Delhi District Court
State vs Ram Pukar on 18 January, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SHUBHAM DEVADIYA,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-05, WEST DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
FIR No. 1075/2006
PS Nangloi
Cr. Case No. 72042/2016
CNR No. DLWT02-000595-2008
State Vs. Ram Pukar
JUDGMENT
(a) Sr. No. of the case 72042/2016 (b) Date of offence 10.10.2006 (c) Complainant Sita Ram S/o Sh. Gisha Ram, R/o F-677,
Raghubir Nagar, Rajouri Garden, Delhi.
(d) Accused person Ram Pukar S/o Sh. Ram Iqbal Mishra, R/o 131, Village Mundka, New Delhi-110041.
(e) Offences Under Section 287/304A IPC (f) Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty. (g) Final Order Acquittal. (h) Date of institution 07.02.2008 (i) Date of judgment 18.01.2024 A. BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION
1. Succinctly put, the facts of the case as per Prosecution are that on 10.10.2006 at about 2:00 p.m., at F-12, Industrial Area, Udyog Nagar, Nangloi, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Nangloi, accused was FIR No. 1075/2006 State Vs. Ram Pukar 1 of 16 PS Nangloi Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SHUBHAM DEVADIYA DEVADIYA Date:
2024.01.18 16:58:20 +0530 supervisor and he was rash and and negligently and knowingly or negligently omitted to take care/such order of machinery at the time of loading the same as sufficient to guard against any probable danger to human life. Further, on the abovementioned date, time and place in the aforesaid manner, accused compelled his workers namely Kashmere Lal, Sita Ram, Raju, Boby and Sukhram to work hurriedly in loading the above-said machine and by his aforesaid rash and negligent act, accued caused death of Sukhram (not amounting to culpable homicide) while working under his supervision. Based upon above allegations, FIR under Section 287/304A IPC was registered and investigation was undertaken. After investigation, chargesheet was filed against accused for commission of offence under Section 287/304A IPC.
2. On the basis of chargesheet, Notice for the offence punishable under Section 287/304A IPC was framed against the accused on 24.11.2012 to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
B. PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
3. In Prosecution evidence, the Prosecution has examined 07 witnesses. The testimony of the witnesses in a nutshell are as below:
4. PW-1/SI Raj Bala. He deposed that on 11.10.2006, he was posted at PS Nangloi as Duty Officer, from 09:00 a.m. to 05:00 p.m. On that day at about 12:30 p.m., SI Om Prakash handed over one rukka to him. On the basis of which, he registered a case FIR No. 1075/06 which is Ex.
FIR No. 1075/2006 State Vs. Ram Pukar 2 of 16 PS Nangloi Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEVADIYA SHUBHAM Date:
DEVADIYA 2024.01.18 16:58:29 +0530 PW-1/A (OSR). He also made endorsement on rukka which is Ex.PW- 1/B. He further deposed that after registration of FIR, he handed over the original rukka with copy of FIR to SI Om Prakash.
5. PW-2/Dr. Tilak Raj Banga, Medical Officer, Private Sparsh Hospital. He deposed that on 10.10.2006 at about 01:50 p.m., one patient namely Sukhram was brought to hospital by person namely Raju S/o Sh.
Ram Pal. Patient was examined by him and he prepared MLC no. 23, same is on record Ex. PW-2/A. He found patient was in distress and having difficulty in breathing. Minor LCW on scalp, first aid was given and patient was referred to government hospital with advice X-ray chest and CT Scan head.
6. PW-3/Sh. Kashmiri Lal. He deposed that the alleged incident occurred in the year 2006 during the winter time wherein he alongwith other labourers Sita Ram, Raju, Bobby and deceased Sekhu @ Sukhram entered into a written agreement between the owner of the factory premises, Deepak Garg and him as a contractor for providing labour for shifting, loading and unloading of factory machinery from Delhi to Haridwar. The photocopy of the abovesaid written agreement is Ex. PW 3/A. He further stated that the alleged incident occurred after few days of starting the agreed work at the factory premises and during noon time, he alongwith abovenamed labourers lifted a machine weighing around 300 kgs for taking it out from the factory premises for loading purpose, the accused Ram Pukar asked them to do the work hurriedly and they noticed FIR No. 1075/2006 State Vs. Ram Pukar 3 of 16 PS Nangloi Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SHUBHAM DEVADIYA DEVADIYA Date:
2024.01.18 16:58:35 +0530 that while they were taking out the machine outside the factory premises, the machine tilted towards the side where the deceased Sukhram was holding it and he further stated that the nuts and bolts of the machine were loosened by the accused Ram Pukar and same were not disclosed to them owing to which, the deceased Sukhram sustained injuries on his head and chest due to the pressure and weight of the machine which tilted towards the deceased Sukhram. He further stated that the deceased namely Sukhram was taken to the hospital but he lost his life in this incident and further stated that police inquired about the alleged incident, and the alleged incident occurred as the accused Ram Pukar did not disclose that he had loosened the nuts and bolts of the machine in question when it was being shifted by them. The said witness correctly identified the machine in photographs Ex. PW-3/B (colly.).
