ANILKUMAR CHIMANLAL DIXIT vs STATE OF GUJARAT

Court
Gujarat High Court

R/CR.RA/381/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY
SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 381 of 2019
With
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 382 of 2019
With
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 383 of 2019
With
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 479 of 2019

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Sd/-

==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
-- No
==========================================================
ANILKUMAR CHIMANLAL DIXIT & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR JS UNWALA, Senior Advocate with MS TEJAL A VASHI(2704) for the
Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR ROHAN RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

Date : 05/05/2026
JUDGMENT
1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule on
behalf of the respondent-State in all these matters. With the
consent of the parties, all these matters are taken up for final
hearing today and are being disposed of by this common
judgment.
2. By filing these revision applications, the applicants have
prayed to quash and set aside order dated 25.3.2019 passed
below Exh.52, Exh.54, Exh.55 & Exh.59 by learned Additional
(ad-hoc) Sessions Judge, Vyara-Tapi in Sessions Case No.48 of
Page 1 of 10
Uploaded by R.S. MALEK(HC00180) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:07:52 IST 2026

R/CR.RA/381/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026
2011 and further be pleased to direct discharge of the
petitioners in terms of Section 227 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973.
3. The facts of the case are that a complaint was filed at the
Vyara Police Station under Sections 304, 337, 338, read with
114 of the IPC (C.R.No. 80 of 2010), following the death and
injuries sustained by girls at the Government Girls' Hostel
when a portion of the staircase collapsed on 26.01.2007. The
applicants were serving as engineers in the R&B Department
at Surat during the construction period of the said staircase. It
is alleged that 11 girls were crushed under the debris of
staircase. It is alleged that due to inferior quality materials
used in construction, the accident occurred and 11 girls have
lost their lives, which led to filing of the complaint. Therefore,
the applicants-accused filed for discharge on the grounds that
there was no negligence on their part and no offense under
Sections 304, 337, 338, or 114 of IPC is made out, which came
to be rejected by the impugned orders, therefore, the
applicants have filed present revision applications.
4. Heard Mr.Jal Unwala, learned Senior Counsel appearing
with Ms.Tejal Vashi, learned advocate for the applicants-
accused and Mr.Rohan Raval, learned APP for the respondent-
State.
5. Mr.Unwala, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
applicants submitted that construction started in 1989 and
Page 2 of 10
Uploaded by R.S. MALEK(HC00180) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:07:52 IST 2026

R/CR.RA/381/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026
ended in 1994. The incident occurred in 2007, i.e.
approximately after 18 years from the start of the work. He
further submitted that even during the unfortunate incident,
the building structure remained intact and only the staircase
collapsed. He submitted that 95% structure of the building is
as it is. He further submitted that, at the relevant time, the
accused were not rendering their services at the site in
question and there was no negligence on the part of the
applicant in construction of the building. He also submitted
that there was no negligence nor there was use of inferior
quality materials, in view of the fact that the building survived
even during 2001 earthquake. He further submitted that
passage of time and weather changes affect the structures of
the building and the quality might have deteriorated over a
long period due to weather changes. He further submitted that
the applicants had no mens rea and they had no knowledge or
intention that such an unfortunate incident may happen. He
further submitted that as per the settled legal position, when
two views are possible, the Court must discharge the accused.
In this regard he has refereed to the decision in the case of
Yogesh alias Sachin Jagdish Joshi Vs State of Maharashtra,
reported in 2008(2) GLH 596 (SC).
6. Making above submissions, he prayed that these revision
applications may be allowed by discharging the accused from
the charges levelled against them.
7. On the other hand, learned APP has opposed these
applications on the ground that at the relevant point of time,
Page 3 of 10
Uploaded by R.S. MALEK(HC00180) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:07:52 IST 2026

