Delhi District Court
State vs . Chattu Singh & Ors. on 5 April, 2016
IN THE COURT OF Ms. SHEETAL CHAUDHARY PRADHAN:
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE10 (SOUTHEAST):
SAKET COURTS:NEW DELHI
State Vs. Chattu Singh & Ors.
FIR No. 896/95
U/s 304A/34 IPC
P.S. Sriniwaspuri
J U D G M E N T
Serial No. of the Case : 47/2/14
Unique Identification No. : 02403R0010061997
Date of Institution : 10.07.1997
Date on which case reserved for
judgment : 29.03.2016
Date of judgment : 05.04.2016
Name of the complainant : Inspector Nirmal Singh Bisht
Company Commander, BCOY.
41 Battalion, PAC, Ghaziabad,
Uttar Pradesh.
FIR No. 896/95
P.S. S.N. Puri Page No.1 of 48
Date of the commission of offence : 03.11.1995
Name of accused : 1. Chattu Singh
s/o Sh. Narain Singh
r/o F3/40,
M/s. Fibro Plast, Okhla
Industrial Area, PhaseI,
New Delhi.
2. Sunil Kumar
s/o Sh. Arjun Dass,
r/o F3/40,
M/s. Fibro Plast, Okhla
Industrial Area, PhaseI,
New Delhi.
3. Harish Narula
s/o Sh. I.C. Narula
R/o S130, G.K.1,
New Delhi.
Offence complained of : U/s 304A/34 IPC
Offence charged of : U/s 304A/34 IPC
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
FIR No. 896/95
P.S. S.N. Puri Page No.2 of 48
Final order : 1. Accused Chattu Singh
convicted u/s 304A IPC
2. Accused Sunil Kumar &
Harish Narula acquitted.
Date of Institution : 10.07.1997
Date on which case reserved
for judgment : 29.03.2016
Date of judgment : 05.04.2016
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR
THE DECISION OF THE CASE
BRIEF FACTS:
Briefly the case of the prosecution is that the present FIR was registered on a complaint of complainant Nirmal Singh Bisht, Company Commander of 41 Battalion, PAC, Ghaziabad in which he had stated that the police department of Uttar Pradesh for the relief work of floods, PAC company had decided to purchase 16 boats from M/s. Fibro Plast, Okhla, New Delhi and among the same 15 boats had already undergone the trial and were finalized to be purchased. On 03.11.95 there was a trial for 16th boat for which Sh. Dinesh Chander Pandey being the Commandant and Deputy S.P. Sh. Subhash Tripathi, Police Headquarters Allahabad had come for trial. At that time Sh. Sunil Kumar being the Marketing Manager of M/s. Fibro Plast, FIR No. 896/95 P.S. S.N. Puri Page No.3 of 48 Chattu Singh (driver) had also come for the trial of the aforesaid boat. At that time the aforesaid battalion who were posted at Okhla were also present at the spot, at around 12:45 p.m. Sh. D.C. Pandey (IPS) alongwith police officials namely Nirmal Singh Bisht, A.D.C. Sh. Inderjit Singh Verma, Steno 41 Battalion Sh. Rashid Khan, Lance Naik Dhaman Pal Singh (No. 51341), Lance Naik Nand Ram (No. 51145), HC Siya Ram Dubey (No. 51381), LNK Virender Kumar (No. 51734), LNK Ram Babu, NK Rajinder Malik (No. 51877), Ct. Mahesh Chander (No. 5116), Ct. Har Parsad (No. 56523), Ct. Rajinder Kumar ( No. 51302), Ct. Dharmender Singh, Ct. Mukteshwar, Dhobi Mustikim and Ct. Suraj Pal Singh (No. 51596) reached at Yamuna Nadi, Defence Service Sailing Club and boarded the boat and same driven by Chattu Singh who was driver of the said firm and it was supervised by Sunil Kumar. The aforesaid boat was driven by driver Chattu Singh on high speed and at around 1:20 p.m. when Chattu Singh was driving the boat he lost control of the boat and some water entered into the boat from the side of engine and due to aforesaid fact the boat turned from one side and few officers i.e. Sh. D.C. Pandey, Inderjit Singh, HC Ravinder Singh, Dhobhi Mustikim, Ct. Ravish, Stenographer Rashid Khan, boat driver Chhatu Singh and Marketing Manager Sunil Kumar survived and apart from them other persons drawn in the river. Further that the aforesaid persons lost their lives due to negligent FIR No. 896/95 P.S. S.N. Puri Page No.4 of 48 act of driver during trial and that same occurred since the life jacket was not provided by the driver Chhatu Singh to the persons who drawn and aforesaid accident was happened due to rash and negligent act of the accused Chattu Singh.
2. On the basis of the above mentioned complaint, the present FIR was registered. Investigation was carried out and on the conclusion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed. Copy of the charge sheet was supplied to the accused in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C.
3. On the basis of material placed on record, charge was framed against the accused under Section 304A and 34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. It is evident to discuss the testimonies of all the prosecution witnesses in the present matter, prosecution examined as many as fifteen witnesses in order to prove its case.
PW1 Diwan Chand Pandey, DGP (Headquarters) deposed that U.P. police had placed order for purchase of 16 boats from M/s. Fibro Plast, Okhla, New Delhi. 15 boats were already supplied by this firm to the FIR No. 896/95 P.S. S.N. Puri Page No.5 of 48 U.P. Police. On 03.11.95 pre delivery instruction (PDI) of boat No. 16 was arranged by the firm at Defence Service Sailing Club, Okhla in river Yamuna. As a part of contract all 15 boats were also put up for PDI at the same place. A boat before PDI was inspected by Naval Authority two time and one during the course of inspection and secondly after manufactured loading 20 persons on water trial. This boat was also inspected by Sh. Hakim Singh, Lt. Commander, Navy on 11.08.95 and on 09.10.95 and was declared fit for river trial.
On 03.11.95 one officer late Subhash Tripathi was deputed for PDI organized by firm and proprietor Harish Narula could not come and therefore, had deputed Marketing Manager Sunil Kumar for organizing and supervising the inspection and Chattu Singh, the driver of the boat for driving of the boat. On that day Sunil Kumar, Marketing Manager of the firm gave direction that 20 persons may be arranged from local PC Company Headquarters, Okhla as this used to be procedure adopted earlier in 15 boats also in PDI. Sunil Kumar counted 20 persons including PW1, Nirmal Singh, steno Rashid, Gunner Siya Ram Diwedi and other personnel of PAC and Chattu Singh being driver of the boat started driving the boat. He drove recklessly 300 meters up stream, made a turning circle and immediately on turning Ct. Rajesh and Rajinder Singh who were sitting on the rear informed FIR No. 896/95 P.S. S.N. Puri Page No.6 of 48 that the water is getting inside the boat. Thereafter, PW1 warned the driver and suggested Sunil Kumar that the boat should be driven cautiously. The driver did not pay any attention and continued driving with the same negligence. On way back he stopped the boat with jerk and the boat turned turtles. They all cried immediately for rescue operation. The boat from Defence Service Sailing Club came to rescue and saved 11 persons, however, 09 persons could not be saved. The incident happened because of the rash and negligent driving of accused Chattu Singh, who did not pay attention to the warning. Further, they also warned Sunil Kumar, Marketing Manager to instruct the driver as he was supervising the demonstration but he did not pay any attention. Sunil Kumar, Marketing Manager had assured for security precaution and arrangement of rescue boat for all of them. Lastly, all the accused Sunil, Chattu Singh and Harish Narula were correctly identified by the witness in the court. Thereafter, PW1 alongwith other survivors were taken to AIIMS hospital and was got medically examined. Thereafter, PW1 directed Nirmal Singh, Company Commander of PAC to give complaint to the police for necessary action against the offenders.
