Delhi District Court
State vs Mohd Nizam on 15 December, 2025
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. SAURABH GOYAL,
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-01, DWARKA COURTS, DELHI
State Vs. : Mohd. Nizam
FIR No : 394/2021
U/s : 288/304A IPC
P.S. : PALAM VILLAGE
CNR No. : DLSW020113182017
1. Criminal Case No. : 6790/2022
2. Date of commission of offence : 12.10.2021
3. Date of institution of the case : 25.05.2022
4. Name of the complainant : State
5. Name of accused, parentage & Address : Mohd. Nizam S/o Mohd.
Mubarak Hussain
6. Offense complained or proved : U/s 288/304A IPC
7. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
8. Date on which order was reserved : 13.11.2025
9. Final order : Acquittal
10. Date of final order : 15.12.2025
JUDGMENT
1. The accused persons are facing trial for commission of offence U/S 288/304A IPC. The genesis of the prosecution story is that accused on 12.10.2021 at about 2.00 pm at RZD-2/73, Gali no. 3. Mahavir Enclave, Palam Colony, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of Police Station Palam Village, accused were the contractor and thus, were responsible for providing safety equipment to labourers, but accused failed to provide safety equipment to labourer Shyam Badan despite his repeated requests and while putting tiles by making a makeshift pad with folding, he came in contact with open joint of electric wire and electrocuted due FIR NO. 394/2021 St. Vs. Mohd. Nizam 2 to which he fell down and his hands as well as legs as well other body parts got burned and accused thereby committed an offence punishable U/S 288 IPC. Further, due to his rash and negligent act of not providing the safety equipment to the labourer Shyam Badan during the house construction of above mentioned property, labourer Shyam Badan succumbed to his injuries on 22.02.2022 and accused thereby committed an offence punishable U/S 304A IPC. After receiving the information of the occurrence on the date of accident itself, the criminal law was set into motion and the investigation into the case began. After completion of investigation, the chargesheet for said offences submitted for trial of accused person.
2. Thereafter, the cognizance of the offences was taken vide order dated 25.05.2022 and accused person put his appearance and the copies of the chargesheet was supplied to him vide order dated 28.11.2022. Thereafter, on the basis of material available on record and after hearing the arguments on the point of charge, the Notice for offence U/S 288/304A IPC was put to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to establish guilt of the accused person, prosecution has examined thirteen prosecution witnesses which are as under.
4. PW-12 ASI Ratan Singh NO. 2406 DAP, 3rd Battalion, Vikas Puri, New Delhi is the IO of this case and has deposed that on 12.10.2021, he was posted as ASI at PS Palam Village. On that day, on receipt of DD NO. 64 A he alongwith HC Bhushan reached at the spot ie. RZD-2/73, Gali No 3, Mahavir Enclave where they came to know that one labour got electrocuted while he was affixing tile on the outside wall of the aforesaid house and the said labour was already taken to unknown hospital. Thereafter, he called the inspection team at the spot and got the spot inspected by the crime team. Thereafter, he seized the electric drill machine and fastener machine vide memo Ex. PW2/A. Thereafter, he received DD NO. 117 A regarding the admitting of the injured at Safdarjung Hospital, New FIR NO. 394/2021 St. Vs. Mohd. Nizam 3 Delhi and after receiving the same. He alongwith HC Bhushan went to the Safdarjung Hospital where he received the MLC of the injured/victim/complainant and recorded his statement which is now Ex. PW12/A. In his statement, the complainant/deceased Shyam Badan told him that he was employed by Mohd. Nizam and on the above said house they prepared the Pad with the help of Iron Folding and near those pad there was an electric cable and from of the one joint of electric cable was opened and on that day while affixing the tiles the complainant got electrocuted. Thereafter, on the basis of the complaint he prepared the tehrir i.e. Ex. PW12/B and he handed over the same to HC Bhushan who went to the PS and got the present case FIR registered and returned back to him and handed over the FIR along with the Tehrir to him. Thereafter, he prepared the site plan Ex. PW12/1. Thereafter, he recorded statement of caller upon 100 number namely Sh. Akash. During investigation served notice U/s 91 Cr.P.C upon Sh. Rajesh Solanki and Sh. Rohit Sood Ex. PW12/C. Thereafter, he seized the construction agreement entered between Rajesh Solanki and Rohit Sood and Mohd. Nizam i.e. Ex. PW8/A and I seized the same vide memo Ex. PW12/D. Thereafter, he served notice U/s 160 Cr.P.C upon accused Mohd. Nizam Ex, PW12/E. Thereafter, he had arrested the accused vide memo Ex. PW3/A, conducted his personal search vide Ex. PW3/B and also recorded his disclosure statement Ex. PW3/C and released the accused on bail. Thereafter, during investigation he also got the site inspected by the Electric Inspector and after the inspection he collected his report i.e. Ex. PW5/A. Thereafter, during investigation he got to know from the family members of victim Shyam Badan that he died on 14.02.2022. Thereafter, he went to the village of the complainant Shyam Badan in Uttar Pradesh and got recorded statement of relatives of complainant/deceased and collected his death certificate and verified the death certificate from the concerned authority. Thereafter, he returned back to the Delhi and he made a request application Ex. PW12/F, to the FIR NO. 394/2021 St. Vs. Mohd. Nizam 4 Safdarjung Hospital regarding the opinion upon the MLC of the deceased. He collected the medical opinion upon the MLC Ex. PW12/B. Thereafter, after the completion of the investigation and he filed the present chargesheet before the court. Witness correctly identified the case property as well photographs of the spot in the court. The same are Ex. P1 (Colly).