R/CR.RA/381/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026
all the applicants were serving as PWD engineers. They were
required to perform their work according to the hostel's design
but they were negligent and they have carried out the
construction work by ignoring building codes and structural
designs, specifically the load-bearing system. He also
submitted that inferior quality bricks and materials were used.
He submitted that the Investigating Officer has collected
evidence from the Gujarat Engineering Research Institute
(GERI), which took samples of concrete chunk, steel rods,
cement mortar, bricks and concrete core, which are found to
be of inferior quality. He further submitted that due to lack of
supervision and negligence, the incident in question had
occurred and 11 innocent girls have lost their lives. He further
submitted that the accused must stand to trial to determine if
an offence under Section 304 or 304-A is made out or not. He
submitted that this is a matter of evidence and, therefore,
present applications may not be entertained and these
applications may be dismissed.
8. Having heard learned advocates for both sides and
perusing the material on record, it appears that the staircase
of the girls' hostel building in Vyara has collapsed, during
which 11 girls have lost their lives. As per the case of the
prosecution, there were structural defects and inferior quality
material was used and there was lack of supervision. The
building was completed in 1994, when the applicants were
serving as engineers in the R&B Department. It is found that
only the staircase collapsed and the rest of the building is
intact. So far as Section 304 of IPC is concerned, the
Page 4 of 10
Uploaded by R.S. MALEK(HC00180) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:07:52 IST 2026

R/CR.RA/381/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026
investigation shows that the applicants were negligent in
following building codes and in supervising the building
material and the work. Therefore, as to whether the offence
under Section 304 or 304-A of IPC is made out, is the moot
question which remains to be answered.
9. The staircase of the girls hostel building collapsed 13
years after completion of its work. It is found that the building
has survived the 2001 earthquake. Therefore, this Court has to
find out whether there was any intention or knowledge on the
part of the applicants is required to be decided.
10. Before proceeding further, it would be apt to refer to
relevant provisions of law, which are quoted hereunder:-
“304. Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to
murder.—
Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to
murder shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or
imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the
act by which the death is caused is done with the
intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily
injury as is likely to cause death,or with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to ten
years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with
the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without
any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily
injury as is likely to cause death.”
“304A. Causing death by negligence. Whoever causes the
death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act
not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished
Page 5 of 10
Uploaded by R.S. MALEK(HC00180) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:07:52 IST 2026

R/CR.RA/381/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026
with imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”
11. Before Section 304 can be invoked, the following
ingredients must be satisfied;
(i) the death of the person must have been caused;
(ii) such death must have been caused by the act of the
accused by causing bodily injury;
(iii) there must be an intention on the part of the
accused
(a) to cause death: or
(b) to cause such bodily injury which is likely to
cause death (Part I);
(iv) there must be knowledge on the part of the accused
that the bodily injury is such that it is likely to cause
death (Part II).
12. There is a distinction between Section 304 and Section
304A . Section 304A carves out cases where death is caused by
doing a rash or negligent act which does not amount to
culpable homicide not amounting to murder within the
meaning of Section 299 or culpable homicide amounting to
murder under Section 300 , IPC. In other words, Section 304A
excludes all the ingredients of Section 299 as also of Section
300 . Where intention or knowledge is the `motivating force' of
the act complained of, Section 304A will have to make room
for the graver and more serious charge of culpable homicide
not amounting to murder or amounting to murder as the facts
disclose. The section has application to those cases where
there is neither intention to cause death nor knowledge that
the act in all probability will cause death.
Page 6 of 10
Uploaded by R.S. MALEK(HC00180) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:07:52 IST 2026

R/CR.RA/381/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026
13. In Empress v. Idu Beg, (1881) ILR 3 All 776 , Straight,
J. made the following pertinent observations which have been
quoted with approval by various Courts including this Court:-
"Criminal rashness is hazarding a dangerous or
wanton act with the knowledge that it is so, and that it
may cause injury, but without intention to cause
injury, or knowledge that it will probably be caused.
The criminality lies in running the risk of doing such an
act with recklessness or indifference as to the
consequences. Criminal negligence is the gross and
culpable neglect or failure to exercise that reasonable
and proper care and precaution to guard against
injury either to the public generally or to an individual
in particular, which, having regard to all the
circumstances out of which the charge has arisen, it
was the imperative duty of the accused person to
have adopted" .
14. In this regard, reference may be made to the decision in
the case of Mahadev Prasad Kaushik vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh reported in (2008) 14 SCC 479 .
15. In cases of accidents, the law does not permit a
presumption of negligence and negligent act on the part of the
accused. However, as per Section 304, in absence of
knowledge or intention, culpable homicide does not amount to
murder. In absence of any intention or knowledge on the part
of the accused persons, provisions of Section 304 cannot be
attracted. There is a difference between the rash and negligent
act and culpable homicide. If we accept the case of the
prosecution as it is, and evidence collected during
investigation, it reveals that the applicant-accused remained
Page 7 of 10
Uploaded by R.S. MALEK(HC00180) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:07:52 IST 2026

