Gujarat High Court Alters Murder Conviction to Culpable Homicide in Honour Killing Case, Acquits Four

Ahmedabad, Gujarat – The Gujarat High Court has partially allowed an appeal in a 2006 honour killing case, altering the murder conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part-II for three of the accused. The Division Bench, comprising Justice Ilesh J. Vora and Justice P. M. Raval , also acquitted four other appellants, citing major contradictions in the evidence of the sole eyewitness.

The Court held that while the accused intended to "teach a lesson" to the deceased for having a relationship with a family member, the evidence did not conclusively prove an intention to cause death, warranting a modification of the conviction.

---

Background of the Case

The case originates from a judgment by the Additional Sessions Judge, Porbandar, in 2008, which sentenced seven individuals to life imprisonment. The prosecution's case was that the deceased, Rajesh, was in a relationship with the daughter of one of the accused, Veja Rama Mori (A6).

On November 30, 2006, the accused allegedly formed an unlawful assembly with the common object of murdering Rajesh. They first kidnapped Rajesh's friend, Karabhai Katara (PW-18), who had been helping facilitate communication between the couple. Later, they abducted Rajesh in front of his brother (PW-3) from a village bus stand, took him to a secluded dam area, and fatally assaulted him with sticks in the presence of PW-18.

---

Key Arguments in the High Court

The appellants, represented by Senior Advocate B.B. Naik, challenged the trial court's verdict primarily on the grounds of the unreliability of the sole eyewitness, PW-18. The defense argued:

• Contradictory Testimony: PW-18 had named only three assailants (A1, A5, A6) in his initial police statement but implicated all nine accused during his court deposition. This was presented as a major contradiction affecting the core of the prosecution's case.
• Unnatural Conduct: The witness's failure to inform anyone or seek help after being kidnapped and witnessing a brutal murder was highlighted as unnatural and suspicious.
• Improbable Story: The defense questioned the credibility of the deceased's brothers (PW-3, PW-4), whose account of coincidentally meeting one of the accused (A5) who then confessed and led them to the crime scene was termed "highly improbable."

The State, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor L.B. Dabhi, countered that the evidence of the eyewitness and the deceased's brothers was consistent and supported by a clear motive. The prosecution maintained that in a group assault, minor discrepancies are expected and that the accused acted in prosecution of a common object to commit murder.

---

Court's Analysis: Separating "Grain from the Chaff"

The High Court meticulously analyzed the evidence, particularly the testimony of the eyewitness PW-18. The Bench invoked the legal principle of separating the "grain from the chaff," acknowledging that while parts of a witness's testimony may be exaggerated, the entire evidence need not be discarded if the core is found to be trustworthy.

The Court observed:

"Upon careful examination of testimony of PW-18, it appears that he made exaggeration in the deposition with respect to name and number of assailants... The major portion of the evidence of PW-18 is found to be true, reliable and trustworthy and so far as involvement of the accused no. A2, A3, A7 and A8 are concerned, his evidence found deficient because the said contradiction and improvements of the witness would said to be a major contradiction."

Based on this, the Court found the evidence against appellants Kara Rama (A2), Raju Rina (A3), Ramesh Veja (A7), and Pala Gogan (A8) insufficient for conviction and acquitted them of all charges.

However, the Court upheld the involvement of Kanu Rama Mori (A1), Gogan Rama Mori (A5), and Veja Rama Mori (A6) , finding their roles in the kidnapping and fatal assault to be established beyond a reasonable doubt.

---

From Murder to Culpable Homicide: The Question of Intent

The pivotal part of the judgment dealt with whether the act amounted to murder under Section 302 IPC or culpable homicide under Section 304 IPC. The Court noted that the motive was to "teach the lesson" to the deceased and that, apart from a single depressed fracture on the head, the other injuries were simple in nature.

In its reasoning, the Bench stated:

"Having regard to the injuries sustained by the deceased and manner in which the single blow being caused on the head of the deceased, it is difficult to hold that A1, A5 and A6 intended to cause death or intended to that particular injury to cause death. However, knowledge on the part of the accused could be attributed that by inflicting such kind of injuries, the death might be caused."

Concluding that the act lacked the specific intention required for a murder conviction, the Court altered the charge from Section 302 to Section 304 Part-II (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) for A1, A5, and A6.

---

Final Verdict and Sentences

The High Court passed the following final orders:

• Acquittal: Appellants A2, A3, A7, and A8 were acquitted of all charges.
• Modified Conviction and Sentence:
  • Kanu Rama Mori (A1), Gogan Rama Mori (A5), and Veja Rama Mori (A6) were convicted under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC and sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment.
  • The conviction of A1 (Kanu Rama) for kidnapping the deceased under Section 364 IPC was upheld, but the sentence was reduced to five years.
  • The conviction of A5 (Gogan Rama) for kidnapping the eyewitness under Section 365 IPC was upheld, with the sentence reduced to three years.

The Court directed the three convicted appellants, who are currently on bail, to surrender within five weeks to serve the remainder of their sentences.