Delhi District Court
State vs Ram Shanker on 28 April, 2025
THE COURT OF MS SANGHMITRA, JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS-01, KARKARDOOMA COURTS/SHAHDARA, DELHI.
CR Cases 83594/16
State Vs. Ram Shanker
FIR No. 103/2013
PS: GTB Enclave
U/S: 287/338 IPC
ID number of the case : DLSH02-002740-2013
Date of commission of offence : 07.05.2012
Date of institution of the case : 08.05.2013
Name of the complainant : Sh. Vikash
Name of accused, address and his : Ram Shanker
parentage S/o Sh. Jai Shriram
R/o B-1/C, Gali No.8, Jagatpuri
Extension, Shahdara, Delhi-
110093.
Offence complained of : 287/338 IPC
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final order : Convicted
Date of judgment : 28.04.2025
FIR No. 103/2013 (PS GTB Enclave) State Vs. Ram Shanker Page No. 1 /11
Digitally
signed by
SANGHMITRA
SANGHMITRA Date:
2025.04.28
16:38:38
+0530
JUDGMENT
I. Brief Background of the case -
1. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on 07.05.2012 at about 3:30 PM at B-1/C, Gali No.1, Jagatpuri Extension, GTB Enclave, Delhi, accused Ram Shanker being the owner of the factory employed Vikas to work on the machinery and he knowingly or negligently omitted to take care / provide the machine in a proper order as is sufficient to guard against any probable danger to human life and safety from the working on machine and as a result of which injured Vikas sustained grievous injuries on his hand while working on a machine which was not working properly and thus, the accused is alleged to have committed offences punishable u/s 287/338 IPC.
2. After registration of FIR, the investigating officer (herein after IO) undertook the investigation and on culmination of the same, the charge- sheet was filed against the accused. Ld. Predecessor of this Court took cognizance of the said offence vide order dated 08.05.2013 and issued process against the accused. Pursuant to the appearance of the accused, he was supplied the copy of chargesheet in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C. Upon hearing the arguments, vide order dated 11.04.2014 passed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court, notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. for the offence u/s 287/338 IPC was ordered to be framed against accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and the matter was listed for Prosecution Evidence ('PE').
II. Prosecution Evidence -
3. The prosecution has examined 10 witnesses in evidence. PW1 is the FIR No. 103/2013 (PS GTB Enclave) State Vs. Ram Shanker Page No. 2 /11 Digitally signed by SANGHMITRA SANGHMITRA Date: 2025.04.28 16:38:44 +0530 injured Vikas who deposed about the incident. PW2 namely Santosh is the co-worker/eyewitness and PW7 is also a co-worker/ eyewitness Mangal and they both also deposed about the incident in question. PW3 is the duty officer who registered the present FIR. PW4 is the photographer who took the photographs of machine in question. PW5 is the duty constable in GTB Hospital who gave the information about the present case to the PS GTB Enclave vide DD No. 22A. PW6 is the police official who went along with the IO after receiving the information to GTB Hospital. PW8 is the IO of the present case. PW9 is the police official who brought Roznamcha register no. 2 wherein the entry regarding DD No. 22A dated 07.05.2012 is mentioned. PW10 is the factory inspector who inspected the machine in question.
III. Admission/Denial of Documents -
4. Vide separate statement recorded u/s 294 CrPC, accused admitted the genuineness of MLC of injured Ex.A-1 dated 07.05.2012.
III. Statement / Defence of the Accused -
5. The statement of the accused was recorded u/s. 313 Cr.P.C and all the incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused in evidence were put to him. The accused denied the case of the prosecution and pleaded innocence by stating that he has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has further submitted no one ever informed him about the malfunctioning of the machine. He stated that he is innocent and opted to lead defence evidence.
