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) 2038

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
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1296, 1357, 1569 of 2009
Decided On : 16-09-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Pravin Gondaliya
For the Respondent: Soaham Joshi

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 undermining core evidence.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 147, 148, 149, 323, 325 and 304 - Life imprisonment imposed on appellant for committing murder and other offences. Delay in lodging FIR and contradictions in witness statements noted, yet core details established. Court concluded guilt beyond reasonable doubt, altering conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II. (Paras 20, 21)

Facts of the case:
The appellants were convicted for the murder of Kantubhai and injuries inflicted on Deva Bhai on May 31, 2007, amid an altercation stemming from prior enmity. They attacked with sticks, resulting in multiple injuries leading to Kantubhai's death. The FIR was lodged two days post-incident, containing discrepancies in witness testimonies regarding events. (Paras 1, 3, 4)

Findings of Court:
Conviction of appellants upheld under lesser charge of culpable homicide due to evidence of premeditated attack but lack of intention to kill. Appellants liable for lesser sentence accordingly. (Paras 20, 21)

Issues: Determination of culpability under Sections 302 or 304 IPC based on intent and prior enmity. Established variations in witness testimonies and their impact on credibility raised. (Paras 19, 20)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that when intent to murder is not established but actions indicate culpable homicide, §304 IPC applies. Minor discrepancies in witness statements do not negate credible evidence of guilt. Each witness's perspective deemed credible even when discrepancies arose; emphasis on cumulative assessment of testimonies. (Paras 19, 20)

Result: Appeals partly allowed, convictions altered to §304 IPC. Appellants sentenced to 5 years' R.I., upholding fines imposed. (Paras 20, 21)

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 persons

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