'Used Excessive Speed': Gujarat High Court Declines To Discharge Accused In Iskcon Bridge 'Hit & Run' Case

The Gujarat High Court refused to discharge Tathya Patel for culpable homicide not amounting to murder (IPC Section 304 part 2) accused in the 2023 Iskcon Bridge hit and run case which claimed nine lives in Ahmedabad, observing that there was a strong prima facie case against him.

The court said that this was not a simple case of rash and negligent driving, wherein the applicant was under the belief that he had taken sufficient precaution to prevent the accident and this imputability arose from him "persisting in excessive speed despite being asked to drive slowly".

Patel had moved the high court trial court order which rejected a plea filed by him and his father seeking discharge from the offences punishable under IPC Sections 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) and 308(Attempt to commit culpable homicide).

Justice PM Raval in his order perused the record and materials and said that it prima facie emerged and on the day of the accident Patel drove his car at an excessive speed of more than 130 Km/h.

The court noted that during the investigation and after recording the evidence of the co-passengers it was prima facie revealed that, "despite Tathya being asked to drive slowly, he did not give heed to such request from the co-passengers".

It noted that as per the car manufacturer's report, five minutes before the accident the car was driven at over 130 Km/h. and after the accident the car dragged for almost 40 meters. It thus said:

"What is to be seen is the facts and circumstances of the each case, manner in which the accident took place, conduct of the accused before, during and after the accident and keeping all these aspects read with the papers of the chargesheet, it cannot be said that this is a pure and simple case of rash and negligence driving. Thus, it cannot be stated that the Applicant had a hope and was under the belief that he had taken sufficient precaution to prevent the happening. This imputability arises from persisting in excessive speed despite being asked to drive slowly. Even on perusal of the charge-sheet, what has been imputed to the accused No. 1 is not merely that he drove at excessive speed and driving in a negligent manner but if the car is driven at high and excessive speed and in a manner and despite having knowledge that this would lead to death was driven in such a manner which resulted into the death of nine persons".

The court said that the matter fell in the Thus, the present case falls within last clause of Section 299 (culpable homicide), coupled with the fact of driving the vehicle at an excessive speed with a knowledge of dangerous consequences, "despite having been asked to drive slow was not given heed" to by the accused.

"From the bare reading of the papers of the charge-sheet, a strong prima facie case of Section 304 Part 2 is made out. More particularly, when the law for the purpose of holding accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part 2 of the IPC, it is not necessary to bring the case of the prosecution within one of the exceptions of Section 300 of IPC. Thus, if the case on hand is considered without controverting it, there is strong prima facie material against the present accused No. 1 to proceed with the offence under Section 304 Part II of the IPC and Section 308. Thus, no case is made out for discharging the Applicant – Org. Accused No. 1 for the offence punishable under Section 304 and 308 of the IPC..." the court said.

However with respect to Patel's father the court referred to the charge-sheet and observed that the role attributed to him was that on receiving the information of the accident, he reached the place of incident and "started quarrelling with the persons who had gathered there, used abusive language and also threatened them and took away his son".

The court said that even if the father's defence is not considered, at best IPC Sections 504(Intentional Insult with Intent to Provoke Breach of Peace), 506(2)(criminal intimidation),114(Abettor present when offence is committed) and 118(Concealing design to commit offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life) were made out.

However, the court said, offences under Section 279 (rash or negligent driving endangering human life), 337 (causing hurt by an act of rash or negligent behaviour endangering human life or personal safety), 338 (causing grievous hurt by an act of rash or negligent behaviour endangering human life or safety),304 (Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder) under IPC as well as under Sections 177(general provision for Penalty), 184 (driving dangerously) and Section 134 (b) duty of driver in case of accident and injury to a person) of Motor Vehicles Act were not made out against the father.

It thus partly allowed the father's plea (Criminal Revision Application No. 1396 of 2023) and dismissed Patel's plea (Criminal Revision Application No. 1406 of 2023).

"Org. Accused No. 2, Pragnesh Harshadbhai Patel stands discharged from the offence punishable under Section 279, 337,338,304,308 of the IPC and Section 177,184 and 134(b) of MV Act. The impugned order passed by the Principal District Judge, at Ahmedabad Rural in Sessions Case No. 115/2023 dated 21.10.2023 qua Org. Accused No.2 Pragnesh Harshadbhai Patel stands partly allowed to the aforesaid extent," the court said.

Case title: TATHYA PRAGNESHBHAI PATEL v/s STATE OF GUJARAT and connected petition

Criminal Revision Application No. 1406 of 2023 & Criminal Revision Application No. 1396 of 2023

Click Here To Read/Download Order