6. In his defence, accused examined only one witness Sh. Krishan Gopal as FIR No. 103/2013 (PS GTB Enclave) State Vs. Ram Shanker Page No. 3 /11 Digitally signed by SANGHMITRA SANGHMITRA Date:
2025.04.28 16:38:50 +0530 DW1 who testified about the presence of accused at his factory at the time of incident.
IV. Arguments Advanced by the Parties -
7. It is argued by the Ld. APP for State that the duty of the prosecution is to prove the facts in issue of the offences in question punishable under section 287/338 IPC. All the prosecution witnesses have deposed that the injured had sustained injury from the machine in question and the said fact has not been disputed by the accused. Further, the prosecution has proved that the accused was well aware about the malfunctioning of the machine but still insisted the workers to work on it as a result of which the hand of the injured, while working on the said machine, got squeezed in the machine due to its malfunctioning and he sustained grievous injuries. The factory inspector in his report has also deposed about the malfunctioning of the machine. Witnesses have been consistent on the fact that the injured has suffered injuries due to malfunctioning of the machine and the said fact was within the knowledge of the accused as despite the same he omitted to take such order with machine as is sufficient to guard against any probable danger to human life from such machine and instead insisted on continuation of work. Therefore, it is prayed that the accused be convicted for offence under section 287/338 IPC.
8. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for accused has submitted that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the accused did not have knowledge about the malfunctioning of the machine in question. He has submitted that failure to act does not by itself constitute an offence unless it is shown that the actor knows of his duty to FIR No. 103/2013 (PS GTB Enclave) State Vs. Ram Shanker Page No. 4 /11 Digitally signed by SANGHMITRA SANGHMITRA Date: 2025.04.28 16:39:03 +0530 act. Thus, as the accused had no knowledge about the malfunctioning of the machine as he was not told about the malfunctioning of the machine, he cannot be made liable for the offence under section 287/338 IPC (reliance placed upon Bhushan Lal Raina v. State of Jharkhand, Cr. M. P. No. 515 of 2008 and P. B Desai v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2014 SC
795). Further, it has been argued by Ld. Counsel for the accused that the provisions of Factories Act being the special law prevail over provisions of IPC. Thus, when the act is punishable under factories Act, the provisions of IPC would not apply (reliance placed upon Neeraj Verma v. State of Madhya Pradesh M.Cr.C. No.3222 of 2015). Thus, he prayed that the accused be acquitted of the charges.
V. Appreciation of evidence -
9. I have heard the arguments and perused the material on record. In a criminal trial, the burden of proving everything essential to the establishment of the charge against an accused always rests on the prosecution and there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused until the contrary is proved. Criminality is not to be presumed, subject of course to some statutory exceptions. Prosecution is under legal obligation to prove each and every ingredient of the offence beyond any doubt, unless provided otherwise by the Statute.
10.The accused has been tried for offences under section 287/338 IPC. Section 287 IPC provides as follows -
"287. Negligent conduct with respect to machiner. - 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 FIR No. 103/2013 (PS GTB Enclave) State Vs. Ram Shanker Page No. 5 /11 Digitally signed by SANGHMITRA SANGHMITRA Date: 2025.04.28 16:39:10 +0530 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."
11.Further, section 338 IPC provides as follows -
"338. Causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others.--Whoever causes grievous hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both."
12.It is important to note that for the second part of Section 287 IPC it is to be proved that accused was in possession or care of the Machine and he knowingly or negligently omitted to take such order with Machine as is sufficient to guard against any probable danger to human life from such machinery. The machinery must be in the possession of or under the care of the accused. In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that the accused is an owner of the factory in which the injured was working and the machine in question was under his care and control.