During his cross-examination by the Ld. counsel for accused, he stated that he was working as heavy labour worker since 1980 from his house. The factory owner Deepak contacted him to shifting of the machine from Peeragarhi, Delhi to Haridwar. He further stated that he did not know the date of contact by the factory owner, he visited the factory regarding shifting of machines in year 2006, he did not remember the date and month. There were 30-35 machines to be shifted to Haridwar. He alongwith Sitaram visited the premises of factory and decided about the contract of the shifting of machines and total cost of shifting of machines was decided as Rs.90,000/-. He did not know regarding any contract executed between factory owner and him. There were 10-12 labourers were engaged by him to shift the machines. The names of said FIR No. 1075/2006 State Vs. Ram Pukar 4 of 16 PS Nangloi Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SHUBHAM DEVADIYA DEVADIYA Date:
2024.01.18 16:58:40 +0530 labourers / workers were Sitaram, Raju, DC and names of others he did not remember that day. The shifting job were carried out by him and his labourers engaged from outside and no one engaged from the factory employees. The work of shifting conducted in presence of factory owner Deepak and no other persons from the factory was present there. Before shifting the machines I checked the machines regarding its screw etc. and these were found in OK condition. It is further stated that he alongwith Sitaram signed the agreement and Deepak i.e. owner of the factory also signed the agreement and no other person signed from the factory. He admitted that Mr. Ram Pukar was not present on the day of shifting machines in the factory at Delhi. He know that accused Ram Pukar is the storekeeper and not concerned with the shifting job of machines on that day. Vol. he was not present on the day of shifting as he was already present at Haridwar premises where the machines were to be shifted. The weight of the machine was about 5-6 quintals which caused the injury to deceased Sheikhu. Sitaram was deputed by him to look after the work of shifting of machines from Delhi to Haridwar and he was in the contact of said Sitaram and he informed him that the work is going on in good condition. There was no fault of accused Ram Pukar regarding alleged incident took place on 10.10.2006. On the same day, he came back to Delhi from Haridwar till then the deceased Sheikhu already been expired. He denied that he is deposing falsely. His statement given earlier and that day are similar.
7. PW-4/Sh. Deepak Garg. He deposed that he is the owner of M/s FIR No. 1075/2006 State Vs. Ram Pukar 5 of 16 PS Nangloi Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SHUBHAM DEVADIYA DEVADIYA Date:
2024.01.18 16:58:47 +0530 Hindustan Aircon Pvt. Ltd. and he had taken the services of one person namely Kashmiri Lal and Sita Ram for providing labour for shifting, loading and unloading machines from his factory situated at Udyog Nagar to Haridwar and for that purpose, an agreement already Ex. PW- 3/A was entered. He further stated that the supervision of that work was assigned to accused Ram Pukar and later, he got to know that one labour namely Sukhram got injured during shifting of machine. He correctly identified the photographs of the machine already Ex. PW-3/B (colly.).He had given an undertaking dated 24.10.2006 to the police to produce the accused which is Ex. PW-4/A. He was cross-examined by Ld. APP for State and he stated that as per his information, there was no fault of the accused. During his cross-examination by Ld. counsel for accused, the said witness stated that the labours were employed by Kashmiri Lal and they were under his direct supervision and control. None of the labourer and contractor informed him about the fault of the accused qua the alleged incident.
8. PW-5/Sh. Raman Kumar, Record Clerk, SGM Hospital, Mangolpuri, Delhi. He proves the postmortem report of deceased bearing no. 805/2006 prepared by Dr.Vijay Kumar Jha which is Ex. PW- 5/A and Ex. PW-5/B.