5. PW-1 Dr. Samson, Sr. Resident, Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi has deposed that on 12.10.2021, he was posted as Sr. Resident at Safdarjung Hospital. On that day patient namely Sh. Shyam was admitted to emergency. He examined him and prepared the MLC bearing No. 14799 i.e. Ex. PWI/A. He also prepared query report i.e. Ex. PW1/B wherein he has categorically stated that a person having 25 % electric contact burns can expire due to burn injuries. During the cross examination the witness testified that he had instructed the victim for continuous follow of/treatment from the hospital and that the patient lastly visited the hospital for his followup on 07.11.2021 whereby he was advised for dressing of the wound from the hospital which he got done. Thereafter, the patient stopped visiting the hospital for treatment.
6. PW-2 HC Bhushan Prasad is not being reproduced herein to avoid repetition as his testimony is similar in nature as that of PW-12 ASI Ratan Singh being accompanying him during the investigation of the present case.
7. PW-3 HC Jaibeer NO. 2595/SW, PS Vasant Kunj North, New Delhi has deposed that on 05.11.2021 he was posted at PS Palam Village as constable. On that day he joined the investigation of the present case with ASI Ratan Singh. ASI Ratan Singh arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex. PW3/A. IO conducted personal search of accused vide memo Ex. PW3/B and IO also recorded disclosure statement of accused vide memo Ex. PW3/C. Accused was correctly identified by this witness in the court. IO also recorded his statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C during investigation.
8. PW- 4 Dr. Siddesh Ratkal, Sr. Resident, Department Burns and Plastic FIR NO. 394/2021 St. Vs. Mohd. Nizam 5 Surgery, Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi has deposed that on 12.10.2021, vide DD No. 64 A IO of the present case ASI Ratan Singh, requested vide application for recording of statement of the injured namely Shyam Badan whereby he opined that patient is fit, conscious, oriented, to time place and person and fit to give his statement i.e. Ex. PW4/A. He also also prepared the discharge summary dated 16.10.2021 of said patient namely Shyam Badan i.e. Ex. PW4/B. During cross examination witness admitted that he mentioned about the follow up as well as medicine/Anti Biotic in his discharge summary. He stated that Gangrene can be develop in minimum on 1 or 2 days and it may be a possible cause of death of patient in 20-30 % of cases of Electric contact burn. He further stated that when the patient dies after his discharge, it may be due to negligence on part of patient as he stopped coming for follow up in OPD.
9. PW-5 Sh. Amit Dabas S/o Sh. Suresh Dabas, Electrical Overseer, Labour Department electrical Section 5 Sham Nath Marg, Delhi-110054 has deposed that in the year 2022, he was working as Electrical Overseer, Labour Department. On 15.02.2022, he along with Sh. Umesh Kr. Rai (Asst. Electrical Inspector) and IO ASI Ratan Singh, went to inspect the accidental site i.e. H No. RZD-2/73 Gali No.3, Mahavir Enclave, New Delhi. They inspected the above said site and filed their report i.e. Ex. PW5/A as per which it is opined that the accident occurred because of the easy accessibility of the live bare conductors as the house in question had been constructed in close proximity of an existing over head line in violation of the safety provision and the horizontal clearance between the nearest conductors and any part of the building was less than 0.5 meter and it should not be less than 1.2 meters for lines of voltages exceeding 650 V up to and including 11000 Volts.