During the crossexamination on behalf of the accused Harish Narula, PW1 deposed that he was an IPS officer of 1986 batch. Further, he did not know which of his batch mate was posted in the Delhi FIR No. 896/95 P.S. S.N. Puri Page No.7 of 48 Police at the time of accident. It was correct that UP police (HQ) had floated tender through Directorate of Industry, U.P. for the purchase of boats and tender of M/s. Fibro Plast was accepted as per scheduleA of the acceptance letter and M/s. Fibro Plast was to supply boats as per specification and drawing as per the standards Mercantile Marine, Department of Directorate of Shipping. Further, he did not know as those drawing and design were to be approved by Naval Headquarter. Further police Headquarter used to frame a pre delivery inspection committee under one senior officer of the police headquarter, local PAC commandant and technical members. The same procedure was adopted in testing of all the 15 boats earlier to the 16th boat. It was further correct that PW1 was associated as committee member in 13 boats as they were consumers and that is why the police headquarter used to sent them for pre delivery inspection as per specification for purchase as per schedule A. Defence Service Sailing Club was a testing place for PDI as per contract between Directorate Industries and firm. It was correct that after PDI minutes were prepared and signed by all the members of the committee and the representative of the firm. It was incorrect that no technical member was present at the time of PDI. The boat in question is similar to the boat shown in the photograph EX.PW1/XD1 and D2. At the time of accident PW1 was just behind the driver and further sitting arrangement he did not FIR No. 896/95 P.S. S.N. Puri Page No.8 of 48 remember. He voluntarily stated that the sitting arrangement was made by Sunil Kumar. Further, accused Chattu Singh was not the driver of the boat in the earlier inspection. Naval authority had to check the boat during the course of manufacture on 11.08.95 and Naval authority did the final trial and declared the boat fit for water used. The objective of PDI was firstly that the boat was as per certificate issued by the Naval authority and can be run in water with 20 persons on boat. All the 16 boats were identical and even in the earlier 15 boats 20 persons boarded the same for trial and driver was having the experience certificate which was checked by PW1. The boat was not under his command and same was under the command of Sunil Kumar, Marketing Manager of Firm. Further, it was duty of Sunil Kumar to demonstrate the working of the boat to them. As per PW1 the boat turtled due to the fact that the driver applied the brake immediately without lowering down the speed due to which all the members in the boat got disbalanced otherwise, the boat was technically fit. Further, he did not mention in his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. regarding the fact of applying sudden break.
During the crossexamination on behalf of the accused Sunil Kumar, PW1 deposed that he was on official duty at the time of incident and all the police personnel sitting in the boat were under the command of Sunil Kumar, again said they were under the supervision of Sunil FIR No. 896/95 P.S. S.N. Puri Page No.9 of 48 Kumar. These 18 persons were not part of water boat division under the Relief and Rescue Department and they were present under the requisition of U.P. Police department. It was correct that police personnel boarded on the boat were without life jacket including PW1. It was the duty of the firm to check all security precaution during the trial. Further he was assured by accused Sunil Kumar in the presence of other persons that rescue boats had already been arranged and security equipment would be provided. Further he had inquired about the safety measures taken by the firm in case of any incident. PW1 was not comprehensive that accident may happened because the trial of 15th boats have already been conducted. He did not remember that if he had told any of two men not to boat without life jacket. The rescue boat was present at the spot which was arranged by the firm and it was the same boat which was rescued and saved the life of police personnel. Further, that PW1 could understand meaning of PDI. Further, he did not know the difference between PDI and trial. Further, that Navy officer had not done the PDI and conducted the trial which were more exhaustive then PDI. The boat meant to be tried with 20 persons on boat and therefore, he had taken 20 persons for PDI in the same manner which was adopted earlier in the inspection. Further, he was aware regarding the activity was to be taken during PDI and also that the maximum speed of the boat was 8 knots which FIR No. 896/95 P.S. S.N. Puri Page No.10 of 48 convert to 14.5 km per hour on land. All the persons were sitting on the bench of the boat alongwith him and he did not remember as to when they got disbalanced. Further, he got disbalanced just before the accident and water enter from the rear of the boat, when the turning circle was made the water entered into from the rear and men sitting in the rear informed the driver regarding the same. Ct. Rajesh and Rajinder were sitting on the rear and he cannot say that boat can sunk due to the water which was entered. Further, he did not see any men standing behind him when the boat turned circle and driver had applied break much after the U turn was taken and after applying the break the boat first went right and then left and then right and when the boat suddenly stopped it over turned. All the men who were survived held on the over turned boat.
During the crossexamination on behalf of the accused Chattu Singh, PW1 deposed that he cannot say as to whether the boat was turtled as all the personnel sitting on the rear came on one side when boat took a turn.
PW2 Mumtaz Ahmed deposed that on 03.11.05 he was working as PTI teacher at Jamia Middle School and told by local police that one boat has turned turtle at river Yamuna. Further PW2 was an expert swimmer and he reached the spot to help the PAC official. He reached at FIR No. 896/95 P.S. S.N. Puri Page No.11 of 48 around 3:30 p.m. and removed seven PAC officers from the river Yamuna who were found dead. The other swimmers also helped in rescue operation.
During the crossexamination on behalf of the accused Harish Narula, PW2 deposed that the persons were in full police uniform and that is how he knew that they were PAC personnel. While rescuing these personnel he also found a stengun in the water. Further, they were wearing their complete uniform alongwith leather shoes and belt around their waist. Then it was winter they were in woolen uniform. They were called by the police men for help. Lastly when he reached at the spot lot of people gathered there and fire bridge was also present there with naval police. The Sailing Club had earlier rescued few people who were alive but they had searched for those persons who were drowned and their bodies were not shown floating and their bodies had sunk as they were wearing heavy uniform.
During the crossexamination on behalf of the accused Sunil, PW2 deposed that all the dead body were found at the same spot when he reached the spot the boat was already removed. The distance between the occurrence and the bank of the river is about 100 meters. He used to swim in river Yamuna. It is correct that water in Yamuna was not enough during that month but there was enough depth in the river. FIR No. 896/95 P.S. S.N. Puri Page No.12 of 48
During the crossexamination on behalf of the accused Chattu Singh, PW2 deposed that when the boat turn turtle he was not present.
