ Vetrivell has been decided with significant implications. The court’s decision sheds light on crucial legal aspects and sets a precedent for future cases. Learn more about this ruling and its impact in our detailed summary.
Facts
- Vettri @ Vetrivell (A-3) was convicted under Section 324 IPC on two counts.
- Vettri @ Vetrivell (A-3) was sentenced to one year RI on each count.
- Vettri @ Vetrivell (A-3) was fined Rs.1000/- with a default sentence of 3 months.
- Accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, and 9 filed an appeal against the High Court judgment.
- Guru @ Gurubaran (A-1) and Durai @ Durairajan (A-2) were convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment.
- Guru @ Gurubaran (A-1) and Durai @ Durairajan (A-2) were fined Rs.1000/- each with a default sentence of 3 months RI.
- Narayanan (A-5) and Srinivasan (A-9) were convicted under Section 323 IPC.
- Narayanan (A-5) and Srinivasan (A-9) were sentenced to six months RI.
- Narayanan (A-5) and Srinivasan (A-9) were fined Rs.1000/- each with a default sentence of 3 months.
- A Panchayat was to be held in the evening at the instance of A-1, but couldn’t take place due to the indisposition of the Pradhan.
- During the attempted Panchayat, Saroja was surrounded by all 9 accused when her family tried to protect her.
- Different witnesses had varying accounts of whether the attack on Saroja had provocation or not.
- The aggressive party, armed with weapons like sickles and wooden staffs, attacked Saroja and other witnesses.
- A-1 allegedly attacked Saroja for causing his younger sister to live separately from her husband.
- A-2 also assaulted Saroja during the attack.
- An attempt was made to settle the dispute through a Panchayat the following day.
- Parasuraman (PW-14) was involved in a love affair with Uma, the younger sister of A-1, which led to escalating tensions.
- There was an incident where A-4 assaulted Nagarajan (PW-2), the brother of Saroja and brother-in-law of PW-1.
Also Read: Enforcement of Foreign Award: Case of Oscar Investments Limited and RHC Holding Private Limited
Analysis
- The first injury is a lacerated wound causing death, allegedly caused by a sickle (Koduval).
- Discrepancies exist in the accounts of the incident.
- A sickle is usually used for agriculture but can be used as a weapon with the blunt outer side for hitting.
- Autopsy surgeon’s evidence supports the use of MO-1 (sickle) in causing the injury.
- Accused individuals can only be convicted for the injury attributed to them individually, as per lack of Section 34 or Section 149 IPC convictions.
- Offence may not strictly qualify as murder but could be culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
- Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, claiming benefit for accused, is deemed inapplicable.
- Presence of arms among all accused indicates premeditation and negates occurrence in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel.
- Defense of free fight on both sides lacks evidence of prior meeting of minds.
- Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC not applicable as the manner of the blow was imminently dangerous
- Accused A-1’s act of hitting the deceased on the head with a sickle was known to be imminently dangerous
- No reason to alter the sentence or conviction of Accused A-1
- Accused A-2’s conviction under Section 302 IPC altered to Section 324 IPC due to lesser impact of injuries caused
- Accused A-2 has already undergone around 11 years of imprisonment and hence sentence reduced to period already served
- Accused A-3, A-5, and A-9 found guilty for the offences they committed
- Accused A-1 & A-2 were granted bail on 08.01.2018
Also Read: Case of Eligibility for Disability Pension: Air Force Officer’s Retirement
Decision
- Bail bond of Appellant No.1 (A-1) is cancelled.
- Pending application(s) are disposed of.
- Appellant No.1 (A-1) is to be taken into custody immediately to serve the remaining period of the sentence.
- Bail bond of Appellant No.2 (A-2) is discharged.
Also Read: Judgment by Supreme Court On Man Singh vs. State of India
Case Title: GURU @ GURUBARAN Vs. STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-001893-001893 / 2010