13.It is the case of the prosecution that the injured Vikas was employed by the accused in his factory and was working in the said factory of the accused along with eye witness Santosh and other eye witness Mangal were also working in the said factory on another machine. On the date of incident it was informed to the accused that the handle/hatti of the machine on which injured Vikas and eye witness Santosh were working, was not working properly. However, the accused did not pay heed and insisted them to continue the work failing which he would expel them FIR No. 103/2013 (PS GTB Enclave) State Vs. Ram Shanker Page No. 6 /11 Digitally signed by SANGHMITRA SANGHMITRA Date:
2025.04.28 16:39:17 +0530from the factory. Thereafter, the victim and co-worker Santosh resumed working on the said machine. While working on the said machine injured Vikas was taking out the piece from the said machine and suddenly, the handle/hatti of the machine stopped working and the right hand of the injured got squeezed in the plates of the machine and he sustained grievous injuries. It is not the case of the accused that the injured has not sustained injuries while working on the machine in question as no cross- examination to this effect has been conducted nor any suggestion has been put to the witnesses in this regard.
14.To show that the machine in question was not working properly at the relevant time or that the accused had failed to take such order with respect to the machine in question as was sufficient to guard against any probable danger to human life, prosecution has examined the injured/PW1, co-worker and eye witness Santosh/PW2, another co- worker and eye witness Mangal/PW7 and factory Inspector/PW10 who conducted inspection of the alleged machine.
15.Factory Inspector/PW10 testified that upon inspection of the machine in question he found that the machine was not working properly which had caused the accident.
16.Injured as well as eye witnesses have deposed that the handle of the machine in question was not working properly due to which the injured Vikas had sustained grievous injuries. The MLC of the injured Ex.A1 also reflects grievous injuries and the same has been admitted by the accused. PW2 Santosh has further stated that the accused was informed about the malfunctioning of the machine many times, but he did not take any step towards the said complaint.
FIR No. 103/2013 (PS GTB Enclave) State Vs. Ram Shanker Page No. 7 /11Digitally signed by SANGHMITRA SANGHMITRA Date:
2025.04.28 16:39:24 +0530
17.Further, it has been argued by Ld. Counsel for the accused that failure to act does not by itself constitute an offence unless it is shown that the actor knows of his duty to act. Thus, as the accused had no knowledge about the malfunctioning of the machine as he was not told about the malfunctioning of the machine, he cannot be made liable for the offence under section 287/338 IPC (reliance placed upon Bhushan Lal Raina v. State of Jharkhand, Cr. M. P. No. 515 of 2008 and P. B Desai v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2014 SC 795). This argument of Ld. Counsel for accused is baseless and cannot be accepted as in cross-examination of PW7 eye witness and co-worker Mangal, the accused has himself put to the witness that a complaint regarding the fault in the machine was made before the date of incident by injured Vikas. The relevant portion of the said cross-examination of PW7 is reproduced here under:-
"It is correct that Vikas has made the complaint regarding the fault in machine before the day of incident. Vol. I had also made the complaint regarding the same."
18.Thus, as noted above, PW7 had admitted the fact put by the accused that the complaint regarding the fault in machine was made before the date of incident by injured Vikas. He further went on to state that he had also made complaint regarding the same. Thus, it is accused's own case that he was aware about the fault in the machine prior to the date of incident. Thus, he cannot say that he was not aware about the fault in the machine in question.
19.It is also the case of the accused that he was not present in the factory at the time of the incident. It is important to note that for the offence u/s 287 IPC, what is required is that a person who is in possession or having care of a machine, has knowingly or negligently failed to maintain such FIR No. 103/2013 (PS GTB Enclave) State Vs. Ram Shanker Page No. 8 /11 Digitally signed by SANGHMITRA SANGHMITRA Date:
2025.04.28 16:39:30 +0530 order with such machine as is sufficient to guard against any probable danger to human life from such machinery. As the accused, admittedly, is the owner of the factory and was having possession and care over all the machines in the factory and he knew about the malfunctioning of the machine in question which caused the accident in question but still failed to maintain such order with the said machine as was sufficient to guard probable danger to human. Thus, the argument that the accused was not present at the spot at the time of incident does not absolve his liability.
20.Further, it has been argued by Ld. Counsel for the accused that the provisions of Factories Act being the special law prevail over provisions of IPC. Thus, when the act is punishable under factories Act, the provisions of IPC would not apply (reliance placed upon Neeraj Verma v.