PW3 Steno Mohd. Rashid Khan deposed that at the time of incident he was posted as steno to Commandant in 41 Battallion, Ghaziabad. There was a dealing for purchasing 16 boats of fibre glass from M/s. Fibro Plast located at Okhla Industrial Area. Prior to receiving the delivery of the boats a committee was used to constitute by police headquarter, Allahabad for inspecting the boats. The committee consists one officer PHQ, Allahabad, one officer from PMVO Muradabad and Commandant of 41 Battallion PAC Ghaziabad. 15 boats have already been inspected and 16 th has to be inspected. Further, he used to come Delhi for preparing the report of inspection of the boat and he had also prepared inspection report of 15 boats already purchased previous boat on the direction of the officers of the aforesaid committee. For the inspection of 16th boat on 03.11.95 by Police Headquarter, Allahabad and he was directed to reach Delhi for preparing the inspection report. Accordingly, on 03.11.95 he alongwith Commandant D.C. Pandey, 41 Battalion PAC, driver Dharambir of Ambassador Car of D.C. Pandey and gunner Siya Ram Dwivedi reached at Okhla Bairaj where Deputy S.P. Subhash Chand Tripathi from PHQ, Allahabad, Company FIR No. 896/95 P.S. S.N. Puri Page No.13 of 48 Commander Nirmal Singh Bisht and Sunil Kumar Marketing Manager of M/s. Fibro Plast and boat driver Chattu Singh were present. The Marketing Manager Sunil Kumar informed that MD Sh. Harish Narula would not be coming and test drive would be conducted by Sunil Kumar. Prior to this test/trial, trial of 15 boats were conducted by Harish Narula in presence of Sunil Kumar. Upon asking the Commandant who would drive the boat, Sunil Kumar informed that Chattu Singh shall drive the boat. Accused Sunil Kumar told Commandant to arrange 20 persons for trial of the boat No. 16 but the Company Commandant Nirmal Singh could arrange only 13 persons belong to his company of PAC. In previous 15 trials of the 15 boats B company of PAC used to sit for trial of the boat which was to be delivered. At the date of trial Marketing Manager Sunil Kumar told PW3 that driver Dharambir Singh, HC Siya Ram Dwivedi to sit in the boat for trial to complete the strength as from PAC company only 13 persons were present. At the request of accused Sunil Kumar PW3 alongwith driver Dharambir and Siya Ram were seated in the boat and in the boat 18 officers were seated alongwith Marketing Manager Sunil Kumar and driver Chattu Singh. Commandant asked Sunil Kumar regarding the standby defence system, upon which accused Sunil Kumar assured that boat has been tested by Navy and is equipped with standby arrangement of sailing club. Accused Sunil Kumar further told that FIR No. 896/95 P.S. S.N. Puri Page No.14 of 48 they have already testified 15 boats previously and this is not a new issue for them. At about 1:00 p.m. the trial of the same was started and driver of the boat was driving at high speed and after covering a distance about 300 meter a circle was created. Thereafter they all requested the driver and the accused Sunil Kumar to drive the boat slowly and carefully and also requested several times for slow driving of the boat as water was coming inside the boat and they did not pay any heed to their request. The time the boat took U turn with very high speed in negligent manner and due to which the boat turned down. It was also observed by PW3 that during this trial run, the engine of the boat turned off many times and everybody sitting in the boat fell down. Nine persons namely Subhash Chand Tripathi, driver Dharamvir, Damanpal and others sitting on the boat died in the accident and only 11 persons survived. Further, he did not remember name of all the nine persons but he had told the same to the IO while has statement was recorded. The present incident occurred due to the negligence of accused Harish Narula, Sunil Kumar and Chattu Singh who was driving the boat in rash and negligent manner and despite several warnings given by PAC officials and warnings given to accused Sunil Kumar for proper test drive, the accused persons took the test drive lightly and it was the responsibility of the accused persons to take due care and precaution. The test drive of 16 th boat was conducted without due FIR No. 896/95 P.S. S.N. Puri Page No.15 of 48 care and caution and in rash and negligent manner. Further accused Harish Narula was also responsible for the accident as life jacket was not provided in the boat in case of emergency and Harish Narula authorized untrained and negligent driver Chattu Singh to drive the boat. Accused persons were identified by the accused persons in the court.
During the crossexamination on behalf of all the accused persons, PW3 deposed that he used to prepare the committee report after pre delivery inspection of the boats under the directions of the committee and same was prepared after the trail of the boat as per norms. The file was dealt by the Head Clerk of the Commandant which was different department. Further he used to take dictation of the committee members including Mr. D.C. Pandey and he used to submit the report to the Police Headquarter. The company used to take trail run before the delivery of the boat. Further they should have been 20 persons for the trial run and when the persons were less the Manager accused Sunil Kumar requested him to sit in the boat for the purpose of trial. The Manager had requested the Commandant and Company Commander that since 20 persons were to be seated and number of persons were less so the Commandant should provide more men. PW3 sat in the boat on the command of his Company Commander and the Commandant PAC and it was correct that the committee was not fully formed FIR No. 896/95 P.S. S.N. Puri Page No.16 of 48 and one technical member had not reported. He had not worn the life jacket as the same was not provided to him. Nor tube or rope or life jackets in the boat. He had saved himself by sticking to boat and all of them who drowned were in uniform and there was also one gunner with his arms. Further he was wearing his uniform shoes and accused Harish Narula was not present at the spot but accused Harish Narula used to remain present in the earlier test drive also. Further, the driver of the boat was driving the same in negligent manner in high speed and many times because of the same water came inside the boat and driver was asked to drive the same slowly. Further, he did not know whether the driver had applied brake and whether the boat had break or not. Nobody stood up when the water came inside the boat.
PW4 Ct. Ved Pal deposed that on 03.11.1995 upon receiving DD No. 21 he alongwith SI Latur Singh reached the spot i.e. Boat Club Okhla where several persons had gathered. Upon inquiry it was revealed that steamer had drown in the Yamuna river and several persons had died. Company Commander Nirmal Singh gave his statement to SI Latur Singh who prepared the rukka and FIR in the present matter was got registered. During course of investigation SI Latur Singh seized the motor boat vide memo EX.PW4/A and driver of the motor boat i.e. accused Chattu Singh was arrested vide memo EX.PW4/B and conducted his personal search. The FIR No. 896/95 P.S. S.N. Puri Page No.17 of 48 identity of the case property was not disputed by ld. counsel for accused persons.
During the crossexamination on behalf of the accused Harish Narula, PW4 deposed that he had received the call at around 1:50 p.m and in about 1015 minutes they reached the spot. Further, he with the investigating officer and investigating officer was given a written complaint by Nirmal Singh Bisht, who was Company Commander, 41th Battallion PAC. After that the investigating officer made the endorsement and he left the spot at 3:15 p.m. He came back to the spot again only after the registration of the FIR. It took him one hour to reach police station and another 3040 minutes at the spot for getting the case registered and thereafter he came back to the spot at around 6:00 p.m. At that time when he reached the spot alongwith IO he found that people who had drown being rescued by fire brigade, by the Army Sailing Club and many other people. He did not make any effort to save the drowning people as fire brigade was already there and other boats and equipments were present to rescue the people. The accused Chattu Singh was apprehended by PAC personnels. When he reached the spot he found that the boat was at the shore of the river from where it was seized.
