A. S. SUPEHIA, VIMAL K. VYAS
State Of Gujarat – Appellant
Versus
Babubhai Bhesabhai Ghodia Patel – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
A.S. SUPEHIA, J.
(1) Both these Criminal Appeals emanate from the judgment and order dated 11.02.2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.4, Navsari, in Sessions Case No.42 of 2004, wherein and whereby, the trial Court has acquitted the original accused Nos.5 and 6 i.e. Mangubhai Bhisabhai (Ghodia) Patel and Kiranbhai Chhotubhai (Ghodia) Patel, respectively and convicted the original accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offence punishable under Sections 304 Part–II read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “the IPC”) and sentenced imprisonment for a period of 5 years.
(2) Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the trial Court, the State has filed the appeal against all the six accused, whereas, the original accused Nos.1 to 4 had filed the captioned Appeal being Criminal Appeal No.465 of 2005, challenging the conviction under provisions of Section 304 Part-II read with Section 34 of the IPC.
BRIEF FACTS:
(3) The case of the prosecution is that the complainant – Kikubhai Gamanbhai, (PW-1), filed a complaint before Chikhali Police Station, alleging that on 03.08.2004, when he along with his wife – Babitaben had gone for agricultural
Afrahim Sheikh vs. State of W.B.
Arjun Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra, (2016) 16 S.C.C. 727
Anbazhagan vs. The State represented by the Inspector of Police
Indrapal Singh and Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Krishnamurthy alias Gunodu and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka
Lakshmi Chand & Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Point of law: Conviction – Modified - witnesses are vital in nature and so also they are the natural witnesses even though they have been stated that they are related to each other and interested wit....
(1) Common intention – An act would mean and include other acts along with it – Section 34 IPC creates a deeming fiction by infusing and importing a criminal act constituting an offence committed by ....
The court modified convictions from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, emphasizing the need for established common intention among accused, reflecting principles of reasonable doubt....
The court reaffirmed that the intention to kill can be established through circumstantial evidence and that joint liability under Section 34 IPC applies when multiple individuals participate in a cri....
Advocates appeared :For the Appellant : Ashok Kumar Jain For the Respondent : R. K. Awasthi
The court clarified that participation in an unlawful assembly does not require each member to commit an overt act, and distinguished between intention and knowledge in culpable homicide cases.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.