9. PW-6/SI Partap Singh, PIS No. 28860820. The said witness proves the handing over memo of dead body to the concerned relative which is Ex. PW-6/A. FIR No. 1075/2006 State Vs. Ram Pukar 6 of 16 PS Nangloi Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SHUBHAM DEVADIYA DEVADIYA Date:
2024.01.18 16:58:54 +0530
10. PW-7/Inspector Om Prakash, PIS No. 28840661. He is the IO of the present case who conducted the investigation after receiving the information regarding the death of a person while working in a factory on 10.10.2006 upon which he went to the spot and found that dead body of deceased namely Sukhram had been shifted to SGM hospital and was got preserved vide application which is Mark P-7/1 and on the next day, he found one eyewitness namely Sita Ram who disclosed that the deceased Sukhram died as one heavy machine fell upon him on account of bolt of the said machine were loosened by the accused. He recorded the statement of said witness which is Mark P-7/2. He prepared rukka/tehrir which is Ex. PW-7/A, got FIR registered which is already Ex. PW-1/A. He prepared site plan which is Ex. PW-7/B, photographs of spot and machine already Ex. PW-3/B. He collected the MLC of deceased which is already Ex. PW-2/A. He prepared death report Ex. PW-7/C, moved an application for PM examination Ex. PW-7/D. During the course of investigation, he collected documents of undertaken and agreement, already Ex. PW-3/A and Ex. PW-4/A. He arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex. PW-7/E and searched him vide search memo Ex. PW-7/F. After completing the investigation, he filed the charge-sheet.
He was duly cross-examined by Ld. counsel for accused.
11. After the Prosecution evidence was closed, the statement of accused under Section 281 r/w 313 CrPC was recorded on 19.04.2023. During his statement, the accused had stated that the agreement was not FIR No. 1075/2006 State Vs. Ram Pukar 7 of 16 PS Nangloi Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SHUBHAM DEVADIYA DEVADIYA Date:
2024.01.18 16:59:01 +0530 executed between him and Sh. Deepak Garg and deposed that he has been falsely implicated by Sh. Deepak Garg in connivance with the police officials. The incident did not happen in his presence and even he was not aware about the incident as and when it was happened. Accused further stated that he was falsely implicated later on by the police officials. The accused led defence evidence.
C. DEFENCE EVIDENCE
12. During defence evidence, the accused had examined Sh. Kailash Mehra as DW-1. He deposed that around 16-17 years back, he used to work alongwith accused Ram Pukar at Hindustan Aircon Pvt. Ltd. Accused used to work in store department and he was in personal department. The machin of our company was about to shift from Delhi to Haridwar. The company gave the contract for removing the machine from Delhi and shifting the same to Haridwar to one contractor. The machinery was being removed by the labour of the contractor. They came to know that one labour had sustained injuries and was shifted to hospital for treatment. Later on, they came to know that the labour had expired. There is no role of accused in the incident. He was duly cross-examined by Ld. APP for State.
D. FINAL ARGUMENTS
FIR No. 1075/2006 State Vs. Ram Pukar 8 of 16
PS Nangloi Digitally signed
by SHUBHAM
SHUBHAM DEVADIYA
DEVADIYA Date:
2024.01.18
16:59:07 +0530
13. After the defence evidence, the matter was then listed for arguments and both the sides were heard at length. This Court has carefully perused the case record and have heard arguments advanced by Ld. APP for the State as well as by Ld. Defence Counsel.
14. Ld. APP for the State submitted that Prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. He further submitted, that the complainant/victim has supported the case of the Prosecution in a clear and cogent manner and her testimony, even after the detailed cross examination, has remained consistent and her testimony could not be shattered and, therefore, the case against the accused, as argued by the Ld. APP, has been proved beyond all the reasonable doubts and accordingly the accused deserves to be convicted.
15. Per contra, Ld. Defence Counsel submitted that Prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges against accused. He further argued that accused has been falsely implicated in the present case and charges of rash and negligent act against the accused put forth by the Prosecution are based on presumption and surmises and is not supported by any documentary material to show that accused had direct supervision and control over the alleged shifting the heavy mahine from Nangloi to Haridwar in the factory of PW/Deepak Garg. Thus, he argued that the Prosecution has clearly failed to establish a case against the accused and therefore, the accused deserves to be acquitted in the present case.
FIR No. 1075/2006 State Vs. Ram Pukar 9 of 16
PS Nangloi Digitally
signed by
SHUBHAM
SHUBHAM DEVADIYA
DEVADIYA Date:
2024.01.18
16:59:14
+0530
E. APPRECIATION OF LAW.
16. In the present matter, the accused has been charged for the offences U/s. 287/304A IPC. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the Prosecution was required to establish the following ingredients as mentioned U/s 287/304A IPC.