PW5 Mustakim deposed that on 03.11.95 he was working as a washerman in B Company, 41 Battallion PAC and on that day on the FIR No. 896/95 P.S. S.N. Puri Page No.18 of 48 instruction of Company Commander whose name he did not remember but his name was Bisht and including himself 21 persons were seated in the boat. He did not remember any of the persons who were seated in the aforesaid boat and one private driver of the company was driving the same. He could not remember anything and could not identified the accused driver Chattu Singh.
Thereafter PW5 was cross examined by ld. APP for the State as he was resiling from his statement recorded by the police earlier.
During cross examination on behalf of the ld. APP for the State PW5 deposed that it was correct that driver Chattu Singh alongwith Supervisor Sunil Kumar who visited the Okhla head and at around 12:25 p.m. many persons alongwith D.C. Pandey, complainant were asked to get seated in the boat for the which trial had to be done. Trail was conducted by one police official who was visited from Allahabad. He later again stated that he did know as to who was conducting the trial of the aforesaid boat. He admitted initially the boat was driven by driver Chattu Singh properly for 30 minutes and thereafter at about 1:30 p.m. driver Chattu Singh driving the boat on very high speed and due to high speed he had lost his control over the boat and due to high speed the boat turned down and water started coming and thereafter they raised alarm for saving their life. During the trial FIR No. 896/95 P.S. S.N. Puri Page No.19 of 48 they were not wearing any life jacket and nobody had informed them about the availability of the same. Around 9 persons who were seated on the boat during the trial had died in the accident. The accident might have occurred due to negligence of the boat driver. It was correct that aforesaid incident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver Chattu Singh. It was incorrect that accident occurred due to negligence of Harish Narula and Sunil Kumar. It was further wrong that PAC officials had warned accused Sunil Kumar for proper test drive of the boat but the accused persons took the same lightly and it was their responsibility to take due care and caution and test drive of the 16th boat was conducted without due care and caution in rash and negligent manner. It was correct that they were not supplied with life jacket and he did not know as to whose responsibility was it to supply the same. He did not know whether accused Harish Narula was the owner of the firm and was responsible for incident. The witness is not able to identify the accused Sunil Kumar and Harish Narula in the court. The witness identified the accused Chattu Singh as the driver of the boat. Ld. APP for the State declared him hostile on the point of identity. The case property was not disputed.
During cross examination on behalf of the accused Harish Narula and Sunil Kumar PW5 deposed that 41st battalion was based at the FIR No. 896/95 P.S. S.N. Puri Page No.20 of 48 bank of river Yamuna at Okhla head in the year 1995. He did not wear his uniform and other PAC personnels were in their uniform. He was asked to board the boat by Company Commander Sh. Nirmal Singh Bisht, who had ordered to put men on the boat by their Commandant Sh. D.C. Pandey. There was a Deputy Commandant who came from Allahabad and besides the Company Commander and the PAC personnels two officials from outside. The Commandant of the battalion D.C. Pandey and other Deputy Commandant also boarded the boat. He had never seated in the boat for any trial in the past. One PAC personnel even had arms on his person. PW5 was not aware that it was a trial. Further he was saved because he knew swimming. He did not wear the life jacket as it was not available at that time.
During cross examination on behalf of the accused Chattu Singh PW5 deposed that he was sitting back side of the boat. He did not remember how many persons were sitting in front of him and how many persons sitting behind him.
PW6 Ct. Krishan Kumar deposed that he was involved in conducting the post mortem of the dead body in the present matter. On 04.11.95 he was posted at Okhla head chowki. He accompanied IO/SI
Latoor Singh alongwith Ct. Indel Chand went to AIIMS mortuary. In mortuary 09 dead bodies of PAC personnels were lying for post mortem. After post FIR No. 896/95 P.S. S.N. Puri Page No.21 of 48 mortem and identification of the dead bodies, the same were handed over to Inspector Nirmal Singh Bisht.
Opportunity to cross examine the witness was granted to all the accused persons but they did not question anything to the witness.
PW7 HC Indel Chand deposed on the lines of PW6 and the same is not repeated for the sake of brevity.
Opportunity to cross examine the witness was granted to all the accused persons but they did not question anything to the witness.
PW8 HC Siya Ram Dubey deposed that in the year 1995 he was posted at 41 Battallion Vahini, PAC, Ghaziabad. The incident occurred on 03.11.1995. On that day he alongwith D.C. Pandey, Nirmal Singh Bisht, Subhash Tripathi and many other persons had gone to Okhla for boat testing. At 10:00 a.m. boat was put into water by driver Chattu Singh and supervisor Sunil Kumar. Thereafter all of them boarded the boat including Chattu Singh and Supervisor Sunil Kumar. The boat was driven by Chattu Singh and the same was steamer type of boat with a engine in it. The testing of the boat continued till 12:30 and the boat was taken at the bank of Okhla bairaj. After 10 to 15 minutes they again took the boat into Okhla bairaj and at around 1:30 pm water started coming inside the boat from the side of engine all of them raised alarm upon which accused driver Chattu Singh told them that there was no need to panic and thereafter the boat was drowned. 09 PAC FIR No. 896/95 P.S. S.N. Puri Page No.22 of 48 personnels were died and incident occurred due to the rash and negligent act of accused Chattu Singh since despite many request that water was coming in the boat, he assured them not to panic and did not take any immediate action to prevent the mishappening.
During cross examination on behalf of the accused Sunil Kumar and Harish Narula PW8 deposed that the test was done regarding capacity of the boat whether it could accommodate 20 persons or not. They had come from 41th Battallion Vaishali, Ghaziabad alongwith their Commandant. They did not know whether the UP police had already purchased the boat or not. It was correct that they come for pre delivery inspection of these boats. They were told by their Commandant that they contact trial in the water whether 20 persons can be accommodated in the boat or not. He did not know whether the Naval authorities had done the trial of the boat and had also given certificate of specification and the trial was approved by the UP police headquarters. He further could not say whether the boat was taken to the bank of the bairag and it was taken on the instruction of supervisor, commandant and driver. He was sitting in the middle of the boat. The water came from the side of engine as the boat had not the capacity to carry 20 persons and at that time he was wearing his uniform and he was carrying his gun. He was not wearing life jacket and they FIR No. 896/95 P.S. S.N. Puri Page No.23 of 48 sat on the instruction of the Commandant and everything during the test was being done by accused Chattu Singh only upon the instruction of D.C. Pandey. Lastly his life was saved as he was swimmer. He saved the life of six people by helping them to catch the boat.