R/CR.RA/381/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026
negligent and did not take due care in maintaining the
standard of construction work at the relevant point of time. It
reveals from the investigation papers and the findings of the
learned Sessions Judge that allegations against the applicants
are of using inferior quality material and lack of supervision
and load-bearing design was not prepared and such design
was not approved by the concerned authority. Even if these
allegations are accepted as it is, it may be termed as
“negligence” on the part of the accused. It is also alleged that
the Principal of the hostel had addressed one letter dated
30.12.2006 for repair and maintenance of staircase, and the
the accused did not act upon that letter. Therefore, it may be
considered as negligence on the part of the accused and due
to improper load-bearing design, the incident has occurred.
The person, who has prepared design, has not sought any
opinion for the said design. The load-bearing structure was
also not properly fixed and cement mortar was not properly
applied. Cement mixing was not properly done and simple
steel bars were used. If we consider all these facts, such
defects can be termed as “negligence” on the part of the
accused, but it does not constitute any intention or knowledge
about the alleged incident, more particularly, when the
superstructure is is still standing as it is and only staircase has
collapsed. If the case of the prosecution is accepted as it is,
this Court is of the opinion that in absence of intention or
knowledge, no offence under Section 304 is made out,
however, an offence under Section 304-A is made out.
Page 8 of 10
Uploaded by R.S. MALEK(HC00180) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:07:52 IST 2026

R/CR.RA/381/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026
16. So far as question relating to the applicability of Section
304-A. At the relevant point of time, the applicants were
serving as Executive Engineers and Engineers and they have
to perform their duty and if material collected during the
investigation is accepted as it is, for negligence or the
rashness on the part of applicants accused, it may lead to the
proceedings under Section 304-A, in absence of any knowledge
or intention to cause death. So far as other Sections are
concerned, nexus of alleged incident and injury is prima facie
revealed from the investigation papers and this Court is of
considered view that the process for an offence punishable
under Section 304 IPC is ill-conceived in the peculiar facts of
the case on hand as present applicants could only be put on
the trial under Section 304-A of IPC.
17. So far as offence under other provisions i.e. Sections 337,
338 and 114 of IPC are concerned, involvement of the accused
prima facie cannot be ruled out considering the material
available on record.
18. In the backdrop of above discussion, the discharge
application filed by the present applicants-accused deserves
consideration. The object of the discharge mechanism occupy
a crucial position within the judicial process. It serves as a
preliminary judicial filter that operates before the formal
commencement of the trial. Its primary purpose is to ensure
that the only cases supported by legal foundation proceed to
trial, whereby upholding fairness for the accused, while
preserving the judicial efficiency. It protects the individual from
Page 9 of 10
Uploaded by R.S. MALEK(HC00180) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:07:52 IST 2026

R/CR.RA/381/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026
being forced into the rigors of full criminal trial, when the
prosecution material does not disclose even prima facie case.
This mechanism is essential to uphold the constitutional values
of personal liberty and constitutional safeguards, which
prevents the wastage of the judicial time and maintains
balance between the prosecution and the defence to eliminate
frivolous prosecution at the early stage. Discharge mechanism
enhances the public confidence in the judicial system.
19. Resultantly, these revision applications are partly
allowed. The applicants-accused are discharged from the
charge of offence under Section 304 of IPC, however, the
applicants-accused must stand to trial for the offence
punishable under Section 304-A of IPC read with Sections 337,
338, and 114 of IPC. Rule is made absolute to aforesaid extent.
Interim relief granted earlier stands vacated.
20. Since the applicants are discharged from the offence
under Section 304 of IPC, the learned Sessions Judge is
directed to return the record to the Court of competent
jurisdiction to proceed further under Section 304-A of IPC. It is
clarified that these reasons are tentative in nature and this
Court has not entered into the merits of the matter or
allegations and the counter-allegations leveled by respective
parties.
Sd/-
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
R.S. MALEK
Page 10 of 10
Uploaded by R.S. MALEK(HC00180) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:07:52 IST 2026