DINESHBHAI RAMJIBHAI MAKWANAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

   R/CR.RA/84/2012                               JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026




           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


                                 Page 1 of 6
     R/CR.RA/84/2012                                     JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026




        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



                                       Page 2 of 6
     R/CR.RA/84/2012                                        JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026




        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



                                         Page 3 of 6
     R/CR.RA/84/2012                                 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026




        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



                                    Page 4 of 6
      R/CR.RA/84/2012                                 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026




         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



                                     Page 5 of 6
      R/CR.RA/84/2012                                                     JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026




         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




 Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
 Digitally signed by: PATEL SUCHIT JAYESHBHAI(HC01083), Private Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 06/04/2026 15:25:12


                                                 Page 6 of 6