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
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
Pattipati Venkaiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
State of Punjab Vs. Karnail Sing
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....
Murder conviction quashed for lack of proof that specific appellants inflicted fatal blow; eyewitness contradictions, medical evidence allowing death by fall, parity with acquitted co-accused, and un....
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.