SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 16207

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Hasmukh D. Suthar, J
BHARATBHAI GHANSHYAMBHAI SHAHV/sSTATE OF GUJARAT
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 264 of 2013



Important Points

A financier cannot be held liable for culpable homicide under Section 304 IPC for building collapse caused by a natural calamity if there is no evidence of their role in construction or the existence of mens rea (knowledge or intention to cause death).

Subject

Criminal Law - Discharge

Act Referred

Headnote

The case involves an application for discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, following the collapse of a building during the 2001 earthquake. The building, constructed between 1989 and 1991, suffered severe damage resulting in fatalities. The court found that the applicant acted solely as a financier and was not the owner, developer, or contractor responsible for the construction. The primary issue is whether the applicant can be prosecuted under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code in the absence of mens rea. The court reasoned that for an offence under Section 304, there must be knowledge or intention that the act was likely to cause death. Since the damage occurred due to a natural calamity years after construction and the applicant had no role in the actual building process, the essential ingredient of mens rea is absent. Accordingly, the present revision application is allowed. order dated 03.12.2011 passed by the Sessions Court, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No.371 of 2010, is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, the discharge application filed by the present applicant stands allowed and the applicant is discharged from all the offences alleged against them.

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Nandish H Thakkar
For the Respondents: Rohan Raval

Table of Content
1. facts regarding building collapse and applicant's role as a financier. (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments on financier role versus active participation in construction. (Para 3 , 4)
3. absence of mens rea and builder status for the applicant. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
4. legal standards for discharge and ingredients of culpable homicide. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
5. justification for discharge and final order quashing the lower court's decision. (Para 12 , 13)

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No

✔

==========================================================

CORAM:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

JUDGMENT

1. By filing these revision application, the applicants have prayed to quash and set aside order dated 03.12.2011 passed by the Sessions Court in Sessions Case NO.371 of 2010 and further be pleased to direct discharge of the petitioners in terms of Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the present revision application arises from the order dated 03.12.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Court in Sessions Case No. 371 of 2010, whereby the application filed under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. for discharge came to be rejected. The case pertains to damage caused to Sangemarmar Complex situated at Ambawadi, Ahmedabad, during the devastating earthquake of 26.01.2001 measuring 7.9 on the Richter Scale, which caused widespread destruction across the State of Gujarat. The complex comprised two wings containing nine flats and was constructed between 1989 and 1991. One wing consisting of four flats suffered severe damage, whereas the other wing remained unaffected. The land on which the complex was constructed originally belonged to Mr. Shodhan, who had obtained the necessary permissions and undertaken the development and construction activities. The applicant had financed the superstructure construction and subsequently occupied one flat, while two other flats stood in the names of his wife and HUF. The record further indicates that permissions, municipal payments, electricity connections and ownership-related documents were in the name of Mr. Shodhan. Certain construction agreements executed in the year 1992 were entered into after completion of construction. The building had remained occupied and in use by all residents, including Mr. Shodhan, until the earthquake occurred in the year 2001.

3. Learned Advocate Mr. Thakkar, appearing for the applicant, has submitted that the present applicant has no connection whatsoever with the construction of the alleged structure and was merely a financier. It is contended that there is no material on record to indicate that the applicant was in any manner engaged in the construction of the “Sangemarmar Complex. It is further submitted that the building in question suffered damage due to the high-intensity earthquake that occurred on 26 January 2001, which was a natural calamity. The structure comprised two wings connected by a common staircase and lift, consisting of five apartments in one wing and four in the other, and certain portions were damaged. The construction had commenced in 1989 and was completed in 1991, nearly a decade prior to the earthquake. Therefore, the damage cannot be attributed to any alleged act or omission on the part of the applicant.

3.1 Learned counsel has emphasized that there was no mens rea or criminal intention on the part of the applicant. Moreover, no material on record establishes any involvement of the applicant in the construction activity. All permissions for construction were obtained by one Mr. Jagdishchandra Gordhandas Sodhan, the builder, who has consistently asserted his ownership over the property. The record further reveals that the said builder had applied for and obtained requisite permissions from AUDA and had also filed affidavits before the competent authorities affirm

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top