[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Dineshbhai Ramjibhai Makwana vs State Of Gujarat on 2 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/84/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 84 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
DINESHBHAI RAMJIBHAI MAKWANA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ASHISH M DAGLI(2203) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR ROHAN RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 02/04/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1) By way of present revision application under Sections 397 read with
401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant has
prayed for quashing and setting aside the judgment and order of
conviction and sentence dated 08.06.2011 passed by the learned 4 th
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surendranagar in Criminal Case
No.205 of 2006, whereby, the trial Court has been pleased to hold the
applicant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC
and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of six months and
also directed to pay fine of Rs.500/-, for the offence under Section
304-I of IPC, sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of one year
and fine of Rs.500/-, for the offence under Section 337 of IPC,
sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of six months and and
fine of Rs.500/-, for the offence under Section 338 of IPC, sentenced
to undergo simple imprisonment of one year and fine of Rs.500/- and
for the offence under Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of one month and fine of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/84/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
Rs.300/-, which is confirmed by learned Additional Judge,
Surendranagar, in Criminal Appeal No.27 of 2011 vide order dated
09.02.2012, but reduced imprisonment period under Sections 279,
337 and 338 of IPC.
2) Heard Mr.Ashish M. Dagli, learned counsel for the applicant - accused
and Mr. Rohan Raval, ld. APP for the respondent - State.
3) Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 18.01.2006, at about
03:30 hours in night, when the applicant accused was driving TATA
709 tempo vehicle bearing registration No.GJ13T7439 carrying some
passengers and when he reached near Khodu, he tried to take full
turn, tempo was turned turtle, due to which, passengers on board
sustained fractures and one witness Dayabhai Shivabhai Solanki died.
Pursuant thereto, FIR being I-C.R. No. 08/2006 came to be registered
for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 304-A, 337 and 338
of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 177 and 184 of the Motor
Vehicles Act.
4) Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that learned trial
court failed to appreciate the fact when the accident occurred it was
night hours, and it is not possible for the driver to see both the sides
of the road and as uneven road was there, tempo turned turtle.
Further, from the panchnama, it reveals that both the sides of the
road is deep and uneven and even panchnama is not indicated that
the present applicant was driving tempo in rash and negligent
manner. The said fact also corroborates from the deposition of
complainant himself. Witness namely Khimjibhai Galabhai who was
examined at exh:18, has clearly stated in his deposition that he was
sitting in the tempo and driver of the tempo was driving the tempo in
moderate speed but due to uneven and deep road of both sides,
tempo turned turtle. However, without considering the facts of the
case, learned trial Court has recorded conviction against the applicant
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/84/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
though the applicant was totally innocent and accident occurred in
night hours only because of uneven and deep road of both the sides.
Therefore, he has prayed to allow present revision application.
5) Learned APP for the respondent-State has opposed the present
revision application and contended that after appreciating the
evidence produced on record, learned trial Court has recorded the
conviction. Only because of rash and negligent driving, one person
has lost his life and others received injuries. Considering the scene of
panchnama and statements of the witnesses, trial Court has rightly
recorded conviction which was confirmed by the lower appellate
Court. Hence, no interference of this Court is required. In such
submissions, he has prayed to dismiss the preset revision application.
6) Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and upon
perusal of the material placed on record, it appears that on
18.01.2006, at about 03:30 hours in night, when the applicant accused
was driving TATA 709 tempo vehicle bearing registration
No.GJ13T7439 carrying some passengers and when he reached near
Khodu, he tried to take full turn, tempo was turned turtle, due to
which, passengers on board sustained fractures and one witness
Dayabhai Shivabhai Solanki died. Pursuant thereto, FIR being I-C.R.
No. 08/2006 came to be registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 279, 304-A, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code and
Sections 177 and 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It further appears
that, after recording the evidence, the learned Trial Court convicted
the accused. Being aggrieved by the same, the applicant preferred an
appeal before the learned Sessions Court, which came to be
dismissed, confirming the order of conviction. Hence, the present
revision has been filed.