10. PW-6 Sh. Umesh Kr.Rai, Asst. Electrical Inspector, Labour Department electrical Section 5 Sham Nath Marg, Delhi-110054 has deposed that in the year 2022, he was working as Asst. Electrical Inspector, Labour Department. On FIR NO. 394/2021 St. Vs. Mohd. Nizam 6 15.02.2022, he along with Sh. Amit Dabas (Electrical overseer) and IO ASI Ratan Singh, went to inspect the accidental site i.e. H No. RZD-2/73 Gali No.3, Mahavir Enclave, New Delhi. They inspected the above said site and filed their report i.e. Ex. PW5/A. The said report was prepared by him.
11. PW-7 Sh. Dilip Kumar S/o Sh. Gorakh Nath, Secretary Block Bishan Pura, Dist. Khushi Nagar, Uttar Pradesh has deposed that in the year 2022, he was gram Vikas Adhikari in Block Bishan Pura, Dist. Khushi Nagar. He has prepared the death certificate of deceased Shyam Badan S/o Sh. Surya Bali. The said death certificate is Ex. PW7/A. He has also brought the original death certificate register where in the entry of death of Sh. Shyam Badan is mentioned at Sr. No. 1. The copy of the same is filed on record i.e Ex. PW7/B (OSR).
12. PW-8 Sh. Gautam S/o Sh. Shambu Singh R/o H. No. G-1/12, Mahavir Enclave Part I, New Dehli has deposed that in the year 2021, he was working with Rohit Sood and Rajesh Solanki who were builders and engaged contractor Mohd. Nizam and one agreement regarding construction was executed between Rohit Sood and Rajesh Solanki and Mohd. Nizam in his presence. The self attested copies of the said agreement is Ex. PW8/A.
13. PW-9 statement of Sh. Bablu Kushwaha, Sh. Rajvanshi Kushwaha, R/o Village Gambharia, Bujurg, Tehsil Padrauna, District Kushi Nagar, U.P. has deposed that he reside at the above said address alongwith his family. He is the Gram Pradhan of the above said village. On 14.02.2022, person namely Shyam Badan passed away and on the very next day i.e. on 15.02.2022, he was cremated at the village Shamshan Ghat.
14. PW- 10 Suraj Balli S/o Sh. Jamuna R/O Village Gambhirya Bujurg, Post, Singha Patta, Teh. Padrah, Kushi Nagar, U.P. is the father of deceased and has deposed that the deceased Shyam Badan was his son and was engaged in the work of fixing Tiles. On 12.10.2021, he was working in the building on 3rd floor at Mahavir Enclave and got burnt his hands, legs and stomach due to electric shock, FIR NO. 394/2021 St. Vs. Mohd. Nizam 7 for which he got treated at Safdarjung Hospital. After discharge from the Safdarjung Hospital, he was taken to their aforesaid native village where his condition deteriorated due to infection in his burnt body parts and after few days i.e. on 14.02.2022 he passed away. As he is illiterate person, he was not aware that they should have got the Postmortem of his deceased son done. They had cremated his son namely Shyam Badan on 15.02.2022 in their native village. During cross examination witness admitted that he had not got done the post mortem after the death of victim who was his son. He admitted that the treatment of his son continued in his native village through a Govt. Hospital and the doctor used to visit his son for his dressing and treatment.
15. PW-11 Om Prakash S/o Sh. Ram Preet Singh R/O Village Gambhirya Bujurg, Post, Singha Patti, Teh. Padrah, Kushi Nagar, U.P. has deposed that he is the neighbour of deceased Shyam Badan. Shyam Badan was electrocuted and he came to their village in burnt condition and his treatment continued in their village and after some time his condition got deteriorated and he died and was cremated on 15.02.2022. The IO had recorded his statement during investigation of this case.
16. PW- 13 Statement of Sh.Sikander Chauhan S/o Sh. Surybali Ro Gali Gambhiria, Bujurg, P.O. Singhapatti, Kushi Nagar, Uttar Pradesh has deposed that he is residing at the above said address along with his family. He work as a Plumber. On 12.10.2021, while his brother was working as a Mason at a house in Mahavir Enclave, he got electrocuted and suffered injuries and he got medically treated at Safdarjung Hospital and after getting his treatment, he was discharged from the hospital and came back to house, however, his health deteriorated and he died on 14.02.2022 at their native village i.e. Gali Gambhiria, Bujurg, P.O. Singhapatti, Kushi Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. They cremated his body without any postmortem on 15.02.2022. IO recorded his statement.
