Delhi District Court
State vs . Raghuvir & Anr. Fir No. 224/04, Ps Model ... on 9 October, 2012
State Vs. Raghuvir & Anr. FIR No. 224/04, PS Model Town, U/s 304A/34 IPC. IN THE COURT OF SH. DHEERAJ MOR, METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATEIV, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI. FIR NO. 224/04 PS. Model Town U/s. 304A/34 IPC State Vs. Raghuvir & Chhajju Ram JUDGMENT
A. SL. NO. OF THE CASE : 316/04
B. DATE OF INSTITUTION : 27.11.2004
C. DATE OF OFFENCE : 06.04.2004
D. NAME OF THE : ASI Sat Narain
COMPLAINANT
E. NAME OF THE : (1) Raghuvir S/o Sh. Nainu Lal
ACCUSED (2) Chhajju Ram S/o Sh. Gulab Chand
F. OFFENCE : U/s 304A/34 IPC
COMPLAINED OF
G. PLEA OF ACCUSED : Pleaded not guilty
H. FINAL ORDER : Acquittal
I. DATE OF SUCH ORDER : 09.10.2012
Brief Statement of Reasons for Decision
1. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as unfolded from the chargesheet are that the accused persons Raghuvir and Chhajju were working as driver on truck bearing No. HR478872 and deceased Puran and the eyewitness Sita Ram were working as helper/labourers on the said truck. On 06.04.2004, the accused persons Raghuvir and Chhajju alongwith Sita Ram and deceased Puran came to Delhi with the truck that was loaded with marble slabs. The said marble slab were to be unloaded in front of house No. 198, New Gupta colony, Delhi. It is alleged by Page No. 1 State Vs. Raghuvir & Anr. FIR No. 224/04, PS Model Town, U/s 304A/34 IPC.
the prosecution that the accused persons could not find sufficient labourers for unloading marble slabs and therefore, they directed the deceased Puran and Sita Ram to unload the marble slabs. The said Puran and Sita Ram were reluctant to unload the marble slabs, however, the accused persons forced them to unload the same without providing any adequate and necessary safety measures to them. Therefore, it is alleged that both the accused persons omitted to provide proper arrangement of labourers for unloading marble slabs from the truck and on account of said culpable negligence and rashness, one of the marble slab fell on Puran Singh and resultantly he suffered fatal injuries. On the basis of endorsement on DD No. 59B, dt. 06.04.2004 PS Model Town, Delhi, the present FIR U/s 304A IPC was lodged. On conclusion of the investigation the present challan u/s 304A IPC was filed by SHO of PS Model Town, Delhi.
2. In compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C the copy of the challan and the documents annexed therewith were supplied to both the accused persons namely Raghuvir and Chhajju Ram. Prima facie charge U/s 304A/34 IPC was made out against both the accused persons. Accordingly, on 16.03.2007, the charge was framed by the Ld. Predecessor of this court. Both the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial to the said charge. Thereafter, the case proceeded for prosecution evidence.
3. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined four witnesses.
4. PW1 Sita Ram is the sole eyewitness of the incident, who accompanied the deceased at the time of accident and he was also a helper on Truck bearing No. HR478872 alongwith deceased Puran. He has categorically testified that accused Raghuveer and Chhajju Ram were not present at the time of incident. He has further deposed that the deceased Puran himself started unloading marble slabs from the truck and one of the slabs fell upon him. He has categorically deposed that both the accused persons came to the spot after the deceased Puran had already sustained injuries. He was crossexamined by the Ld. APP for the state as he was resiling from his earlier statement. However, in his cross examination also he persisted that the incident did not take place on account of any insistence by either of the accused persons or on account of any culpable negligence on their part. Despite grueling cross examination of the said witness, Page No. 2 State Vs. Raghuvir & Anr. FIR No. 224/04, PS Model Town, U/s 304A/34 IPC.
Ld. APP for the State could not extract anything incriminating against either of the accused persons.
5. PW2 HC Raj Kumar has deposed that on 06.04.2004, he was posted as DO. He has further deposed that on that day, on receipt of rukka from Ct. Shahji John sent by ASI Satnarayan, he registered the present FIR no. 224/04. He has proved the copy of said FIR as Ex. PW2/A and endorsement as Ex. PW2/B.
6. PW3 Surja Ram Saini is a formal witness, who identified the dead body of his deceased son Puran. PW4 Ct. Shaji John is also a formal witness, who accompanied the IO /ASI Sat Narain to the spot and who remained with him during investigation. Thereafter, PE was closed.