State of Madhya Pradesh, M.Cr.C. No.3222 of 2015). This argument of Ld. counsel for accused also holds no merit and thus cannot be accepted as the division bench of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Y.P Mehrotra and Ors. v. State of U.P, 1993 III LLJ 581 ALL has held that the offence under IPC and offences under the Factories Act operate on different field. They flow in different channel. Further, the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Viajy Parekh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, MCRC No.45912/18 has held as follows:-
"Although as per principles of stare decis this Court is bound by the earlier Single bench judgment of the same High Court, however, compelling circumstances exist for arriving at a different opinion. All the judgments which have been considered by the coordinate Bench were decisions of Single Benches. However, a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Y.P. Mehrotra and others vs. State of U.P and another (1993) III LLJ 581 All has held that the provisions of Factories Act and Rules do not cover the same area as is earmarked by the Indian Penal Code. An offence under section 304-A IPC and offence under Factory FIR No. 103/2013 (PS GTB Enclave) State Vs. Ram Shanker Page No. 9 /11 Digitally signed by SANGHMITRA SANGHMITRA Date: 2025.04.28 16:39:37 +0530 Act and Factory Rules operate in different fields. They flow in different channels".
.....
"The coordinate Bench of this High Court in Neeraj Verma's case (supra) was of the view that Factories Act being a special law shall prevail over provisions of Indian Penal Code which is a General Law.
This issue was also raised before the Allahabad High Court which considered section 5 of IPC providing for exclusion of Penal Code in view of special law and held that this provision would be applicable if the provisions under the Code cover the same area as in the Factories Act. Recourse was taken to an Apex Court judgment of Mam Ram vs. Union of India AIR 1980 SC 2147 in which it has been held if a special or local law exists covering the same area, the same shall prevail.
The Allahabad High Court was of view that provisions of Factory Act do not operate in the same field as provisions of Indian Penal Code and, therefore, provisions of section 5 of Indian Penal Code are not applicable.
To add to the observation of the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court, it may also be seen that there is no non obstante clause in the Factories Act providing for exclusion of applicability of all other laws including general law."
21.Thus, in light of the above discussed law, the above said argument of Ld. Counsel for the accused cannot be accepted.
22.As per the record, the accused being the owner of the factory had a duty to take proper care of the machines installed in the said factory so as to guard against probably danger to human life. Admittedly he knew about the malfunctioning of the machine in question but still failed to get it repaired. Thus, he has breached his duty of care. Further, due to the said malfunctioning of the machine in question the accident had taken place and due to the said accident the injured Vikas had sustained grievous injuries. The prosecution has been able to establish commission of offence under section 287/338 IPC by the accused beyond reasonable FIR No. 103/2013 (PS GTB Enclave) State Vs. Ram Shanker Page No. 10 /11 Digitally signed by SANGHMITRA SANGHMITRA Date:
2025.04.28 16:39:45 +0530 doubt.
VI. Decision -
23.In view of the above said discussion, since the prosecution has been successful in proving the charge under section 287/338 IPC beyond reasonable doubt, accused Ram Shankar is hereby held guilty and convicted for offenses u/s 287/338 IPC.
Announced in the open court Digitally signed by SANGHMITRA SANGHMITRA Date: 2025.04.28 16:39:52 +0530 on dated : 28.04.2025 (Sanghmitra) Judicial Magistrate First Class-01 (SHD) Karkardooma Court/Delhi
This judgment consists of 11 pages and each and every page of this judgment is signed by me.
Digitally signed by SANGHMITRASANGHMITRA Date: 2025.04.28 16:39:56 +0530 (Sanghmitra) Judicial Magistrate First Class-01 (SHD) Karkardooma Court/Delhi FIR No. 103/2013 (PS GTB Enclave) State Vs. Ram Shanker Page No. 11 /11