17. After examination of all prosecution witnesses, PE was closed on FIR NO. 394/2021 St. Vs. Mohd. Nizam 8 21.07.2025. Thereafter, statement of accused was recorded U/S 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C") on 08.10.2025 wherein the accused pleaded innocent and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case and has nothing to do with the alleged offence. It is further stated that he had handed over the work of Fastening of Screws over the tile to the decease after taking the same from the builder on 10 % commission basis and has further stated that the deceased had assured him that he will take care of all the safety measures on his own. However, accused opted not to lead defence evidence.
18. The judicial record perused and the final arguments were heard as advanced by Ld. APP for the state as well as by Ld. Defence counsel. It is argued by Ld. Counsel for the accused that the accused died due to his own negligent by not taking proper treatment. At the same time, it is argued that the accused was merely a contractor however, the person in-charge of the premises was the owner of the building who was responsible for ensuring proper investigation.
19. Arguments heard, record perused.
20. The accused is charged with offence u/s 304A IPC which are reproduced below for reference:
Section 304A. 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..."
21. It is also apt to refer the observations made in State v. Narhari, 1969 CRI.
L. J. 977 (V. 75, C. N. 269), which are as follows:
"...3. It may also be stated that an accused starts with a presumption of innocence in his favour, and that this presumption is reinforced by an acquittal judgment. This is a well-settled principle. The requirements of Section 304A are that there must be a direct nexus between death of a person and rash and negligent act of the accused. A remote nexus is not enough. For the purpose of criminal law there are degrees of negligence and a very high degree of negligence is required to be proved before a FIR NO. 394/2021 St. Vs. Mohd. Nizam 9 charge can be sustained under this section and also Section 337. Reasonable foresight is the criterion of negligence. In the case of negligence, the person accused does not do an act which he is bound to do. Mere negligence is not enough to bring a case within the ambit and scope of these sections. Negligence or rashness proved by evidence must be such as should carry with it a criminal liability. Criminal rashness is hazarding a dangerous act with the knowledge that it is so and that it may cause an injury. There is a breach of positive duty..."
22. Thus, in view of discussion made above, the prosecution in order to prove the guilt of accused was under obligation to prove the following ingredients:-
-That the accused acted rashly or negligently by not taking such order with that building as was sufficient to guard against probable danger to human life from the fall of the building or any part thereof;
- The omission complained of was due to negligence or with the knowledge of such probable danger;
- Death of victim was caused on account of aforesaid culpable omission/ negligence of the accused. However, what is to be established that the accused acted rashly or negligently by not taking such order with that building as was sufficient to guard against probable danger to human life from the fall of the building or any part thereof.
23. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 12.10.2021, at RZD-2/73, Gali No. 3, Mahavir Enclave, Palam Colony, New Delhi, the deceased Shyam Badan, a labourer engaged in tile fixing work on the third floor of the under-construction building, suffered severe electric burns due to contact with an exposed live electric wire joint while working on a makeshift platform. It is alleged that the accused, being the contractor responsible for the construction work as per the agreement Ex. PW8/A, rashly and negligently failed to provide necessary safety equipment to the deceased despite his requests, thereby endangering human life FIR NO. 394/2021 St. Vs. Mohd. Nizam 10 and causing the initial injury (u/s 288 IPC). Further, owing to the said rash and negligent act, the deceased succumbed to burn injuries on 14.02.2022 (as per death certificate Ex. PW7/A), attracting Section 304A IPC.
24. To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses and exhibited various documents, including the MLC Ex. PW1/A, statement of deceased recorded by the IO before his death Ex. PW12/A, site inspection report by Electrical Inspector Ex. PW5/A, construction agreement Ex. PW8/A, and death certificate Ex. PW7/A.
25. I have heard the final arguments advanced by the Ld. APP for the State and the Ld. Defence Counsel. The Ld. Defence Counsel has argued that the deceased died due to his own negligence in not pursuing proper follow-up treatment, and that the primary responsibility for safety lay with the building owners rather than the contractor.