Section 287 IPC:
Negligent conduct with respect to machinery.--Whoever does, with any machinery, any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person,or knowingly or negligently omits to take such order with any machinery in his possession or under his care as is sufficient to guard against any probable danger to human life from such machinery,shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. Section 304A IPC:
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 with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
17. Under the Indian criminal jurisprudence an accused is presumed to be in a innocent until proven guilty. It is a settled law that the Prosecution has to stand on its own legs to substantiate the allegations as set out in the FIR. The Prosecution is also required to prove the case against the FIR No. 1075/2006 State Vs. Ram Pukar 10 of 16 PS Nangloi Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEVADIYA SHUBHAM Date: DEVADIYA 2024.01.18 16:59:20 +0530 accused beyond all reasonable doubts. The charge of accusation of offence of section 304A IPC cannot be imposed upon the accused merely on the basis of an accident. The Prosecution must prove by way of clear and reliable evidences that alleged accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the accused. The element of the rashness and negligence on the part of the accused is to be proved by leading cogent evidence to that effect.
18. Before proceeding further, it is imperative to understand as to what constitute the rash and negligent act in terms of the legally settled position. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohammed Aynuddin @ Miyam v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2000) 7 SCC 72 defined the term "rash and negligent driving". It was held that:
"A rash act is primarily an over hasty act. It is opposed to a deliberate act. Still, a rash act can be a deliberate act in the sense that it was done without due care and caution. Culpable rashness lies in running the risk of doing an act with recklessness and with indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negligence is the failure to exercise duty with reasonable and proper care and precaution guarding against injury to the public generally or to any individual in particular. It is the imperative duty of the driver of a vehicle to adopt such reasonable and proper care and caution"
The Apex Court while drawing the distinction between rash act and negligent act in Bhalachandra Waman Pathe Vs. The State of Maharashtra, 1968 ACJ 38, held as under:
"An offence under Section 304A Indian Penal Code may be FIR No. 1075/2006 State Vs. Ram Pukar 11 of 16 PS Nangloi Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SHUBHAM DEVADIYA DEVADIYA Date:
2024.01.18 16:59:26 +0530 committed either by doing a rash act or a negligent act. There is a distinction between a rash act and a negligent act. In the case of a rash act as observed by straight, J. in Idu Beg's case 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. Negligence is an omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. Again as explained in Nidamarti Negaghushanam's case, a culpable rashness is acting with the consciousness that the mischievous and illegal consequences may follow, but with the hope that they will not, and often with the belief that the actor has taken sufficient precautions to prevent their happening. The imputability arises from acting despite the consciousness. Culpable negligence is acting without the consciousness that the illegal and mischievous effect will follow, but in circumstances which show that the actor has not exercised the caution incumbent upon him and if he had he would have had the consciousness. The imputability arises from the neglect of the civil duty of circumspection."
F. APPRECIATION OF FACTS AND EVIDENCES.
19. To prove a case u/s. 287/304A IPC against the accused, the Prosecution was required to prove the following ingredients:
a). That there must be death of a person in question;
FIR No. 1075/2006 State Vs. Ram Pukar 12 of 16 PS Nangloi Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SHUBHAM DEVADIYA DEVADIYA Date:
2024.01.18 16:59:32 +0530
b). That the accused was found to be rash and negligent and knowingly or negligently omitted to take care/order of machinery in question;
c). That while doing so, the accused caused the death of deceased namely Sukhram (not amounting to culpable homicide) while working under his supervision.
20. The first ingredient under Section 304A IPC i.e. death of a person stands proved as the same has not been disputed and is further proved by PW-5 vide PM report Ex. PW-5/A and Ex. PW-5/B. Thus, the first ingredient stands established.
21. Now, the next question that comes into mind is that whether it was the accused who was responsible for supervision of shifting of heavy machinery from the factory of Sh. Deepak Garg, situated at Nangloi and while doing so, he knowingly or negligently omitted to take such care/order of machinery in question as is required to avoid rash and negligent consequences, however, as he failed to supervise the same properly, therefore, the machine in question fell upon one labourer namely Sukhram who succummed to his injuries without amounting to Culpable Homicide. These ingredients are being discussed together owing to similarity of appreciation of facts and evidence.