7. There was no incriminating evidence against either of the accused persons Raghuvir or Chhajju Ram to indict them for criminal liability u/s 304A/34 IPC. Therefore, their statements u/s 313 Cr.P.C. were dispensed with and the matter proceeded for final arguments.
8. I have heard Ld. APP for the state and Ld. counsel for the accused persons Raghuvir and Chhajju. I have carefully perused the case file.
9. The cardinal principle of the criminal law is that the accused is presumed to be innocent till he is proved guilty, beyond any reasonable doubt. The burden of proving the guilt of the accused, exclusively lies on the prosecution and the prosecution is required to stand on its own legs. The benefit of doubt, if any, must go in favour of the accused.
10. The present case of the prosecution is solely based on the statement of the eyewitness Sh. Sita Ram (PW1). The eyewitness Sh. Sita Ram (PW1) is the most important/vital witness to indict the criminal liability of the accused persons. The said witness has proved the alleged incident of fall of marble slab on deceased Puran and his subsequent death, on the alleged date, time and place of incident. However, he has not uttered even a single word regarding culpable act or omission on the part of either of the accused person in the present incident. On the contrary, he has categorically testified that none of the accused persons was present at the spot at the time of the incident and none of them pressurized the deceased Puran to unload marble slabs from the truck. Ld. APP for the state had crossexamined the said witness, but nothing incriminating Page No. 3 State Vs. Raghuvir & Anr. FIR No. 224/04, PS Model Town, U/s 304A/34 IPC.
against the accused persons could be extracted from the said witness. The entire case of the prosecution is based on the foundation laid down by the statement of the eyewitness Sh. Sita Ram and once he has failed to support the prosecution version regarding the alleged culpable negligent act /omission on the part of the accused persons, the entire case of the prosecution is bound to crumble like pack of cards.
11. Even if, it is established beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased Puran died on account of fall of marble slab on him as alleged by the prosecution, in that case also it cannot be conclusively held that the said marble slab fell on the deceased on account of any culpable act /omission on the part of either of the accused persons namely Raghuvir and Chhajju. Rather, the sole eyewitness PW1 Sh. Sita Ram has categorically testified that the deceased Puran received fatal injuries on account of his own fault and the said fatal injuries cannot be attributed to any culpable act /omission of the accused persons Raghuvir and Chhajju. Thus, there is not even an iota of incriminating evidence against either of them to substantiate the prosecution version. Hence, the prosecution has failed to discharge its onus of proving the culpability of the accused persons namely Raghuvir and Chhajju. Thus, they are entitled to benefit of doubt.
12. In view of the above discussion both the accused persons namely Raghuvir and Chhajju are acquitted for the offence punishable U/s 304A/34 IPC. They are directed to furnish fresh personal bond in a sum of Rs.15,000/ each with one surety each in like amount, in accordance with Section 437A Cr.P.C. They are furnished and accepted till next six months.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN court today i.e. 09.10.2012 (DHEERAJ MOR) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE ROHINI COURTS: DELHI Page No. 4 State Vs. Raghuvir & Anr. FIR No. 224/04, PS Model Town, U/s 304A/34 IPC.
FIR NO. 224/04 PS. Model Town U/s. 304A/34 IPC State Vs. Raghuveer & Chhajju Ram 09.10.2012 Present: Ld. APP for the State.
Accused Raghuvir and Chhajju are on bail alongwith counsel. No PW is present. The prosecution has already availed several sufficient opportunities for concluding entire PE. The fundamental right of the accused persons for expeditious trial cannot be defeated on unreasonable and unwarranted grounds. Thus, PE stands closed.
The perusal of the case file reflects that there is no incriminating evidence against the accused persons Raghuvir and Chhajju to indict them for criminal liability. Therefore, their respective statements u/s 313 Cr.P.C. are dispensed with.
Arguments heard. Case file perused.
Vide my separate judgment announced in the open court today, both the accused persons namely Raghuvir and Chhajju stand acquitted for the offence punishable U/s 304A/34 I.P.C.They are directed to furnish fresh personal bond in a sum of Rs.15,000/ each with one surety each in like amount, in accordance with Section 437A Cr.P.C. They are furnished and accepted till next six months.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
(Dheeraj Mor) MM/Rohini/Delhi/09.10.2012.
Page No. 5