PW9 Hakim Singh deposed that he was posted at Naval Headquarter from 1992 to 2001 as Lieutenant Commander. PAC, Allahabad had requested the Naval Headquarter to inspect 16th boat to be purchased from M/s. Fibro Plast, Okhla and work of inspection was assigned to him. He had inspected the 16th boat during the manufacturing and taking water trial after the manufacturing. He had conducted water trial of the 16 th boat in the Yamuna River and submitted his report to the PAC. On 09.10.1995 he had inspected the 16th boat and conducted its water trial. After the incident he had again inspected the 16th boat on instruction of his Director who was requested by Delhi Police. Lt. Commander A.K. Kant had also joined him in the trial and he had conducted the trial in unloaded condition in Yamuna River. His inspection report was EX.PW9/A. During cross examination on behalf all the accused PW9 deposed that he had examined the boat in question prior to the incident in loaded condition and after the incident unloaded condition. By loaded condition he meant that he had made sit the persons as per the capacity of FIR No. 896/95 P.S. S.N. Puri Page No.24 of 48 the boat and the same was about 18 to 20 persons and he had made them sit at the time of trial prior to the incident. It was correct that boat was manufactured as per the specifications and requirement of UP Police and he was instructed by his Directorate to inspect the boat. The number of 18 to 20 persons could be replaced by equivalent weight of cargo. At the time of trial the life jacket were used and it was the question of discipline and marine practice that whenever the trial was to be conducted the persons used in the trial should be given life jackets. The boat was tested for swamp test and it was unsinkable. Further when he again inspected the boat he could not found any defect in the boat. He had also tested water splashed and it was minimum. Further the boat does not have breaks and accused Chattu Singh had accompanied him in the trial of these boats and accused Chattu Singh was trained in driving the boats and he again stated that he could not say whether he was trained in driving the boats but he could say that accused Chattu Singh knew how to drive the boat and was a good driver.
PW10 Chandan Sen (Additional Director Headquarter, Directorate of industries, U.P.) deposed that he had brought the original documents and tendered notice dated 21.02.1994 given by B.B.L. Srivastava, Joint Director of Industries and same was EX.PW10/A and the acceptance letter No. 89 dated 05.08.1994 was EX.PW10/B which was executed by Johra FIR No. 896/95 P.S. S.N. Puri Page No.25 of 48 Chaterjee the then Additional Director of the Industries, U.P. The acceptance letter bearing No. 22 dated 21.04.1994 and same was EX.PW10/C. Opportunity to cross examine the witness was granted to all the accused persons but they did not question anything to the witness.
PW11 Inderjit deposed that in the year 1995 he was posted in 41th Battallion Vahini PAC, Ghaziabad and incident occurred on 03.11.1995. He was posted as Head Constable in the PAC at that time. PW11 alongwith Sh. D.C. Pandey, Rajender Singh, Siya Ram Dubey, Rajesh Kumar Yadav alongwith other PAC personnels have gone to Okhla for boat testing. At around 12:30 p.m. the test of the boat was started and the name of the driver was Chattu Singh (he was correctly identified by the witness). The name of the supervisor was Sunil and both of them had put the boat into the water and all of them around 20 persons boarded the boat and they all were 20 in number including driver Chattu Singh and Supervisor Sunil Kumar. The boat was a steamer type of boat with engine in it and till 12:30 they continued testing the boat and the boat took two round 1½ km each and on the third round the driver of the boat suddenly increased the speed of the boat and the persons sitting at the back side of the boat started raising alarm and told that the water was coming in the boat on which Supervisor assured them not to panic as some water will splatter naturally. In the third round the driver of the boat took narrow cut due to which the boat turned down throwing of its FIR No. 896/95 P.S. S.N. Puri Page No.26 of 48 occupants in water. Further at that time he was not aware that the boat was unsinkable. He did not know swimming. However, he saved himself by clinging himself with the boat. Nine persons died in the accident and eleven survived which were saved by the Military and Police personnels and some local swimmers. Further, one technical member was to join them since it was late he could not board the boat and he was standing on the shore of the river and at the time of accident he who had raised alarm and called the Military personnels to rescue.
During cross examination on behalf of all accused PW11 deposed that all the PAC occupants were in uniform they were ordered to board the boat on the order of D.C. Pandey and were not wearing life jackets and none of them were wearing the same.
PW12 Rajender Singh deposed on the lines of PW11 and same is not repeated for the sake of brevity.
During cross examination on behalf of all accused PW12 deposed that water flowed in the boat before the incident and engine stopped after the boat turned down and driver lost control of the same since the driver had started driving it high speed. Further that the accused Chattu Singh had himself increased the speed of the boat and Commandant D.C. Pandey asked the driver to limit speed of the boat and to drive it with proper FIR No. 896/95 P.S. S.N. Puri Page No.27 of 48 control.
PW13 Inspector Nirmal Singh Bisht (complainant) deposed on the lines of PW11 and PW12 and further stated that his complaint was EX.PW13/A and the facts are not repeated for the sake of brevity. He further deposed that during course of investigation police had prepared site plan at his instance and he had handed over accused Chattu Singh to the police officials and after the dead bodies were searched in the river and sent to hospital through PCR van. On 08.11.1995 he called five divers from Wazirabad for searching of one stain gun, magazine, cartridges and one bag and despite making efforts aforesaid divers searched the same and handed over the articles which was seized by the IO vide EX.PW13/B. During course of investigation accused Harish Narula had handed over the documents relating to the manufacturing of aforesaid boats and inspection notes and factory licensee to the IO which was seized vide EX.PW13/C. All the three witnesses were identified by the witness.
During cross examination on behalf of all accused PW13 deposed that he had boarded the boat upon directions of the Commandant Sh. D.C. Pandey and had sat in the boat without any life jacket because there were no life jacket in the boat. Lastly some PAC personnels were in uniform and some were not and the dhobi and steno were in private uniforms. They FIR No. 896/95 P.S. S.N. Puri Page No.28 of 48 had to check the capacity of 20 persons, therefore, they sat in the boat. Lastly he had registered the present FIR upon the incident after consultation with the Commandant and did not on his dictation.
PW14 Retired SI Latoor Singh deposed that on 03.11.1995 he was posted at PS S.N. Puri and on that day upon receiving DD No. 21 EX.PW14/A, he alongwith Ct. Ved Pal Singh reached the Boat Club and found huge crowd of public persons gathered and upon enquiry it was disclosed that one motor boat/steamer drowned in Yamuna River and many persons had died. In the meantime Nirmal Singh, Inspector PAC also met him and presented him a written statement EX.PW13/A upon which rukka was prepared vide EX.PW14/B and he had sent Ct. Ved Pal Singh to the PS for registration of the FIR. He prepared site plan at the instance of Nirmal Singh vide EX.PW14/C and also informed the official of Delhi Fire Service and also to the higher police official. He called divers to take the dead body from the river and they were sent to AIIMS mortuary in the ambulance. He also seized the motor boat on which all the deceased were taking a drive vide seizure memo EX.PW4/A and also post motrem were conducted on deceased persons and handed over the same to the relative of the deceased. During investigation he recorded the investigation of witnesses and also seized one stun gun which was produced by Nirmal Singh vide memo FIR No. 896/95 P.S. S.N. Puri Page No.29 of 48 EX.PW13/B which was also drowned in the incident. Thereafter he arrested the accused Chattu Singh on the same day and seized certain documents vide seizure memo EX.PW14/D, the same were EX.P1, EX.P2 and EX.P3 and further accused were arrested subsequently and thereafter he was transferred as an investigating officer.
