Gujarat HC refuses to remove culpable homicide charge against Tathya Patel in ISKCON bridge accident

Gujarat High Court has declined ISKCON bridge accident case accused Tathya Patel’s plea to discharge him off two serious offences in the 2023 incident that claimed nine lives.

The court declined to remove section 304 and 308 of the IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder and attempting to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder).

A single-judge bench observed that the case cannot be treated as a “pure and simple” instance of rash and negligent driving attracting only Section 304 A of IPC (death caused by a rash or negligent act).

The court held that there exists “strong prima facie material” disclosing all essential ingredients of the offences under IPC Sections 304 Part II and 308.

Notably, Section 304 A can lead to fine and imprisonment of up to two years, while more serious offences like 304 Part II and 308 can lead to imprisonment up to 10 years and 3 years, respectively.

The accused was driving his Jaguar car at an excessive speed exceeding 130 km/h moments before the crash. As per the case details, his co-passengers had repeatedly requested him to slow down, but he paid no heed.

After impact, the car was dragged nearly 40 metres before coming to a halt.

Statements of surviving co-passengers clearly established that the speed was so high that timely braking was impossible.

However, the court has granted relief to father – Pragnesh Patel by discharging him from a few sections filed against him in an FIR related to the same incident.

The high court has discharged father Pragnesh Patel punishable under section 279, 337, 338, 304, 308 of the IPC and section 177, 184 and 134(b) of MV Act.

Gujarat High Court has declined ISKCON bridge accident case accused Tathya Patel’s plea to discharge him off two serious offences in the 2023 incident that claimed nine lives.

The court declined to remove section 304 and 308 of the IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder and attempting to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder).

A single-judge bench observed that the case cannot be treated as a “pure and simple” instance of rash and negligent driving attracting only Section 304 A of IPC (death caused by a rash or negligent act).

The court held that there exists “strong prima facie material” disclosing all essential ingredients of the offences under IPC Sections 304 Part II and 308.

Notably, Section 304 A can lead to fine and imprisonment of up to two years, while more serious offences like 304 Part II and 308 can lead to imprisonment up to 10 years and 3 years, respectively.

The accused was driving his Jaguar car at an excessive speed exceeding 130 km/h moments before the crash. As per the case details, his co-passengers had repeatedly requested him to slow down, but he paid no heed.

After impact, the car was dragged nearly 40 metres before coming to a halt.

Statements of surviving co-passengers clearly established that the speed was so high that timely braking was impossible.

However, the court has granted relief to father – Pragnesh Patel by discharging him from a few sections filed against him in an FIR related to the same incident.

The high court has discharged father Pragnesh Patel punishable under section 279, 337, 338, 304, 308 of the IPC and section 177, 184 and 134(b) of MV Act.