SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Guj) 1940

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Ilesh J. Vora, P. M. Raval, JJ.
Paresh @ Paryo Sumanbhai Patel – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
R/Criminal Appeal No. 1296 of 2009, R/Criminal Appeal No. 1357 of 2009, R/Criminal Appeal No. 1569 of 2009
Decided On : 11-09-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr Pravin Gondaliya
For the Respondent: Mr Aditya Jadeja APP

Eyewitness testimonies with minor discrepancies can still substantiate the prosecution's case; the lesser offense of culpable homicide applies when intent to kill is not established.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 302, 304 (Part I & II), 147, 148, 149 - Convictions in Sessions Case Nos. 79/2007 and 24/2008 for murder and rioting. Accused sentenced to life imprisonment, fines imposed with default provisions - Appeals filed with reliance on discrepancies in eyewitness accounts, FIR recording, and evidence admissibility. The Court emphasized the necessity of minor discrepancies, the inability to call the investigation flawed, and the corroboration of eyewitness testimonies despite relatives' testimonies remaining focused. Acquittals of other accused were noted. Final verdict amended convictions to Section 304(Part II) for specific appellants. (Paras 1-40)

Facts of the case:
The original accused were convicted for the murder of the complainant's uncle following a previous altercation. Eyewitnesses provided account of an assault carried out by multiple individuals. Serious injuries ensued, leading to the death of the complainant's uncle, with the complainant also injured.

Findings of Court:
The Court found enough evidence against the appellants to uphold convictions while recognizing discrepancies within testimonies. It noted that relatives can testify without impeachment solely based on their relation to the victims.

Issues: Whether the prosecution established credible evidence; the impact of minor discrepancies; and the appropriateness of charges under IPC.

Ratio Decidendi: The court established that an FIR does not capture every detail and that minor discrepancies should not outweigh substantial corroborative evidence from eyewitnesses. The act constituted culpable homicide rather than murder due to the nature of injuries and intent inferred.

Result: Appeals partly allowed, convictions modified to Section 304(Part II) with adjustments to sentence. Bail bonds cancelled; encountered sentences to be served.

JUDGMENT :

P. M. RAVAL, J.

1. Criminal Appeal No. 1296 of 2009 is preferred by the Original Accused No. 2, Paresh @ Paryo Sumanbhai Patel, who has been convicted in Sessions Case No. 79/2007. Similarly, Criminal Appeal No. 1569 of 2009 is preferred by Original Accused No. 3, Niteshbhai Nanubhai Patel, who has also been convicted in Sessions Case No. 79/2007. Furthermore, Criminal Appeal No. 1357 of 2009 is preferred by Rajeshbhai @ Raju Sumanbhai Koli Patel, who has been convicted in Sessions Case No. 24/2008.Accused Nos. 2 and 3 have been convicted arising out of Sessions Case No. 79/2007 for offences punishable under Section 302 read with Sections 147, 148, and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. They have been sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, and in default thereof, to two years’ rigorous imprisonment. Additionally, Accused No. 3 has also been convicted in Sessions Case No. 79/2007 for offences punishable under Sections 323 and 325 read with Sections 147, 148, and 149 of the IPC, and Section 135(3) of the Gujarat Police Act. For these offences, he has been sentenced to three years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, and in default thereof, simple imprisonment for six months.

2. As far as the Original Accused Nos. 4 to 9 in Sessions Case No. 79/2007 are concerned, they have been acquitted of all the charges leveled against them. However, the State has not preferred any appeal against their acquittal. On the other hand, Accused No. 1 in Sessions Case No. 79/2007, namely Jigneshbhai Patel, who had preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1256 of 2009, has passed away, and vide order dated 12.02.2025, his appeal was ordered to be abated and disposed of accordingly. Since all the aforesaid three appeals arise from the same FIR, although they pertain to two separate Sessions Cases, they are decided together.

3. The facts of the captioned appeal arising from the FIR reveal that:-

3.1 On 31.05.2007, Bhaviniben Devabhai Prabhubhai had gone to the High School situated in Village Vasan since the result of standard 10th was to be declared, and she returned to her residence at 12.30 hrs noon. Thereafter, after having lunch at about 1 o’clock, she went to the outskirts of the village for washing clothes where the agricultural field is located and was washing clothes near the agricultural field. At about 2.30 hours from the village side, around fifteen persons riding 7 to 8 motorcycles came and stopped the motorcycles near her. In the said crowd, Pareshbhai Sumanbhai Koli Patel, his younger brother Rajubhai Sumanbhai Koli Patel, Shankarbhai Maganbhai, and the son of Nathubhai, namely Jigneshbhai, resident of Vasan Village, in all four persons, were identified, and others can be identified on seeing them, out of which one person slapped her face and threatened not to telephone the Police or else she would be finished. He stood near her, and the rest of the accused were holding sticks in their hands, running towards the field where her father and his uncle Kantubhai were taking rest.

3.2 Thereafter, these persons surrounded her father and Pareshbhai, Rajubhai, Shankarbhai, and Jigneshbhai started hitting her father and uncle with sticks indiscriminately. Seeing this, the complainant, her younger sisters, and younger brother started shouting loudly to save her. At that time, when persons were standing beside the complainant, one hit her on the body with a stick and thereafter went on the motorcycles towards her residence. After some time, her aunt Vasantiben came, and learning of the scuffle, village people who were residing in the neighborhood also came to the place of incident. They found that the complainant’s father and her uncle were injured and were taken to Kasturba Hospital, Valsad, where, after examination by the doctor, her uncle was declared dead. Out of the accused persons, Rajubhai, Sumanbhai, and Pareshbhai Sumanbhai had inflicted injury on the father and uncle while holding sticks in their hands, and other pers

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top