Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
ILESH J. VORA, P.M. RAVAL, JJ.
Kanu Rama Mori and Others – Appellants
Versus
State of Gujarat – Respondent – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 2214 of 2008
Decided On : 07-10-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. questioning conviction and sentence details. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. details of the factual background and incident. (Para 3) |
| 3. evidence presented by prosecution. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. trial court's verdict and appeals. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. summary of evidence presented. (Para 10) |
| 6. arguments by appellants' counsel. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 7. state's opposition to appeal. (Para 13) |
| 8. evaluation of evidence and witness reliability. (Para 16 , 17) |
| 9. assessment of unlawful assembly and participation. (Para 19 , 20) |
| 10. consideration of fir delay impact. (Para 22 , 23) |
| 11. distinction between murder and culpable homicide. (Para 24 , 25) |
| 12. conclusion on convictions and sentences. (Para 29) |
| 13. final orders and appeals. (Para 30 , 31 , 32) |
JUDGMENT :
ILESH J. VORA, J.
1. The correctness of the judgment and order of sentence dated 21.06.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Porbandar is questioned in this conviction appeal.
2. By the impugned judgment passed in Sessions Case No.23 of 2007, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Porbandar, convicted and sentenced the appellants under Section 143 , 147, 148, 149, 364, 365, 302 of INDIAN PENAL CODE and Section 135 of the B.P. Act and sentenced to suffer the imprisonment as per the below schedule:
| Name of accused | Conviction under section | Punishment | Fine | In default of fine |
| Kanu Rama-A1 Kara Rama Kodiyatar – A2 Raju Rina Kodiyatar – A3 | S. 364 IPC S. 302 r/w. S.143, 147, 148, 149 of Indian Penal Code S.135 of B.P. Act | 07 years | 10,000/- | 1 year |
| R.I. for Life | 15,000/- | 1 year | ||
| 6 months | 500/- | 1 month | ||
| Gogan Rama Mori – A5 | 365 S.302 r/w. S.143, 147, 148, 149 of Indian Penal Code S.135 of B.P. Act | 5 years R.I. Life 6 months | 5,000/- 15,000/- 500/- | 6 months 1 year 1 month |
| Veja Rama Mori – A6 Ramesh Veja Mori – A7 Pala Gogan Mori – A8 | 365 Under Section 302 r/w. S.143, 147, 148, 149 of Indian Penal Code Under Section 135 of B.P. Act | 5 years Life 6 months | 5,000/- 15,000/- 500/- | 6 months 1 year 1 month |
All sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
3. The facts, leading to the present appeal are as follows:
3.1 The appellants-accused were prosecuted and tried for the offence of murder, kidnapping and/or abducting, in order to commit a murder and kidnapping the witness and wrongfully confined him to extract the necessary information with respect to deceased Rajesh. An FIR came to be registered with Ranavav Police Station, District: Porbandar against the 9 accused persons for the offence of murder and kidnapping as referred above.
The allegations are to the effect that, the deceased Rajesh was in relation with the daughter of A6. On the day of incident i.e. 30.11.2006, in the morning at about 8 o’clock, the deceased Rajesh had given a task to his friend PW.18 to hide the mobile charger in the area of village temple of Bileswar so as to facilitate the girl-x for chatting on mobile with him. PW.18 on the instructions of the deceased, came to temple area by driving his passenger rickshaw and hide the mobile charger under the stones nearby the temple. The accused party was vigilant on the relations of the deceased with girl-x. The uncle of girl-x A-5 Goganrama, came at the place by driving his Indica Car and upon seeing PW:18, he chased and restrained him on the curve of Bileswar Road. A5 took the weapon sticks from his car and after conversation with PW:18 about his act of keeping the mobile charger for girl-x, beaten up and took him inside the Indica car and then, he was presented before the co-accused at their farm.
In these background facts, the accused formed an unlawful assembly with a common object to kidnap Rajesh for his murder and in order to execute the common object of assembly, the A1 to A3 and driver A4 being member of the unlawful assembly, went to village Ranakandorna by traveling in an utility jeep. The co-accused A5 to A9 along with PW-18 decided to stand at one point and waited for arrival of A1 to A3. The deceased Rajesh when he was standing with his brother PW-3 was kidnapped and was compelled to take seat in the utility jeep a
The court established that intent in inflicting fatal injuries was insufficient for murder under Section 302, leading to classification as culpable homicide under Section 304 IPC.
The court upheld certain convictions for murder and rape based on consistent eyewitness testimony and deemed others not liable due to a lack of direct involvement.
Conviction for murder upheld based on unlawful assembly doctrine; presence in assembly sufficient for accountability under Section 149 IPC.
The acquittal of the accused was based on the prosecution's failure to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt amidst significant inconsistencies in eyewitness testimonies.
Presence in an unlawful assembly suffices for liability, affirming that minor discrepancies in testimonies do not negate the prosecution's case.
The court affirmed the conviction of the accused for murder, finding sufficient evidence of an unlawful assembly and individual culpability amid claims of inconsistencies in prosecution testimony.
Eyewitness testimony corroborated by medical evidence can establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt in murder cases involving conspiracy and unlawful assembly.
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
