Delhi District Court
Chhathu Rai S/O Sh. Ramjivan Rai vs State on 3 April, 2014
1
IN THE COURT OF MR. UMED SINGH GREWAL
ASJ/SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS): NORTH DISTRICT
ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Criminal Revision No. 60/2013
1. Chhathu Rai s/o Sh. Ramjivan Rai
R/o Vill. Banroha, PS Bonchaha,
Distt. Mujaffarpur, Bihar.
2. Anil Poddar s/o late Sh. H. S. Poddar
R/o 333, Deepali, Pitampura,
Delhi.
..... Petitioners
Versus
State
Through its Secretary
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
..... Respondent
Date of Institution: 26102013
Date of conclusion of Arguments:02042014
Date of pronouncement of order: 03042014
JUDGEMENT:
1. Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 1704 2013 and consequent charge dated 28102013 vide which they were charged u/s 304 A IPC. For the sake of convenience, petitioners are hereinafter referred to as accused also.
Chhathu Rai anr v.state 60/13 page 1 of 6 2
2. Brief facts are that on 28052009 at 10.00 AM, complainant Vaidnath, Ram Parsad, Jagdev Rai and Raj Kumar were hired by an employee of factory No.S99, Badli Industrial Area, Delhi, from contractor Chhathu Rai. All four persons alogwith Chhathu Rai reached the said factory. After settling the labour rate with owner, Chhathu Rai asked them to load a machine in the tempo. Vainath and Ram Parsad asked Chhathu Rai and factory owner Anil Poddar to provide them the gloves as the machine was to be loaded with the help of crane operated with electricity but they asked them to load the machine saying that it was a routine work for which gloves were not required. They started loading the machine, suddenly Vaidnath felt a jolt and he fell away from the machine. He heard the cries of Ram Parsad who had already fallen on the ground. He was taken to Jaipur Golden hospital but was declared dead.
3. Counsel for petitioners argued that there is a report of Assistant Electrical Inspector, Labour Department, GNCT of Delhi that there was no leakage of the electricity in the hoist crane. The counsel submitted that the inspection was done by the inspector on 02062009. The incident had occurred on 29052009 and after the incident the machine was sealed by the IO and in this regard he drew the attention of the court towards the statement of Ct. Jogender.
Chhathu Rai anr v.state 60/13 page 2 of 6 3 As per the report of Assistant Electrical Inspector, sanding machine was found kept in the premises No.S99, PhaseI, Badli Industrial Area, in tempo No.DL1LC0089. An electric hoist crane fitted with electric motors for loading/unloading of the material/ machine was also found installed in a passage inside the said factory. It is further mentioned in the report that insulation resistance of the electrical installation of hoist crane was tested (megger) and no leakage of current was observed. Inspection was done on 02062009 and report was prepared on 02122010. Ct. Jogender is corroborating the contention of counsel for petitioners that the hoist machine was sealed with the seal by the IO. He further stated that photographer took the snaps of the said machine. There are four photographs on the file. These photographs do not suggest that the hoist machine was sealed completely. Only one motor has been shown to have been sealed. The hoist machine was kept parked in the same premises upto the date of inspection. There is every possibility that machine might have been rectified by the time of inspection. So electrical inspector report is of no consequence.
4. Next argument of the petitioners is that three labourers other than deceased Ram Parsad were also loading the machine but they did not receive any injury. The counsel submitted that either Ram Parsad did not die due to electrocution or if he died Chhathu Rai anr v.state 60/13 page 3 of 6 4 due to electrocution, the current might have flowed from some other source and not from the hoist crane.
It has been mentioned by the postmortem doctor that cause of death is cardiac fibrillation with element of asphyxia as a result of antemortem electrocution. The deceased Ram Parsad was having following two injuries:
i. Electric partial thickness burn wound of seize 2 cm x 0.5 on medial aspect of left wrist.
ii. Abrasions on right elbow.
Injury no.1 is the entry wound of the current. Hence counsel for accused is not justified to argue that Ram Parsad died not due to electrocution. There is nothing in the photograph, in electrical inspector report and in the statements of witnesses that there was naked wire near the tempo, machine or crane. So it cannot be said that source of current was not the hoist crane.
5. Petitioner no.2 Anil Poddar is the owner of the small factory from where the machine was to be loaded. He might be having 1415 labourers in his factory despite it, he engaged 45 labours to load the sanding machine. It shows that his 1415 labourers were not trained one and hence he hired the complainant and deceased etc. thinking that they were heavy labourers and were trained in that kind of work. Hiring of trained labours rules out any negligence on the part of factory owner.
Chhathu Rai anr v.state 60/13 page 4 of 6 5 There is nothing on the file to suggest by whom the hoist machine was provided. In Kulbhushan Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi), 122 (2005) DLT 609, the facts were that the owner was to get constructed his house and he engaged a contractor who in turn engaged a subcontractor. A labour died due to electrocution and Hon'ble High Court of Delhi gave clean chit to the owner of the house.
In the case in hand the contractor was respondent no.1 Chhathu Rai. It was his prime duty to check the electric hoist crane. Then it was the duty of machine operator and owner.
Statement of Vaidnath u/s 161 Cr. PC is that when he and Ram Parsad asked Chhathu Rai and Anil Poddar to provide the gloves, they refused saying that it was a routine work in which gloves were not required. The machine to be loaded was sanding machine. It is a quite heavy machine used for manufacturing plastic granules. Such kind of machine is brought in the factory when the factory is to be started at the initial stage or it is required when the older one becomes defective. Such kinds of machines are not loaded or unloaded daily. Hence, statement of Vaidnath in respect of factory owner does not hold good. It is incriminating against the contractor Chhathu Rai because he was the contractor and his job was to provide heavy labourers who were to load or unload the heavy machines daily.
6. In view of above discussion, impugned order and Chhathu Rai anr v.state 60/13 page 5 of 6 6 charge are setaside only in respect of respondent no.2 Anil Poddar. He is discharged. Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court alongwith TCR. Revision file be consigned to recordroom. Announced in the open Court On this 3rd day of April, 2014.
(UMED SINGH GREWAL)
ASJ/Special Judge (NDPS)
North Distt: Rohini Courts: Delhi
Chhathu Rai anr v.state 60/13 page 6 of 6