During the crossexamination on behalf of accused Harish Narula and Chattu Singh, PW14 deposed that he investigated the case from 03.11.1995 to 08.11.1995 for five days. He was posted as Incharge of police post Okhla and it was situated less than ½ km from scene of occurrence. He reached the spot with constable on foot. It took him 10 minutes to reach the spot. He found large number of people gathered and he was told that PAC boat was sunk and some PAC personnels were drowned and some of them swam and come on the shore. When he reached the spot he met inspector Nirmal Singh Bisht and in the meantime senior police officers also reached the spot. He met D.C. Pandey, the commandant of PAC who was also present on the boat and who was present on the bank of the river. He did not talk to D.C. Pandey and only his senior officer had spoken to him. Then concerned SHO, ACP and DCP of the area had immediately reached the spot and made enquiries from the people who had gathered at the spot and told that boat was taking trial for quite some FIR No. 896/95 P.S. S.N. Puri Page No.30 of 48 time and came back to the bank of the river and after some time again went to river side and it was hardly 10 to 15 meters the incident occurred. People did not told him about the manner of incident but he had gathered information from the survivors of the PAC personnels and recorded their statement. When he reached the spot Inspector Nirmal Singh Bisht Company Commander, PAC was already having statement written which he gave to him and he endorsed the same for registration of the FIR. The police station was at the distance of about 4 km from the spot and entire police post and police station staff had also reached at the spot. The time of occurrence was about 1:20 p.m. and he had sent the tehrir at about 2:10 p.m. Inspector Nirmal Singh Bisht, Company Commander first met him at the spot who had given his complaint and it was correct that tehrir was dispatched by him at 3:15 p.m. and same was written in his own hand EX.PW14/B. When he reached the spot there was no dead body and rescue operation was going on and he called the divers from Navy, from the village also from the fire brigade. He also informed on the wireless set to control room to call divers from fire brigade and Navy. He also called the local divers from the village by sending a motorcycle rider. The company of UP police was stationed at the spot because the Irrigation Department people kept visiting and also for flood relief measures. He being the police post incharge did not have much interaction FIR No. 896/95 P.S. S.N. Puri Page No.31 of 48 with the PAC people but he was aware that a company of PAC was stationed within his jurisdiction and rescue operation was carried out till 5:00 p.m. Whoever rescue was sent by ambulance or PCR van or other modes to the hospital. He could not say that they were dead, they were sent to the hospital to take immediate treatment if any of them was still alive. It was correct that at about 6:00 p.m. in the evening vide DD No. 26 EX.PW14/X. The information from the hospital had come that doctor had declared them dead. He came to know that some of the persons who were taken out form the river were died. It was correct that DD entry EX.PW14/X was received at 6:00 p.m. regarding the death of one persons and he did not remember if the media people had also come on the spot for breaking of news. It was further correct that complainant Nirmal Singh Bisht being the Company Commander, PAC had written the complaint about drowning of nine persons. He had prepared the map of scene of occurrence EX.PW14/C at the instance of Nirmal Singh Bisht. He did not measure the depth of the water at point B where the boat had turned. It was told by the divers that depth may range between 20 to 25 feet. He further did not measure the distance of the spot of the boat turning form the bank of river. Further when he had inspected the spot, the boat was found turned and partially submerged in the water at the point B shown in the map. It was further correct that at point C in the map FIR No. 896/95 P.S. S.N. Puri Page No.32 of 48 where the boat was found turned which was near the bank of river at point C. Further he did not record the statement of any independent person or eye witness other than the PAC personnel and did not make any enquiries from any persons regarding the incident except the PAC personnels. He had inspected the boat involved in the accident and had only checked if there was any holes in the boat or any other deficiency visible in the boat. He did not find any such defect in the boat and did not check for any technical details of boat of its maneuvers in the water. He did not know whether the boat was unsinkable but voluntarily he stated that balance of any boat could be disturbed and that is what had happened in the present matter because of all the persons sitting in the boat fallen down. Further, he had come to know all those manage to hold the boat was saved because boat was floating in the water. Further that he had no knowledge as to who was the authority to give licence to any boat driver and he had no knowledge of any provisions of Inland Vessels Act by that time. Since he had no knowledge so he had not enquired for competent certificate of boat driver. He had prepared the seizure memo vide EX.PW4/A at the spot. Accused was arrested and his personal search was also conducted vide EX.PW4/B and he had seized the document vide EX.PW14/D. He further stated that it was correct that he had other case pending investigation for him but no other case is transferred from him except FIR No. 896/95 P.S. S.N. Puri Page No.33 of 48 the present matter.
PW15 Inspector Ved Singh deposed that on 09.11.95 he was posted at PS S.N. Puri and during the course of investigation he had recorded the statement of D.C. Pandey u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and had sent the notice to the company M/s. Fibro Plast, F3/40, Okhla Industrial Area. On 10.11.95 he has seized the document from the accused Harish Narula being the proprietor of M/s. Fibro Plast vide memo EX.PW13/C and the concerned document were already on record and that he had also recorded the statement of Inspector Nirmal Singh Bisht u/s 161 Cr.P.C. On 13.11.95 SI Latoor Singh had collected post mortem report from AIIMS hospital and same was submitted to him. On 14.11.95 he had sent report regarding application of release of motor boat and he had also sent a request letter to Naval Headquarter for mechanical inspection of the motor boat. On 16.11.95 he had again sent a report in respect of application for oiling of engine and for release of 20 life jackets and his report was EX.PW15/C. In his report PW15 had reported that no life jacket was seized by the police through investigation. On 21.11.95 he had received message from Naval Headquarter that Lt. Commander K.K. Kant and Hakim Singh could come to inspect the motor boat on 22.11.95 at 11 a.m. and therefore, he informed the company accordingly and requested them to be present during mechanical inspection FIR No. 896/95 P.S. S.N. Puri Page No.34 of 48 of the motor boat. On 22.11.95 the aforesaid naval officers arrived at 11:00 a.m. at Defence Sailing Club, Okhla Bairage and from company accused Harish Narula and S.S. Parihar were also present. The company officer were allowed to oil the engine before mechanical inspection in presence of the aforesaid officers. After oiling of engine the naval officers had carried out mechanical inspection and report was EX.PW15/A. He had recorded the statement of Lt. Commander K.K. Kant and Hakim Singh u/s 161 Cr.P.C. He deposited the motor boat after inspection in the maalkhana. On 29.11.95 he had sent report regarding release of motor boat and 21.03.96 he obtained prosecution opinion regarding role of D.C. Pandey who was the Commandant of PAC. O 09.07.1996 he had arrested accused Harish Narula in the present matter vide seizure memo EX.PW15/B and recorded the statement of Ct. Bhopal Singh u/s 161 Cr.P.C.
During the crossexamination on behalf of all the accused, PW15 deposed that it was correct that court passed order for the release of 20 life jackets vide order dated 16.11.95 and it was incorrect that he had given indirect report saying that the company had not provided life jacket to victim. It was further correct that court has passed ordered for the release of 20 jacket for which he had submitted his report.
It is further correct that he had sought opinion from the FIR No. 896/95 P.S. S.N. Puri Page No.35 of 48 prosecution in respect to the role of D.C. Pandey and except the prosecution opinion there was no other evidence to show the reason Sh. D.C. Pandey was got in Cl. No. 2. It was further correct that Lt. Commander of Delhi who had power of superintendence over entire Delhi Police had observed in the news clippings regarding the role of D.C.Pandey and for conduct the enquiry and investigation against him. Further, it was the duty of first IO to have investigated the role of D.C. Pandey. Further, he did not do any further investigation in the role of D.C. Pandey except of taking prosecution opinion. Lastly he had gone through provision of Inland Vessels Act but he was not aware as to who is authority to issue experience certificate to boat driver. Further, he had not made any enquiry in search of any independent public witness.
