Delhi District Court
State vs . Prem Nath on 23 August, 2011
1 FIR No:464/2000
State Vs. Prem Nath
IN THE COURT OF Dr. JAGMINDER SINGH: METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
FIR No. 464/2000
PS: Dabri
U/s 285/304-A IPC
State V. Prem Nath.
Date of institution of the case : 06.02.2001
Date on which Judgment was reserved : 23.08.2011.
JUDGMENT
a) S. No. of the case : 231/2
b) Date of commission of offence : 13.05.2000
c) Name of the Complainant : Rameshwar Rai
S/o Sh. Vipat Rai
R/o C-202, Bindapur Road,
Pocket-4, Uttam Nagar, Delhi.
d) Name of accused and address : Prem Nath S/o Sh. Roshan Lal
R/O RZ-76A, Gali No.3, Mahavir
Enclave-II, New Delhi.
2 FIR No:464/2000
State Vs. Prem Nath
e) Offence complained of : U/s 285/304-A IPC
f) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
g) Final order : Acquitted
h) Date of such order : 23.08.2011.
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION :-
1. The present case was registered against the accused on the complaint of Sh. Rameshwar Rai in which he alleged that his youngest son Ashok Kumar was working at the shop of Prem Nath since last six years. On 13.05.2000 at about 10 pm he went to meet his son at the said shop. At about 10.30 pm the electricity went off and accused Prem Nath asked his son Ashok Kumar (since deceased) to connect the wire at electricity pole and his son went to connect the wire. When he not returned back after 15-20 minutes then another boy was sent to look into the matter. Another boy came back to saw that Ashok Kumar was lying in the Ganda Nala because of electrocution halt. Some public persons took him to DDU hospital where he 3 FIR No:464/2000 State Vs. Prem Nath was declared dead. At his complaint an FIR U/s 285/304A IPC was registered against the accused Prem Nath and after investigation charge sheet was filed for the offence U/s 285/304A IPC.
2. Accused was summoned after taking cognizance and a notice for the offence U/s 285/304A IPC was served upon him to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Prosecution has filed list of Nine witnesses but examined only Four witnesses and then PE was closed.
4. PW-1 W/ASI Santosh stated that on 14.05.2000 at about 9.25 am she received rukka sent by SI Ram Ayodhya Prasad through Ct. Surender Singh, on the basis of which she recorded the FIR No.464/2000 u/s 285/304A IPC which is Ex. PW-1/A.
5. PW-2 Sh. Rameshwar Rai stated that he do not remember the 4 FIR No:464/2000 State Vs. Prem Nath date. On that day he was present at his house and one of his son Ashok had also gone for daily work. Ramu was present with him. At about 10.00 pm one boy came to him at his house and told him that his son Ashok had met with an accident and he had been taken to DDU hospital. Thereafter, he along with his son Ramu went to the said hospital, whereon he met one policeman, who confirmed that his son was admitted in the said hospital and he further told that he could meet him on the next morning. He went again to the hospital on the next morning and saw his son, who had already died. He identified his dead body. He cannot tell the cause of death of his son. Police did not interrogate to him, however police had taken his thumb impression on a blank paper.
6. PW-3 Ramu stated that on 15.05.2000 he had identified the dead body of Ashok Kumar, who was his youngest brother at mortuary Subzi Mandi.
7. PW-4 Ct. Surender stated that on 13.05.2000 he was posted at PS Dabri. On that day he along with IO had reached to DDU Hospital where one Ashok Kumar was brought as dead. Thereafter they came back. On the next day IO had given one tehrir for registration of FIR. He got the case registered. 5 FIR No:464/2000
State Vs. Prem Nath One tar (wire) was seized vide memo Ex.PW4/A. Accused present in court was arrested and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW4/B.
8. No other witness examined by the prosecution and then P.E. Closed. Statement of accused recorded U/s 281 CrPC, in which he denied all the allegations against him. Accused further submitted that he do not want to lead any defence evidence. Then the matter fixed for final arguments.
9. I have heard the arguments of both the parties. Ld. Sub. APP for the State has argued that the case is totally proved against the accused and he may be given maximum punishment. The witness (complainant) of the prosecution deliberately not given evidence against the accused as he want to suppress the truth. Ld. Counsel for the accused stated that prosecution cannot prove any ingredients of the offence against him. Accused is falsely implicated in the present case and he is liable to be acquitted. I have gone through the oral and documentary evidence on record. 6 FIR No:464/2000
10. It is a settled principle of criminal law that to establish its case the prosecution has to prove the case against the accused beyond any reasonable doubts. Statement of witnesses must be corroborated and supported by documentary evidence to become authentic and chain of evidence must be completed.
11. In the present case, there is no eye witness of the occurrence. The complainant in his complaint stated that when he went to the shop where his son was working, then his son was sent to connect the electric wire by the accused. On the other hand, when complainant was examined as PW-2, he had not stated any such thing and deposed that when he was at home, then one boy came to him at his house and told him about the accident of his son. In his cross examination he specifically denied the suggestion that his son was working at the rehri/shop of accused.
12. There is no medical evidence produced by the prosecution to ascertain the cause of death of the deceased. As per complaint of the complainant certain public persons took out the deceased from Ganda Nala 7 FIR No:464/2000 State Vs. Prem Nath and took him to the hospital, whereas no such public person was made a witness by the prosecution. PW-1 is duty officer, PW-3 and PW-4 are both procedural formal witnesses who have neither seen the occurrence nor they are having any knowledge of the incident.
13. To prove the allegations against the accused, there must be sufficient evidence on record to prove ingredients of the offences U/s 285/304 A IPC. But there is nothing on record by which it can be proved that the son of the complainant was died due to rash and negligent act of the accused. The chain of the evidence by which alleged rash and negligent act of sending the son of complainant to connect the electric wire without any due care and caution, can be linked with the accused, is missing in the present case.
14. The prosecution miserably failed to prove any ingredient of the offence against the accused. Hence, accused Prem Nath is stands acquitted in this case due to lack of evidence in FIR No. 464/2000 for the offence U/s 285/304-A IPC. Documents, if any be released to its rightful claimant as per law after cancellation of endorsement. Bail bonds stands cancelled. Surety 8 FIR No:464/2000 State Vs. Prem Nath stands discharged.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance. Announced in the open court on this 23rd day of August, 2011 (Dr. JAGMINDER SINGH) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE DWARKA COURTS/DELHI 9 FIR No:464/2000 State Vs. Prem Nath FIR NO: 464/2000 PS: Dabri U/s 285/304 A IPC.
23.08.2011.
Present: Ld. Sub. APP for the State.
Accused present on bail with Ld. Counsel Sh. Anil Sethi. Final arguments heard today.
Vide separate judgment of even date pronounced and dictated in the open court, accused Prem Nath stands acquitted for the offence u/s 285/304-A IPC. Bail bond stands cancelled and surety stands discharged. Document, if any, of surety be returned. Endorsement, if any, be also cancelled. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
(Dr. JAGMINDER SINGH) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE DWARKA COURTS/DELHI