### Direct Ocular and Forensic Evidence Establishing Common Intention to Commit Homicidal Murder Case Brief: *Parmar Chhaganbhai Bhojabhai & Anr. v. State of Gujarat* Court: High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ilesh J. Vora and Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. T. Vachhani Decision Date: 24/02/2026 (As per text) Citation: R/Criminal Appeal No. 1515 of 2013 with 1315 of 2013 --- #### 1. Core Legal Issue Whether the evidence involving interested witnesses, corroborated by independent testimony of a "chase," recovery of weapons, and FSL reports, is sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. #### 2. Brief Facts On May 24, 2011, following a trivial dispute over water splashing, Accused Nos. 1 and 2 (armed with swords) attacked Sureshbhai (the deceased). Accused No. 3 (Gangaben) allegedly instigated the attack and assaulted the complainant (the deceased's wife). The deceased attempted to flee but was chased and further assaulted near a neighbor’s house. He succumbed to multiple penetrating and incised wounds at the hospital. The Trial Court convicted Accused Nos. 1 and 2 under Section 302/34 IPC but acquitted Accused No. 3 of the murder charge due to lack of shared common intention. Both the Accused (against conviction) and the State (against the acquittal of Accused No. 3) appealed. #### 3. Key Evidence Evaluated * Ocular Account: PW-2 (Wife/Complainant) provided a detailed account of the assault. The Court held that minor variations between her FIR and testimony were natural results of trauma. * Independent Corroboration: PW-5 (Neighbor) testified to seeing the accused chasing the deceased with blood-stained swords. This "chase" provided a crucial link in the chain of events. * Medical Evidence: Post-mortem (Exh-43) proved injuries to vital parts (chest, lung cavity) were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. * Scientific Evidence (FSL): Recovery of swords under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was validated by FSL reports confirming the deceased’s blood group on the weapons and the clothes of the accused. * Section 313 Cr.P.C.: The accused failed to explain the presence of blood on their clothes or their presence at the scene in their statements. #### 4. Court’s Reasoning & Principles 1. Sifting the Grain from the Chaff: Citing *Goverdhan v. State of Chhattisgarh*, the Court held that minor inconsistencies do not warrant the rejection of a witness's testimony if the core narrative is reliable. 2. Section 27 Evidence Act: Even if panch witnesses turn hostile, recovery is admissible if supported by the Investigating Officer’s testimony and subsequent FSL confirmation. 3. Section 34 IPC (Common Intention): The Court upheld the acquittal of Accused No. 3, noting that while she was present and involved in a scuffle, there was no evidence she shared the specific intent to kill or participated in the lethal sword attack. 4. Double Presumption of Innocence: In the State's appeal against acquittal, the Court reaffirmed that if the Trial Court's view is "possible," the Appellate Court should not interfere unless the findings are perverse. #### 5. Final Order * Criminal Appeal No. 1515/2013 (Accused Appeal): Dismissed. Conviction and life imprisonment of Accused Nos. 1 and 2 confirmed. * Criminal Appeal No. 1315/2013 (State Appeal): Dismissed. Acquittal of Accused No. 3 upheld.

Parmar Chhaganbhai Bhojabhai & Anr. v. State of Gujarat R/Criminal Appeal Nos. 1515 of 2013 and 1315 of 2013

BYLawLens TeamEditorial and Research Team