5. After completion of the prosecution evidence, prosecution evidence was closed and statement of the accused as mandated by Section 313 r/w 281 CrPC was recorded on 15.05.2013 and all the incriminating circumstances came in evidence put to the accused for explanation. Accused Chattu Singh stated that on the date of incident he had joined for the trial for the boat in pre delivery inspection and it was correct that he was driving the boat but he did not drive the same on high speed and he stated that the FIR No. 896/95 P.S. S.N. Puri Page No.36 of 48 incident occurred since the PAC officials suddenly stood up due to the splashes of water which came naturally while the boat was being driven and the boat tilted because of the movement and that he was innocent and was falsely implicated and it was not a trial and the PAC personnels on the command of the Commandant had boarded the boat for joy ride and he was forced to drive the boat. Accused Sunil Kumar and Harish Narula denied all the allegations against them.
6. Accused persons examined eight witnesses in their defence.
DW1 Pradeep Kumar Khare SI Ministerial from UP Head Quarter, Allahabad deposed that he was dealing Assistant of UP police and had brought the summoned record i.e. file No. 1920993 which contains letter No. 1920993 dated 26.10.95 and the pre delivery inspection report dated 06.05.95 and certified copies of same which were EX.DW1/A and EX.DW1/B. Opportunity to cross examine the witness was granted to ld. APP for State but he did not question anything to the witness.
DW2 Ravi Sachedva, Senior Vice President of Indian Register of Shipping, Jasola, Delhi deposed that he was working with aforesaid shipping which is ship classification society registered as company FIR No. 896/95 P.S. S.N. Puri Page No.37 of 48 u/s 25 of the Company Act and had brought the summoned record. The same pertained to water trial in respect of FRP motor boats dated 08.03.08 in respect of boat pre delivery inspection report dated 11.04.08 and building certificate of boat dated 11.04.08 and same were EX.DW2/A, EX.DW2/B and EX.DW2/C. Opportunity to cross examine the witness was granted to ld. APP for State but he did not question anything to the witness.
DW3 P.P. Pant, Jr. Design Officer, Directorate of Naval Architecture Sena Bhawan, New Delhi deposed that their department had summoned to produce the record i.e. letter dated 21.10.94 issued by Deputy Director, Naval Architecture. Further, the said record could not be produced as the same had weeded out as per the department rules.
Opportunity to cross examine the witness was granted to ld. APP for State but he did not question anything to the witness.
DW4 Ram Kumar, ACRA, Disaster Management from District Magistrate, Basti, U.P. deposed that he was appearing on behalf of the department as he was duly authorized vide letter dated EX.DW4/A and had brought the summoned record which was a letter No. 850/Relief Clerk dated 27.11.95 which was signed and issued by District Magistrate, Basti to M/s. Fibro Plast, F3/4, Okhla Industrial Area and same was EX.DW4/B. Opportunity to cross examine the witness was granted to ld. FIR No. 896/95 P.S. S.N. Puri Page No.38 of 48 APP for State but he did not question anything to the witness.
DW5 Prem Chand deposed that he was working in Naval Unit of NCC from where he retired in the year 2005 and was earlier working at Defence Services Sailing Club, Okhla in the year 1984 to 1989. The accused Chattu Singh was also employee at the Defence Services Sailing Club and had undergone training from year 1984 to 1989. At that time, Lt. Col. T.P.S. Chaudhary was the Hony. Secretary of the Club and Chattu Singh was also looking after the maintenance of the boats besides doing his training as a boat driver. Accused Chattu Singh had completed his training as boat driver and was given a certificate. The certificate was EX.DW14/D1 which the witness submitted was on the letter head issued by the aforesaid club. After completing training as boat driver he was given certificate which was EX.PW14/D1 and same issued on the letter head of the club. After training as boat driver Chattu Singh took a private job with M/s. Fibro Plast.
During cross examination on behalf of ld. APP for State DW5 deposed that he did not remember the year when Chattu Singh had left the Defence Services Sailing Club for private job and it was correct that DW5 had not produced any document which showed the resignation of the accused from the aforesaid club and it was correct that he had never seen the Lt. Col. T.P.S. Chaudhary signing and writing in his presence. FIR No. 896/95 P.S. S.N. Puri Page No.39 of 48
DW5A Rtd. Brig. T.P.S. Chaudahry deposed that he was posted at Army Headquarter Engineerinchief's Branch, New Delhi in the year 1982 and was then appointed the Secretary of the Defence Services Sailing Club, Okhla, Delhi. In the aforesaid club all defence officers and some civil officers were members and used to sail and row. At that time all staff from Army as well as from Civilian to run the club. The rescue motor boats were manned by army personnel and sometimes civilian who were trained in running the out board motors and same was mainly to rescue anybody or any boat which capsizes. The certificate EX.PW14/D1 was not signed by him and same did not bear his signature. Further, he was posted out of EngineerinChief's branch in 1987 in the rank of Colonel. He was not present in Army Headquarter, Delhi in year 1989 nor was he Secretary of the Defence Services Sailing Club, Okhla, Delhi in the year 1989 and the certificate EX.DW14/D1 had not been signed by him.
DW6 Inspector Dalbir Singh (41 PAC Ghaziabad) deposed that he was posted at PAC UP police as Company Commander and had been directed by the office of Commandant 41 Battallion, PAC for the parvy of the case and progress report in the matter. Further, he had not brought any record of departmental inquiry against D.C. Pandey who was formerly the Commandant of 41th PAC and letter in this regard was EX.PW6/A bearing the FIR No. 896/95 P.S. S.N. Puri Page No.40 of 48 signature of Commandant41th Battallion, PAC.
Opportunity to cross examine the witness was granted to ld. APP for State but he did not question anything to the witness.
DW7 Ajay Kumar, Assistant Commandant 41th PAC Ghaziabad, PAC deposed that he had brought the letter from his department in respect to the present matter and as per record available in the department there was no departmental inquiry conducted against Sh. D.C. Pandey during his tenure. Further, as per the departmental record no departmental inquiry was ever conducted against him in respect to present matter and no sanction for prosecution had ever obtained against him. The details were filed by him through letter dated 16.12.2014 and the same was EX.DW7/A. The photocopy of the letter was Mark DW7/B and the photocopy of the letter dated 16.02.2009 was Mark B. Another letter dated 23.11.2014 in respect to the present matter was Mark C and other letter dated 12.12.2014 and 11.12.2014 were Mark D and Mark E. Thereafter the witness was cross examined by ld. Counsel for accused and during cross examination DW7 denied that there is any departmental inquiry against D.C. Pandey.
During cross examination on behalf of ld. APP for State no question was asked.
