USMANGIRI MOHAMMAD COFEEWALA vs STATE OF GUJARAT

Court
Gujarat High Court

R/CR.RA/523/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY
SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 523 of 2016

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Sd/-

==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
-- No
==========================================================
USMANGIRI MOHAMMAD COFEEWALA & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
PARIMALSINH PARMAR(7296) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MS MONALI BHATT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

Date : 05/05/2026

JUDGMENT
1. By filing this revision application, the applicant has
prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 20.6.2016
rd
passed by learned 3 Additional Sessions Judge, Panchmahals
at Godhra, below Exh.3 application qua Section 333, in
Criminal Case No.86 of 2011.
2. The petitioners herein are the original accused in the
offence registered as C.R.No.I-275/2004 before the Godhra
Town Police Station for the offences punishable under sections
143, 147, 148, 332, 333, 186 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code
and under section 3(1) of the Damages to Public Properties Act
lodged by Mr. R. G. Patel, Police Sub Inspector, Godhra Town
Page 1 of 6
Uploaded by R.S. MALEK(HC00180) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:07:40 IST 2026

R/CR.RA/523/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026
Police Station.
3. It is alleged in the complaint dated 4/8/2004 that, upon
receiving information that the most wanted accused of the
Godhra railway carnage, viz., Usman Abdulgani Cofeevala has
come to his residence in Polan Bazar, Godhra and therefore,
when the police personnel had gone to arrest him, the present
petitioners and others in a mob of about 150 Muslim persons
had, with a view to set free him, formed illegal assembly,
armed with weapons, pelted stones and wooden pieces at the
police personnel and thereby, caused injuries to them and
thus, as alleged, the accused have committed the offences
punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 332, 333, 186 and
427 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 3(1) of the
Damages to Public Properties Act.
4. The petitioners submit that thereafter, the police
submitted the charge-sheet before the learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class and the case was committed to the Court
of Sessions and registered as Sessions Case No.86 of 2011
before the Sessions Court, Panchmahals, at Godhra.
5. Heard learned advocate for the petitioners and learned
APP for the respondent-State.
6. Learned advocate for the petitioners submit that in the
present case, since the ingredients of Section 333 of the IPC
are not made out, the petitioners preferred discharge
application, Exh.3 in Sessions Case No.86 of 2011, before the
learned Sessions Judge, Panchmahals, Godhra, praying to
Page 2 of 6
Uploaded by R.S. MALEK(HC00180) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:07:40 IST 2026

R/CR.RA/523/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026
discharge the petitioners only qua section 333 of the IPC and
further prayed that, since the other offences alleged are
magistrate triable offences, the case may be remanded to the
lower Court, in the interest of justice. It is the case of the
petitioners that provisions of Section 333 are wrongly invoked,
since the injuries are simple in nature.
7. On the other hand, learned APP, has opposed the
application and submitted that learned trial Court has not
committed any error in passing the impugned order. She has
prayed to dismiss present revision application.
8. Before proceeding to decide the case, this Court may
refer to Sections 320 and 333 of IPC, which provides as under:-
“Section 320 – Grievous hurt
The following kinds of hurt only are designated as “grievous”:
1. Emasculation.
2. Permanent privation of the sight of either eye.
3. Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear.
4. Privation of any member or joint.
5. Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of
any member or joint.
6. Permanent disfiguration of the head or face.
7. Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth.
8. Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the
sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe
bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits.
Section 333 - Voluntarily causing grievous hurt to deter public
servant from his duty.
Whoever voluntarily causes grievous hurt to any person being
a public servant in the discharge of his duty as such public
servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person or any
other public servant from discharging his duty as such public
Page 3 of 6
Uploaded by R.S. MALEK(HC00180) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:07:40 IST 2026

R/CR.RA/523/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026
servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to
be done by that person in the lawful discharge of his duty as
such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to ten years,
and shall also be liable to fine.
9. In light of the aforesaid provisions, it would be relevant to
refer to the medical certificate annexed at Annxure-D with the
present application, which reads as under:-
“Examined by Dr. C.K. Shik
Certificate issued by Dr.
OPD Case No.
Indoor Case NO.
MLC No.2748/04
Date. 4.8.2004
This is to certify that Shri R.G.Patel came self/was
brought to this hospital, with yadi/transfer note from PSI
Godhra Town on 4.8.2004 at 7.45 p.m. for favour of
examination and treatment with HO Vehicular assaulted
with Stone by Safurabibi Usman at 2.30 p.m. today on
examination following injuries noted.
(1) CLW 1/2" X 14" X 14" on Lt. Leg middle part front
side.
(2) Tenderness Rt. Shoulder joint.
Treated on OPD basis.
In my opinion above injuries is simple and likely to be
caused by hard blunt substance age of injury within 12
hours. Recovery will take about 10 to 14 days if no
complicants arise.
Sd/- Illegible”
10. Over and above aforesaid certificate, along with
th
additional affidavit filed on 18 January 2017, certificates with
regard to other public servants are produced at Annexure-R.
Page 4 of 6
Uploaded by R.S. MALEK(HC00180) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:07:40 IST 2026

R/CR.RA/523/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026
The injuries mentioned therein are also simple in nature and,
there is no injury, which can be termed as a grievous hurt as
per the aforesaid provisions. Prima facie reading of the
complaint as well as the investigation papers reveal that the
accused persons have not caused any grievous hurt to a public
servant. Even if we peruse the provisions of Section 332, the
only different between these two provisions is “hurt” and
“grievous hurt”.
11. Not even a single injury, as mentioned in the medical
papers, would fall in the category of “grievous hurt”.
Therefore, present application deserves consideration qua
Section 333.
12. So far as case under Section 332 is concerned, it is triable
by learned JMFC, while the case under Section 333 is triable by
learned Sessions Judge. Not only that if the case is tried for
offence under Section 333 of IPC, it will take away the right of
the appeal of the applicants.
13. In the backdrop of above discussion, the discharge
application filed by the present applicant-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
being forced into the rigors of full criminal trial, when the
Page 5 of 6
Uploaded by R.S. MALEK(HC00180) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:07:40 IST 2026

R/CR.RA/523/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026
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.
14. Resultantly, the present application deserves
consideration and is required to be allowed. Accordingly,
present application is allowed. The impugned order dated
rd
20.6.2016 passed by learned 3 Additional Sessions Judge,
Panchmahals at Godhra, below Exh.3 application qua Section
333, in Criminal Case No.86 of 2011 is quashed and set aside,
so far as present applicants are concerned. The applicants
herein are discharged from the charges of Section 333 of IPC,
however, during the course of investigation, if any ‘grievous
hurt’ is found, it will be open for the prosecution to take
appropriate recourse in accordance with law. Rule is made
absolute accordingly.
Sd/-
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
R.S. MALEK
Page 6 of 6
Uploaded by R.S. MALEK(HC00180) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:07:40 IST 2026