Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
ILESH J. VORA, P.M. RAVAL
Kanu Rama Mori – Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat – Respondent
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 s
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.
Conviction based on unreliable eyewitness testimonies that lack independent corroboration cannot establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
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
