Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 11910

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
P. M. RAVAL, J
TATHYA PRAGNESHBHAI PATEL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 1406 of 2023 | R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 1396 of 2023

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: MS ZEAL H SHAH
For the Respondents: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The court established that driving at excessive speeds with knowledge of potential harm constitutes culpable homicide, justifying the charges under Sections 304 and 308 of the IPC.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 397, 401, 482 - Indian Penal Code - Sections 304, 308 - Criminal Revision Application against order of discharge - Applicants alleged to have driven at excessive speed resulting in fatalities - Court emphasized the necessity of showing prima facie case for serious charges based on knowledge and intention - Discharge application rejected for not fulfilling criteria for culpable homicide. (Paras 1, 11, 15)

(B) The court found that excessive speed and disregard for passenger requests demonstrated knowledge of potential fatal consequences, justifying framing of charges under IPC. (Paras 11, 12, 15)

Facts of the case:
The applicant drove a vehicle at a high speed, surpassing permissible limits, leading to an accident that caused the death of nine people and injuries to others.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that there exists prima facie evidence supporting the charges under Sections 304 and 308 IPC based on the circumstances surrounding the accident.

Issues: The main issues included whether the applicant's actions constituted culpable homicide and if the evidence was sufficient to maintain charges under IPC Sections 304 and 308.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the applicant's knowledge of the dangers associated with reckless driving warranted charges of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, indicating serious consequences through specific incidents leading to multiple fatalities.

Result: Application dismissed for applicant No. 1; charges upheld under IPC Sections 304 and 308.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The court held that there exists prima facie evidence supporting charges under Sections 304 and 308 IPC based on the circumstances of the accident (high speed, knowledge of potential harm) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The revisional court considered discharge under Section 227 CrPC and maintained that framing charges requires evaluating prima facie material forming part of the charge-sheet; scope of review is limited to materials before framing of charge (!) (!) (!) . - The judgment discusses that Section 304 Part II IPC can apply when there is knowledge of likely death, even without intent, and clarifies the distinction from 304A; it emphasizes knowledge without intent can still attract 304 Part II (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The Court notes the difference between rash/negligent driving and culpable homicide not amounting to murder, focusing on knowledge of dangerous consequences despite being asked to slow down (!) (!) . - It is noted that framing of charges is a serious exercise and the trial court must weigh prima facie evidence; if grave suspicion exists, discharge may be improper (!) (!) (!) (!) . - Accused No. 2 (father) was discharged from certain IPC and MV Act offenses, while order in revision was partly allowed in respect of his discharge (!) .

How to determine whether framing of charges under Sections 304 and 308 IPC is justified based on prima facie knowledge of likely fatal outcome?

What is the scope of a revisional court’s review of discharge orders when considering framing of charges under IPC Sections 304 and 308?

What are the evidentiary thresholds and tests for establishing a prima facie case for culpable homicide not amounting to murder in the context of a high-speed vehicle collision?

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The applicants have preferred the present application under Section 397 and Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “CrPC” for the sake of brevity), assailing the order dated 21.10.2023 below Exhibit 19 and 20 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) in Sessions Case No. 115 of 2023, wherein, the learned Trial Court rejected the application filed by the applicants under Section 227 of the CrPC seeking discharge from the offences punishable under Sections 304 and 308 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC” for short) in Sessions Case No. 115 of 2023.

2. The facts in nutshell are that:-

2.1 On 20.07.2023 at around 12:30 am to 1:10 am the applicant was driving Jaguar car in his possession having registration number GJ-01-WK-0093 with dark film while having five co-passengers in his car namely Shreya Vaghasiya, Aryan Panchal, Dhwani Panchal, Shaan Soni and Malvika Patel and thus it is alleged that the applicant was driving the said car with more co-passengers than the permissible limit.

2.2. That the applicant was driving the said car at high speed in a rash manner and it is alleged that knowing fully well that if he will drive in such a manner the lives of others as well as his own life will be at risk and will lead to death, the applicant drove in such a manner.

2.3. That having this knowledge, the applicant drove at a speed of 141.27 over Iskcon Bridge and crashed into policepersons and people who had gathered there owing to a previous accident that had occurred between a Mahindra Thar car and a dumper between electric pole number IMH48452 to IMH48455.

2.4 That the applicant hurled at the crowed and some people were flung in air and were dragged for about 120 feet and as a result 9 persons who were standing there died and severe injuries were caused to 12 other persons who were standing there.

2.5. That the accused no. 2 who is the father of applicant got to know about the incident and thereafter arrived at the place of incident and it is alleged that he quarreled with people who had gathered there and abused them and threatened to kill them and thus aided the applicant to escape and run away from the place of occurrence and breached the speed limit mentioned in the Public Order as issued by the Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad City. Pursuant thereto the FIR being 11191069230241 of 2023 on 20.07.2023 was lodged before the SG Highway 02 Traffic Police Station, Ahmedabad City for the offences under Section 279,337,338,304,504,506(2) and 114 of the IPC read with Section 177,184 and 134(b) of the MV Act.

2.6 Pursuant to the completion of investigation, chargesheet dated 27.7.2023 came to be filed against the present Applicants for the aforesaid Offences before the jurisdictional Magistrate and was numbered as Criminal Case No. 9125 of 2023, however, having found that the charges are Sessions Triable, the matter was committed by the Ld. 5^th Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ahmedabad and Sessions Case No. 115 of 2023 is pending adjudication before the Court of Ld. Principle District Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural).

3. At the outset, Ld. Senior Counsel Mr. I.A. Saiyed has submitted that pursuant to the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 14482 of 2025 vide order dated 3 November 2025, the Trial Court has proceeded to frame charges against the applicant. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has further clarified that the High Court is at liberty to proceed with the Criminal Revision Application, notwithstanding the pendency of the Special Leave Petition. It has also been observed that the framing of charges during the pendency of the proceedings would not render the matter infructuous as it would be subject to the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme court.

4. During the pendency of the present Revision Application, the Learned Trial Court has framed charges

Click Here to Read the rest of this document