DW8 Chattu Singh (accused) was examined. He deposed that FIR No. 896/95 P.S. S.N. Puri Page No.41 of 48 on the day of incident he had gone to Defence Services Sailing Club for the delivery of 16th boat to the UP police Commandant whose team had also visited the Sailing Club for taking delivery. The Commandant D.C. Pandey had asked him to take a round on the boat and upon his instructions he had driven the boat and suddenly the police men on the boat stood up and came on one side due to which boat turned turtles. The trial of the boat had earlier done by Indian Navy and he had only gone to deliver the boat. He worked of Defence Services Sailing Club for five years from 1984 to 1989 and was trained for motor boat driving and he was given driving certificate which was EX.PW14/D1 (same was objected by ld. APP for State for its genuineness as same was not verified by competent authority). Further, he had received aforesaid certificate from the club given by one Prem Chand who was instructor. He was awarded a certificate of competency dated 06.02.98 by the Government of Assam as Sarang under the Indian Vessels Act 1917 and copy of same was EX.PW8/A (same was objected by ld. APP for State for its genuineness as same was not verified by competent authority). Further, that he had been awarded another certificate of competency which was EX.DW8/B (same was objected by ld. APP for State for its genuineness as same was not verified by competent authority).
FIR No. 896/95 P.S. S.N. Puri Page No.42 of 48
During cross examination on behalf of the ld. APP for State DW8 deposed that at the time of incident he was working as employee of M/s. Fibro Plast which was manufacturer of boats and he had gone to deliver the 16th boat to the Commandant PAC at Defence Services Sailing Club, Okhla. Further that he had no document in respect being employee of M/s. Fibro Plast at the time of incident. Further, he was sent by Sh. S.S. Parihar who was G.M. of the company and the delivery documents of the boat were with Sunil Kumar, who was supervisor and had accompanied him for the delivery. It was correct that on the day of incident about 20 persons including him and accused Sunil Kumar were sitting in the boat and he was driving the boat. Further that he had intimated about the instruction of the Commandant to coaccused Sunil Kumar and upon taking instructions from Sunil Kumar he had driven the said boat upon the directions of the Commandant. The life jacket and other safety devices were available on the boat and his experience certificate was not given u/s 26 of the Inland Water Vessels Act 1917.
7. It was argued by ld. APP for the State that in the present matter the most untoward incident occurred due to the gross negligence on the part of the accused persons which resulted into the loss of the precious life of nine police personnels. He has argued that in the present matter all the witnesses FIR No. 896/95 P.S. S.N. Puri Page No.43 of 48 have deposed in absolute corroboration with each other and have clearly deposed that the boat in question was driven by the accused Chattu Singh in a reckless manner and despite the fact that he was warned by the persons he continued driving the same with high speed and took a steep turn due to which the boat turned and all the persons fell in the river and only those persons could be saved who either knew swimming or had clinged themselves to the boat and, therefore, even the most safest boat which was unsinkable, turned out to be most dangerous only due to the act of the accused. Further, accused Sunil Kumar being the Supervisor did not provide life jackets to the persons sitting and despite the objections raised by them allowed the driver Chattu Singh to drive in a negligent manner and therefore, all the three accused persons are liable to be convicted.
On the other hand, ld. Counsel for accused persons have argued that in the present matter aforesaid incident did not occur due to rashness or negligence on the part of the accused and the same occurred due to the negligence of the Commandant Sh. D.C. Pandey as it was he who had instructed all the persons to be seated on the boat and did not care to provide a life jacket and boarded the boat not for a pre delivery inspection but for his own joy ride. It is further argued by ld. Counsel for accused persons in the present matter that it was incorrect that the life jacket was not provided FIR No. 896/95 P.S. S.N. Puri Page No.44 of 48 since the same was already available but the Commandant did not offer the same to any of the persons who boarded the boat and did not follow the requisite required to conduct the pre delivery as warranted under the orders signed by concerned department and laid down in EX.PW10/A, EX.PW10/B and EX.PW10/C. It is further argued that accused Chattu Singh was a trained driver and had been given a certificate EX.PW14/D1 and therefore, no negligence can be attributed to the accused Chattu Singh. It was further argued that accused Sunil Kumar was not supervising the pre delivery inspection but it was entirely on the command of Sh. D.C. Pandey and aforesaid incident occurred only due to negligence of the persons who were sitting, as they stood up after receiving natural splashes of water and the boat got disbalanced and it was not due to the reckless driving of the accused Chattu Singh and therefore, all accused persons are liable to be discharged. REASONING :
8. Section 304A IPC state that 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.
FIR No. 896/95 P.S. S.N. Puri Page No.45 of 48
To prove the offence u/s 304A IPC following ingredients are required: (1) There must be death of the person in question.
(2) The accused must have caused such death; and (3) That such act of the accused was rash or negligent and that it did not amount to culpable homicide.
9. I have heard Learned Counsel for accused and Learned APP for the State and gone through the material available on record and has considered the testimony of various witnesses and gone through the evidence on record. In the present matter the prosecution has examined as many as fifteen witnesses among which PW1, PW2, PW3, PW4, PW9, PW11, PW12 are the material witnesses and star witnesses of prosecution and are material since they are the sole eye witnesses who in fact survived the accident which occurred on 03.11.95 in which there own coworkers and officials died. The testimony of all the aforesaid witnesses if examined deeply, it can be said without any iota of doubt that their complete corroboration and in fact all the witnesses have deposed the manner in which the present accident occurred. It was further observed that in the present matter all the witnesses examined by prosecution have categorically stated FIR No. 896/95 P.S. S.N. Puri Page No.46 of 48 that on the day of accident accused Chattu Singh was driving the boat in which they all were seated for pre delivery inspection in the river Yamuna and none of them were wearing the life jacket as the same was not provided to them and not even offered. It is further reiterated by all the witnesses that at the time of incident accused Chattu Singh was driving the boat in rash and negligent manner and despite several warnings by the passengers who were seated, he kept driving the same and in fact took a steep turn due to which the boat turned and all the persons sitting in the boat fell down into the river. Further, it was quite unbelievable that no rashness can be attributed to the accused since such an incident could only take place if the boat was driven in rash and negligent manner as the same resulted into fall of all the 20 passengers and therefore the contentions of the ld. counsel for accused persons, stating that the boat was unsinkable is of little relevance as such, did not help in saving the deceased persons. There is further cogent evidence on record to show that the act of the accused led to the dead of nine police officials and the same was result of gross negligence on the part of the accused. It is further to be noted that in the present matter there is no contradiction whatsoever in the testimony of any of the witnesses and therefore the story of prosecution stands proved.
However, in the present matter no act of negligence can be FIR No. 896/95 P.S. S.N. Puri Page No.47 of 48 attributed to the accused Sunil Kumar or Harish Narula as they were not directly in control of the situation and therefore, no offence can be made out against them and are liable to be acquitted. However, there is ample evidence against the accused Chattu Singh and therefore, he is liable to be convicted in the present matter for the offence punishable u/s 304A IPC.
10. On the basis of facts and circumstances, the charge against the accused Chattu Singh stands proved. Accordingly, accused Sunil Kumar and Harish C. Narula are acquitted and accused Chattu Singh stands convicted for offence punishable U/s 304A IPC.
Pronounced in open court (SHEETAL CHAUDHARY PRADHAN)
on 05.04.2016 MM10 (SouthEast): Saket Courts:
New Delhi:05.04.2016
FIR No. 896/95
P.S. S.N. Puri Page No.48 of 48