26. Primarily, it is argued by Ld. Counsel for the accused that the accused was merely a contractor and was not the owner/builder of the premises and as such, he was not responsible himself for the close proximity of the live electricity wire with the building under construction. In this regard, it is observed that a contractor can be made criminally liable for an offence under Section 304-A IPC for death by electrocution even if the owner of the house is not made an accused, provided the prosecution is able to establish rashness or negligence attributable to the contractor which has a direct nexus with the death. Section 304-A IPC punishes causing death by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide. The emphasis of this provision is not on ownership of the premises, but on the existence of a duty of care and breach of that duty resulting in death. Therefore, criminal liability depends upon who was in control of the work, who owed a duty to ensure safety, and whose negligence caused the fatal accident. In cases of construction activity, it is well settled that a contractor who engages labourers and supervises construction work owes a statutory and common FIR NO. 394/2021 St. Vs. Mohd. Nizam 11 law duty to provide a safe working environment, including safety equipment and protection from known hazards such as exposed electric wires. If the contractor is in charge of execution of work and has control over labourers and the manner of work, he can be held liable independently of the owner. Thus, even if the house owner is not made an accused, the contractor can still be prosecuted and convicted if, he was executing or supervising the construction work, he had control over labourers and working conditions and he failed to provide safety equipment or allowed work near exposed live electric wires. However, it must also be noted that mere engagement as a contractor is not sufficient. The prosecution must prove specific acts of omission or commission on the part of the contractor showing gross negligence, as distinguished from a mere accident. If the evidence shows that the accident occurred due to factors beyond the contractor's control, or solely due to defective house wiring for which the owner was responsible, then liability under Section 304-A IPC may not sustain.
27. The evidence on record shows that the incident involved electrocution due to an exposed live wire joint in close proximity to the construction site, as confirmed by the Electrical Inspector's report Ex. PW5/A, which attributes the accident to violation of horizontal clearance norms between overhead lines and the building. The death of Shyam Badan on 14.02.2022 is established by Ex. PW7/A and testimonies of PW-10 (father) and PW-13 (brother). The accused was the contractor as per Ex. PW8/A, and thus owed a duty of care towards the labourers, including provision of safety measures against foreseeable risks like electrical hazards at the site. However, there are certain contradiction in the chain of causation to prove that it was the negligent act of the accused due to which the deceased had expired which are as follows:-
a. PW-1 (Doctor) deposed that the deceased had 25% electric contact burns, was advised continuous follow-up and dressing, last visited on 07.11.2021, but thereafter stopped treatment at the hospital.
FIR NO. 394/2021 St. Vs. Mohd. Nizam 12 b. PW-4 (Doctor) opined that gangrene can develop in 1-2 days in electric burn cases and may cause death in 20-30% cases; further, death after discharge may be due to the patient's own negligence in not attending follow-up OPD.
c. PW-10 admitted that after discharge, treatment continued in the native village through a government hospital with regular dressing, but no postmortem was conducted.
28. The deceased was discharged on 16.10.2021 and survived for over four months before succumbing. The medical evidence clearly indicates that proper follow-up could have prevented complications like infection/gangrene. The failure to adhere to advised hospital treatment constitutes an intervening act of negligence on the part of the deceased/family showing lapses on the part of the accused eventually resulting in his death.
29. In view of the settled law that for liability u/s 304A IPC, the rash/negligent act must be the proximate and efficient cause without intervention of another's negligence, the prosecution has failed to establish causation beyond reasonable doubt.
30. Even assuming some negligence in not providing specific safety gear (though no direct evidence of repeated requests by deceased exists beyond the initial complaint), the supervening negligence in post-discharge treatment renders the death not directly attributable to the accused's act.
31. In criminal jurisprudence, the prosecution is under an obligation to prove it's case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of cogent, convincing and reliable evidence. It is also well settled that in case of doubt, the benefit must necessarily be allowed to the accused. In view of discussion made above, it becomes clear that in the present case, the prosecution has failed to prove the mens rea i.e the accused acted rashly or negligently and it resulted into the death of the victim and since, the prosecution has failed to establish the necessary FIR NO. 394/2021 St. Vs. Mohd. Nizam 13 mens rea of the offences with which the accused has been charged, the benefit of doubt ought to be given to accused.
32. In view of the above analysis, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to discharge its burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the accused Mohd. Nizam is hereby acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 288/304A IPC.
Digitally signed byAnnounced in the open court on SAURABH SAURABH GOYAL
this day i.e. 15th December, 2025 GOYAL Date: 2025.12.15
15:11:25 +0530
(Saurabh Goyal)
JMFC-01 South West District, Dwarka,
New Delhi
It is certified that this judgment contains 13 pages and each page bears my signatures.
Digitally signedSAURABH by SAURABH GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.12.15 15:11:29 +0530 (Saurabh Goyal) JMFC-01 South West District, Dwarka, New Delhi FIR NO. 394/2021 St. Vs. Mohd. Nizam