Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
ILESH J.VORA, S.V.PINTO
Naranbhai @ Naniyo Khimjibhai Vadher – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
S.V. PINTO, J.
1. Criminal Appeal No. 3025 of 2008 has been filed by the appellants - original accused under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Criminal Appeal No. 132 of 2009 has been filed by the State for enhancement of sentence. Both the appeals are against the judgment and order dated 28.11.2008 passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Surat in Sessions Case No. 16 of 2006 and as they both have arisen out of the same impugned judgement and order, have been disposed by this common judgment.
1.1 The appellants were tried for offences under Sections 307 , 452, 34 and 188 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and were convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for four years for the offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC, simple imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs 500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only) and in default, simple imprisonment for 15 days for the offence under Section 452 read with Section 34 of the IPC and fine of Rs 200/- (Rupees Two Hundred only) and in default, simple imprisonment for 10 days for the offence under Section 188 of the IPC. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently, with any period of detention to be set
In a criminal case, the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; failure to establish clear evidence or motive results in acquittal.
The court affirmed robbery convictions but acquitted on murder due to insufficient evidence of intent to kill, emphasizing the reliability of eyewitness testimony when properly scrutinized.
The court upheld the conviction for robbery while acquitting the accused of murder due to insufficient evidence of intent, affirming the reliability of testimony from related witnesses.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on credible and corroborative evidence, including the testimony of injured witnesses and medical officers, to prove the complicity of ....
The emotional state of the accused, stemming from a tumultuous love relationship, justified a reduction in sentence, emphasizing a humane approach in sentencing.
Prosecution must prove intention to commit murder for conviction under attempted murder; mere infliction of injury is insufficient without establishing a clear intent.
The court upheld the conviction under Section 324 IPC based on consistent eyewitness accounts, while acquitting one appellant due to evidence of his absence during the incident.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appellants had a common intention to murder the victim, and their actions did not fall within the exception for culpable homicide not amou....
The court ruled that a confession made to a police officer is inadmissible as evidence, and the conviction for murder was reduced to culpable homicide due to lack of premeditation.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
