Delhi District Court
State vs . Surjeet Kumar Mehto on 15 October, 2015
IN THE COURT OF Ms. SHEETAL CHAUDHARY PRADHAN:
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE10 (SOUTHEAST):
SAKET COURTS:NEW DELHI
State Vs. Surjeet Kumar Mehto
FIR No. 227/02
U/s 304A IPC
P.S. Greater KailashI
J U D G M E N T
Serial No. of the Case : 269/2/14
Unique Identification No. : 0240R0995122004
Date of Institution : 26.06.2004
Date on which case reserved for
judgment : 08.10.2015
Date of judgment : 15.10.2015
Name of the complainant : Sh. Ajay Malik,
Asstt. Manager,
Jay Wellness Centre,
E11, Kailash Colony, Delhi.
Date of the commission of offence: 18.08.2002
FIR No. 227/02
P.S. G.K.1 Page No.1 of 14
Name of accused : Surjeet Kumar Mehto
S/o Sh. Munni Lal,
R/o House no.88, TypeI,
NIE Complex, NCERT,
Aurbindo Marg, New Delhi.
Offence complained of : U/s 304A IPC.
Offence charged of : U/s 304A IPC
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
Final order : Acquitted
Date of Institution : 26.06.2004
Date on which case reserved
for judgment : 08.10.2015
Date of judgment : 15.10.2015
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR
THE DECISION OF THE CASE
BRIEF FACTS:
1. Briefly the case of the prosecution is that the present FIR was registered on a complaint of complainant Sh. Ajay Malik, Asstt. Manager from Jay Wellness Centre and Director namely Sh. Madhav Singh, in which, they have mentioned that an accidental death of one housekeeping worker namely FIR No. 227/02 P.S. G.K.1 Page No.2 of 14 Radha Kant, who was employed through Jupiter Enterprise for doing housekeeping services, on 18.08.2002. It was stated in the complaint that between 9.15 a.m. to 9.45 a.m., Asstt. Manager Ajay Kumar that the body of the deceased Radhakant, was lying in the open water tank on the roof top in an unconscious state. Further, he had sustained injuries on his forehead and thereafter the matter was reported to one Mr. Mathew who was an electrician who inturn informed Mr. Ram Singh who was the attendant of the wet area. Mr. Ram Singh immediately contacted Dr. Marwa at about 10.00 a.m. to seek medical assistance and Dr. Marwa assisted by Surjeet (alleged accused) who was the housekeeping supervisor and examined the body and declared worker Radhakant to be dead and the cause of the death was found to be electrocution.
The aforesaid information was sent to one Mr. Paul who was the Director of Jupiter Enterprise at about 10.45 a.m. by accused Surjeet.
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.
FIR No. 227/02 P.S. G.K.1 Page No.3 of 14
3. On the basis of material placed on record, charge was framed against the accused under Section 304A IPC to which he 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 ten witnesses in order to prove its case.
PW1 Dr. Chitranjan Bahera, Sr. Resident, AIIMS Hospital deposed that he had seen the postmortem report of Rama Kant (wrongly mentioned) son of Sh. Subh Lal vide postmortem report no.842/02 which was conducted by Dr. Col. Ravi Routjee and as per the postmortem report, the cause of death was antimortem electrocution. He further deposed that he had been posted in the hospital since July, 2001 and had worked with the concerned doctor and could identify his handwriting and signature on the postmortem report, which was Ex.PW1/A. During the crossexamination, PW1 stated that he had not conducted the postmortem report and he had not assisted Dr. Ravi Routjee in preparing the MLC.
PW2 Sh. Ajay Malik (complainant) deposed that on 18.08.2002 while he was working as Asstt. Manager with Jay Wellness FIR No. 227/02 P.S. G.K.1 Page No.4 of 14 Centre at E11, Kailash Colony and one Radhe was working as housekeeper and was electrocuted by water suction pump machine installed in the premises, where there was a health club and a beauty parlour. The beauty parlour was managed by one Ms. Deepali whereas the health club was managed by Sh. Madhav. The electrical and other maintenance work was done by Ajay and he was called by supervisor Surjeet Kumar, who showed him the injured. Doctor was called who declared the injured dead and matter was reported to the police vide complaint Ex.PW2/A and thereafter police prepared site plan Ex.PW2/B and the motor was seized vide Ex.PW2/C. Accused was correctly identified by the witness. He further deposed that the negligence was on the part of the operator deceased Radhey who reportedly failed to switch off the machine before shifting it to other place. The cleaned water was being used for the pool in the health club and cleaning in housekeeping job was assigned and the contract was given to Jupiter Enterprise Pvt. Ltd., which was headed by one Rakesh Paul. Further, the accused Surjeet was an employee of Jupiter and was incharge of cleaning job. The motor was Ex.P1 which was seized vide memo Ex.PW2/C. Further, he had given a letter to the police vide Ex.PW2/D mentioning the duty assigned to the executive members of the club. Further, he had given a letter to the police Ex.PW2/E stating the facts of the incident and had also FIR No. 227/02 P.S. G.K.1 Page No.5 of 14 produced a copy of the agreement with Jupiter Enterprise to the police.