7) Learned counsel for the applicant has mainly relied upon the
evidence of PW-4 Manjulaben Ramjibhai, examined at Exh.16. The
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/84/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
said witness was travelling in the tempo along with other persons and
has identified the accused who was driving the tempo. Thus, the
identity of the accused is not in dispute. The factum of the accident is
also not in dispute. She has categorically stated that the truck was
driven by the present applicant in moderate speed and suddently it
was turned turtle. The said version of said witness has been
supported by another witness namely Ramjibhai Arjanbhai who was
examined at Exh:9B. The Investigating Officer, examined at Exh:42,
collected the evidence and filed the chargesheet. Prosecution has not
even examined any Inspector of Motor Vehicle Act. There is no any
certificate or report produced by the Inspector of Motor Vehicles Act
regarding alleged incident has been produced on the record and
therefore, the accident occurred due to the reason as discussed
hereinabove. Hence, only question that remains to be determined is
the negligence on the part of the applicant, as identity is not in
dispute.
8) So far as negligence is concerned, it appears that on the date of
accident, when the applicant was driving the tempo in which other
persons were travelling, it was dark night and due to uneven and
deep side of the road, tempo turned turtle. Though as per the
evidence of witnesses, it reveals that the applicant was driving the
tempo in moderate speed, but being a driver of tempo failed to
observe and follow traffic rules, and thus, the accident occurred
solely due to his negligence. Therefore, the learned Trial Court as well
as the learned Sessions Court have not committed any error in
recording the conviction. Hence, no interference by this Court is
warranted.
9) The revisional jurisdiction can be exercised where there is a palpable
error or non-compliance with the provision of law and where decision
is completely erroneous and where the judicial discretion is exercised
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/84/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
arbitrarily. Herein, if we examine the reasons assigned by the learned
trial Court, it appears that learned trial Court has already appreciated
the facts and finding of fact not to be upset unless it is found
perverse and finding of fact not to be substituted keeping in mind
the ratio of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amit Kapoor vs.
Ramesh Chander & Anr. reported in (2012)9 SCC 460 as no
perversity is found in the reasons assigned by the learned trial Court.
Learned trial Court has properly assigned reasons and given the
finding based on evidence led before him and hence also, no
interference at the hands of this Court in exercise of revisional
jurisdiction is required.
10) It would be appropriate to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Malkeet Singh Gill vs. State of
Chhatisgarh reported in (2022)8 SCC 204 wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that section 397/401 Cr.P.C vests jurisdiction for
the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness,
legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or
passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior
court. The object of the provision is to set right a patent defect or an
error of jurisdiction of law. There has to be well-founded error which
is to be determined on the merits of individual case. It is also well
settled that while considering the same, the Revisional Court does
not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case to
reverse those findings. It is a settled legal proposition that if the
Courts below have recorded the finding of fact, the question of re-
appreciation of evidence by the Court does not arise unless it is found
to be totally perverse.
11) Learned counsel for the applicant has prayed to extend the benefit of
probation, but considering the nature of offence and alarming
situation in the country due to road race, number of people lost their
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/84/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
lives. Hence, considering the decisions rendered in the cases of Dalbir
Singh Vs. State of Haryana, reported in AIR 2000 SC 1677, Thakur Singh
Vs. State of Haryana, reported in 2003(9) SCC 208 and State of Punjab
Vs. Balvinder Singh, reported in 2012 (2) SCC 182, no benefit of
probation is extended to the accused for the offence under Section
304A of IPC. Hence, request of learned counsel for the applicant is
not acceded to.
12) However, considering that the accident occurred in the year 2006, the
judgment of conviction came to be recorded on 08.06.2011, and
thereafter the revision has been preferred in 2012, and having regard
to the long lapse of approximately 20 years, the sentence of one
year's imprisonment is ordered to run concurrently in terms of
Section 31 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is also noted that the
accused has already paid the fine. In view of the prolonged lapse of
time and the attendant circumstances, the sentence of imprisonment
is reduced to a period of six months.
13) In wake of aforesaid conspectus, present revision application fails and
stands dismissed. Rule is hereby discharged
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
SUCHIT
