Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
ILESH J. VORA, P.M. RAVAL
Paresh @ Paryo Sumanbhai Patel – Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat – Respondent
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 impr
The court established that when intent to kill is absent but culpable homicide is evident, conviction under IPC §304 Part II is justified, despite minor discrepancies in witness testimonies not under....
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's decision in this case highlights the importance of analyzing the relevant provisions of the IPC and applying them to the facts of the case in order to determine the nature of the offense ....
The judgment establishes that minor discrepancies in witness testimonies, which do not materially affect the case, cannot be the basis for doubting the prosecution's case.
Intention to kill is essential for murder conviction; knowledge of likely death suffices for culpable homicide, requiring assessment of overall circumstances and violence nature.
(1) Appreciation of evidence – Testimonies of prosecution witnesses, before their acceptance must be tested on established parameters of appreciation of evidence.(2) Appreciation of evidence – Positi....
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.
Eyewitness accounts, particularly from injured witnesses, are pivotal in establishing guilt despite minor discrepancies; prior enmity reinforces motives for violent offenses.
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