During the crossexamination, PW2 stated, that he did not remember whether accused was present at the time of incident due to lapse of time. However, the same could be ascertained from the attendance register and it is correct that agreement Ex. PW2/DA was given in the name of Jupiter Enterprise and the Director was Sh. Rakesh Paul.
PW3 Ct. Surender Kumar, deposed that on 18.08.2002, he joined the investigation with IO / ASI Jai Kishan and reached the spot at E11, Kailash Colony and found that one person was lying dead beside the Swimming Pool. Thereafter, IO handed over to him the rukka and he got the FIR registered. Thereafter, the deceased was taken by Ct. Rajesh to AIIMS Hospital. Th electric motor pump was seized vide Ex. PW2/c and the same was identified by the witness and Ex. P1.
Opportunity to cross examine PW3 was granted to the accused but he did not question anything to PW3 PW4 Mukesh Sharma, Assistant Electrical Inspector, deposed that on 02.12.2009, he was posted as Electrical Overseer at Pushp Bhawan, Pushp Vihar, New Delhi and on that he received an information from IO regarding electrocution of Radha Kant at Jai Wellness Centre at E11, Kailash Colony on 18.08.2002, with electric pump motor. Thereafter, on FIR No. 227/02 P.S. G.K.1 Page No.6 of 14 03.12.2002, upon receiving directions from AE, Sh. Amar Gulani, PW4 inspected the seized motor pump at Malkhana of PS G.K.1. During inspection he found that the electric motor pump of .75 KW, Voltage 210 single phase, make Kirloskar, without any supply lead connected to it. The electrical installation of the pump motor was tested with 500 voltage insulation tester and complete leakage of current was observed. He further visited the site of the accident and found that a three pin socket with the rotary switch was found installed on the wall of terrace from where the supply to the pump motor was reportedly being taken . Further that he deposited his detailed report to his senior officer AE, Sh. Amar Gulani.
During the crossexamination, PW4 stated, it is correct that Kirloskar Company and the electrical appliances made by it are of good quality. Further, the leakage from the said electric pump motor was internal and the same could be detected only on testing but outside effect could be felt that is leakage of current through its body. The said leakage problem could have developed at any time if not maintained properly and it was correct that the report prepared by him does not bear his signature. Further the same was signed by his senior but his senior did not visit the police station to inspect the said motor. Lastly, it was correct that he prepared the report and gave his opinion on the request of IO being a routine matter. FIR No. 227/02 P.S. G.K.1 Page No.7 of 14
PW5 Satender Kumar Mandal, identified the dead body of the deceased vide memo Ex. PW5/A and the body of the deceased was handed over to him vide memo Ex. PW5/B. PW6 Amar Gulani, Retired Assistant Electrical Inspector, deposed that he received an application regarding electrocution of one Radha Kant on 02.12.2002 with the request to inspect the motor with which the accident had occurred and the same was lying in malkhana. Therefore, he deputed PW4 Mukesh Kumar, electrical overseer to inspect and check the motor and prepared report. The same was checked by PW4 on 03.12.2002 and that he also visited the place of accident and submitted his report to PW6 and the same was signed by him and forwarded to concerned IO. The report was Ex. PW6/A. During the crossexamination, PW6 stated, that the request was received from IO on 02.12.2002 and it was correct that he had not personally inspected the motor nor he had seen it. Further that he had only signed the report Ex.PW6/A which was prepared by PW4 Mukesh Sharma. Lastly, that he never visited the place of incident.
PW7 HC Rajesh Rai, deposed that on 18.08.2002 he was posted at PS G.K.1 and at around 10:45 a.m. one Ajay Malik came to police station and gave a complaint regarding death of his employee at E11, FIR No. 227/02 P.S. G.K.1 Page No.8 of 14 Kailash Colony, due to electrocution. Thereafter, he along with Ct. Surender and ASI Jai Kishan reached the spot and found that a swimming pool having depth of 04 feet along which a dead body was lying in the corner and upon inquiry the name of the deceased was revealed as Radha Kant S/o Sukh Lal. IO prepared the rukka and got the FIR registered through Ct. Surinder and seized one Kirloskar motor vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/C. The spot was inspected by crime team and the dead body was sent to mortuary. On 19.08.2002, the postmortem of the dead body was got conducted and after the same was handed over to the relatives of the deceased.
Opportunity to cross examine PW7 was granted to the accused but he did not question anything to PW7 PW8 Inspector Rajesh Kumar, deposed that on 18.08.2002, he was posted with crime team and upon receiving call from IO he reached the spot along with his staff and found one dead body on the top floor of the building. He inspected the place of occurrence and found that deceased Radha Kant was a worker who died due to electric current while working on electric motor. Photographer took the photograph and he prepared his inspection report Ex. PW8/A and handed over the same to IO.