22. In order to prove its case, the Prosecution had examined PW-3 and PW-4. PW-3 is the contractor who was entrusted by the owner of the FIR No. 1075/2006 State Vs. Ram Pukar 13 of 16 PS Nangloi Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SHUBHAM DEVADIYA DEVADIYA Date:
2024.01.18 16:59:39 +0530 factory i.e. PW-4 Sh. Deepak Garg to shift the heavy machinery from his factory, situated at Nangloi to Haridwar. The written agreement for that purpose between PW-3 and PW-4 is Ex. PW-3/A. The perusal of written agreement between PW-3 and PW-4 clearly shows that it was PW-3 Mr. Kashmiri Lal who was responsible for shifting, loading & unloading of all factory & office, machinery materials etc. from Delhi Office. The said agreement nowhere reflects that it was accused Ram Pukar who was entrusted with the responsibility of supervision/control over the shifting of the machine from the factory of Sh. Deepak Garg, situated at Nangloi. Though PW-3 and PW-4 stated that supervision of shifting work was with accused Ram Pukar. PW-3 has admitted himself being the contractor in the above noted agreement Ex. PW-3/A and has also stated that at the time of shifting of machine which weighed around 300 kg, the accused was also present and asked them to do the work hurriedly and during that time, the machine in question tilted towards one worker namely Sukhram as the nut & bolt were loosened by the accused and same was not disclosed to them due to which, the deceased namely Sukhram sustained injuries on his head and chest due to the pressure and weight of the tilted machine in question, however, during his cross-examination, he has stated that he had checked the machines before shifting the same regarding its screw etc. which was found in okay condition. He admitted that accused was not present on the day of shifting machine in the factory in Delhi and he further stated that the accused Ram Pukar is the Storekeeper and not concerned with shifting job of machines. He has specifically stated that there was no fault of the accused. Considering the FIR No. 1075/2006 State Vs. Ram Pukar 14 of 16 PS Nangloi Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SHUBHAM DEVADIYA DEVADIYA Date:
2024.01.18 16:59:45 +0530 above noted agreement Ex. PW-3/A, I do not find the testimony of PW-3 and PW-4 trustworthy as it appears that responsibility of some other person is being imposed upon the accused Ram Pukar. The PW-3 and PW-4 have not been able to support the case of Prosecution. The role of the accused as the supervisor for shifting the heavy machinery in question does not appear to have been proved by any witness of the Prosecution. The testimony of rest of the witnesses is merely formal in nature. The testimony of DW-1 is in the nature of supporting the accused.
23. It is a settled preposition that Prosecution is duty bound to prove guilt against accused beyond reasonable doubt. It is also settled proposition that if any doubt arises regarding Prosecution case then benefit of doubt goes in the favour of the accused. In the case in hand witnesses examined by Prosecution nowhere stated regarding any act or ommission which could be termed as negligent conduct of the accused due to which victim suffered injuries and died.
G. CONCLUSION:
24. Keeping in view above discussion, it can be safely said Prosecution's case remains miserably failed to prove guilt against accused as there is no material on record whatsoever to show that accused had any role in shifting of heavy machinery from the factory of Sh. Deepak Garg. Therefore, accused Ram Pukar S/o Ram Iqbal FIR No. 1075/2006 State Vs. Ram Pukar 15 of 16 PS Nangloi Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SHUBHAM DEVADIYA DEVADIYA Date:
2024.01.18 16:59:52 +0530 Mishra is hereby acquitted for alleged commission of offence under Section 287/304A IPC.
25. Before parting with the Judgment of the present case, I am constrained to note that the accused in the present case has been made a scapegoat in the present case whereas the responsible person, if any, has been let go by the IO. The IO has conducted a shoddy investigation in the present case. The role of PW/Sh. Kashmiri Lal does not appear to have been taken into consideration by the IO for the reasons best known to the IO. In view thereof, let the copy of this Judgment be sent to DCP concerned for necessary information and action in the present case as per law.
26. File be consigned to record room as per rules.
This Judgment contains 16 pages and each page has been initialled by the undersigned.
Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SHUBHAM DEVADIYA
DEVADIYA Date:
2024.01.18
17:00:02 +0530
Announced in open Court (SHUBHAM DEVADIYA)
on 18th day of January, 2024 Metropolitan Magistrate-05
Tis Hazari, West, Delhi
FIR No. 1075/2006 State Vs. Ram Pukar 16 of 16
PS Nangloi