Opportunity to cross examine PW8 was granted to the accused but he did not question anything to PW8 FIR No. 227/02 P.S. G.K.1 Page No.9 of 14 PW9 SI Jai Kishan (IO) deposed that on 18.08.2002, he was posted at PS G.K.1 and duty hours were from 08:00 am to 08:00pm. At around 12:10 p.m., he received a complaint from complainant Ajay Malik and on the basis of complaint, he alongwith Ct. Surinder and another constable whose name he did not remember wen to the spot and found one person lying and found that blood was present on his shirt. HE was found dead due to electric current and was further informed that the deceased was cleaning the swimming pool at the time of incident. Thereafter, he called the crime team who inspected the spot and prepared their report Ex. PW8/A. He prepared rukka Ex. PW9/A and got the FIR registered through Ct. Surinder. Photographs of the spot was taken and site plan was prepared vide Ex. PW2/B. Electric motor was seized vide Ex. PW2/C and body of the deceased was sent for postmortem and after collecting the report the same was handed over to the relatives of the deceased vide memo Ex. PW9/B and Ex. PW5/B. Accused was arrested vide Ex. PW9/C and his personal search was conducted vide Ex. PW9/D. Inspection of the electric motor was got conducted and relevant documents regarding agreement between complainant and the company and duty roster were collected vide Mark A and Mark B. He recored the statement of witnesses and filed the charge sheet.
During the crossexamination, PW9 stated, that he did not remember the time when he visited the spot and that the swimming pool is on the fourth floor and it was correct that there was a electricity connection in the whole building and it was correct that the cleaning work was entrusted to FIR No. 227/02 P.S. G.K.1 Page No.10 of 14 Rakesh Paul who was the owner of Jupiter Enterprise and it was further correct that document Ex. PW2/DA did not bear the signature of the accused. It was further correct that he had not seized the original appointment letter of accused Surjeet nor his attendance register.
PW10 SI Ashok Tirkey, proved the FIR Ex. PW10/B on rukka Ex. PW10/A.
5. After completion of the prosecution evidence, prosecution evidence was closed and statement of the accused as mandated by Section 313 r/w 281 Cr.P.C. was recorded and all the incriminating circumstances came in evidence put to the accused for explanation.
6. No defence witness was examined on behalf of the accused. REASONING :
7. To prove a case U/s 304A IPC, the prosecution is required to prove the following facts:
(a) There must be a death of the person in question. (b) The accused must have caused such death. (c) That such act of the accused was rash or negligent and that it FIR No. 227/02 P.S. G.K.1 Page No.11 of 14 did not amount to culpable homicide.
8. Ld. APP for the state has argued that in the present matter accused is liable to be convicted since he being a supervisor was negligent in maintaining the motor and his negligence caused the death of the accused and further that all the witnesses of the prosecution have proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
9. On the other hand Ld. Counsel for the accused submits that in the present matter prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused since in the present matter no negligence can be attributed towards the accused as he was not responsible for any management or care of the alleged motor due to which the deceased Radhakant had died. It is further argued that in the present matter prosecution has not placed on record any document to show as to how the accused was responsible for the conduct as he himself was an employee and was not any way owner or care taker of the premises where the alleged incident occurred. He has further argued that PW2 in his statement has categorically stated that the negligence was on the part of the operator i.e. (deceased Radha Kant) since he failed to switch off the machine before shifting it to another place. He has further argued that PW4, who had allegedly conducted the mechanical inspection of the electric FIR No. 227/02 P.S. G.K.1 Page No.12 of 14 pump motor has filed the report in which he has mentioned that the fault in the motor could have developed any time and also that his report was not even signed by him.
10. I have heard Ld. Counsel for accused and Ld. APP for State and gone through the material available on record and has considered the testimony of various witnesses and gone through the evidence on record. I am of the considered view that prosecution has failed the prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt as in the present matter prosecution has failed to prove the negligence on behalf of the accused and apart from PW2 there is no other independent witness examined by the prosecution and all witnesses examined are formal in nature. In the present matter there is no eye witness to the incident and I believe that accused was not negligence as he himself was only a employee and was not a supervisor of the premises, as the same fact is also mentioned in the complaint Ex. PW2/A and the maintenance of the premises was in the hand of Jupiter Enterprise. Further, prosecution has not placed on record any document to show that accused was in care or supervising the maintenance work. In my considered view no criminal liability or negligence be attributed to the accused on the evidence on record and therefore, he is liable to be acquitted. The story of the prosecution FIR No. 227/02 P.S. G.K.1 Page No.13 of 14 does not stand proved.
11. The cardinal rule in the criminal law is that prosecution has to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt and the benefit of the doubt has to be given to the accused.
In Partap V. State of U.P., AIR 1976 SC 966, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with the question of burden of proof and observed as under:
"The phrase "burden of proof" is not defined in the Act. In respect of criminal, cases, it is an accepted principle of criminal jurisprudence that the burden is always on the prosecution and never shifts. This flows from the cardinal principle that the accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty by the prosecution and the accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt.
12. In view of above discussion, accused Surjeet Kumar s/o Sh. Munni Lal is acquitted for offence punishable U/s 304A IPC.
Pronounced in open court (SHEETAL CHAUDHARY PRADHAN)
on 15.10.2015 MM10 (SouthEast): Saket Courts:
New Delhi:15.10.2015
FIR No. 227/02
P.S. G.K.1 Page No.14 of 14