Delhi District Court
State vs Sunil Garg on 26 October, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. DIVYA ARORA:
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-04: NORTH-WEST:
ROHINI DISTRICT COURTS: NEW DELHI
FIR No. 490/2015
PS Keshav Puram
State Vs Sunil Garg
Date of Institution: 13.01.2016
Date of Judgment : 26.10.2024
JUDGMENT
(a) Serial Number of the case : 541926/2016
(b) Date of commission of offence : 10.07.2015
(c) Name of the complainant : Sh. Munna
(d) Name of Accused persons, : Sunil Garg S/o Ved Prakash their parentage & residence R/o H. No. 3478/1, Narang Colony, Tri Nagar, Delhi-110035.
(e) Offence complained of : U/s: 287/338 IPC (f) Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty (g) Final order : Acquittal
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION
1) The accused Sunil Garg S/o Ved Prakash had been sent to face trial for the commission of offences under Section 287/338 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') on the allegations that on on 10.07.2015 at 10.30 am at Shed No.B-70/4, DSIDC Complex, Lawrence Road, FIR No. 490/2015 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 287/338 IPC State Vs. Sunil Garg Page No. 1 of 11 Industrial Area, Delhi, the accused, being the owner of Factory namely M/s S.M. Moulders, acted in a rash and negligent manner, which endangered human life and led to the injury of Munna Kumar. The accused is charged under Section 287 IPC for negligent conduct with respect to machinery and under Section 338 IPC for causing grievous hurt by an act endangering life or personal safety.
2) After completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed in Court, cognizance of the offences was taken, accused was summoned, he was admitted to bail after he entered appearance and the copy of the chargesheet along with the documents were also supplied to him in compliance of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3) After consideration of the arguments advanced, Notice was served upon the accused Sunil Garg for the commission of offences under Section 287/338 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4) To prove its case, the prosecution examined 05 witnesses.
5) PW1 Munna Kumar has deposed that on 10.07.2015, he was working at factory situated at B-70/4, Lawrence Road, Delhi and was working on Molding Machine in the said factory. He deposed that 2-3 days before the date of incident, the machine was making noise and this was brought to the notice of the owner (Maalik) namely Sunil Garg. He deposed FIR No. 490/2015 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 287/338 IPC State Vs. Sunil Garg Page No. 2 of 11 that the owner stated that he keep running the machine and it will not cause the trouble and he kept running the machine and no repair work done by owner namely Sunil Garg and while working on the said machine, his hand was injured. He deposed that the owner as well as the contractor used to be there and prior to this incident, the contractor was told about the issues in the machine and the noise it was making. He deposed that the incident in question took place between 10.30-11.00 am. He deposed that machine was being used for making footwear stup (chappal ki baddi). He deposed that all the other workers were present there at the time of incident and after he sustained injuries on his right hand, he was taken to hospital by the owner of the factory who was present in the factory at the time of incident. He deposed that after the incident, he was not in his senses. He deposed that police officials came to the hospital and he narrated whole facts to the police officials. He correctly identified the accused in the Court but he failed to identify the four photographs of the machine in question already in judicial file shown to him due to lapse of long time. He deposed that he had been working in the said factory for the last three years before the incident, however, no fund, PF, ESI contribution was ever deducted from my salary and that after the incident, he was admitted in the ESI Hospital. In his cross-examination by Ld. APP, he deposed that it is correct that on 10.07.2015, the owner of the factory came to me and directed me to work quickly saying that the order had to be completed on the same day or that thereafter, on his directions, the safety shutter of the said FIR No. 490/2015 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 287/338 IPC State Vs. Sunil Garg Page No. 3 of 11 machine and then button of the said machine was pressed and then he started working fastly and "jaldi jaldi hath dalkar machine se maal nikaalne laga, aur isi jaldbaazi me hath machine ke beech me fass gaya or kuchla gaya". He deposed that he do not know whether the owner of the factory was arrest by the police in my presence. He deposed that after seeing the four photographs of the machine he stated that the machine shown in the photographs is similar to the machine on which he was working on that day, however, he cannot tell exactly whether the machine in photographs is the same on which he was working on that day and on which he sustained injuries on my hand.
6) PW-2 Dr. Vishal Jain deposed that on 10.07.2015, he was posted at ESIC Hospital, Sector-15 Rohini and on that day, he alongwith Dr. Ranjeet, CMO on duty, medically examined one patient namely Munna S/o Rameshwar, aged about 32 years who got injuries while working in factory about 10.30 am on 10.07.2015. He deposed that he examined the patient and on examination, patient's right hand was badly injured below the level of wrist. He deposed that the result of injury was grievous in nature in the MLC of patient Munna bearing no. 124/2015. He deposed that Dr. Ranjeet has transferred from Rohini and he is present posted in Bihar and that he can also identify the signature of Dr. Ranjeet as point B as he has seen him writing and signing during the course of my official duties.
FIR No. 490/2015 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 287/338 IPC State Vs. Sunil Garg Page No. 4 of 11
7) PW-3 Sh. Pinkesh Kumar, Deputy Director from Labour Department has proved his report dated 29.07.2015 vide Letter bearing no. FD/UR/IF/NW/15/1531 dispatched via dated 31.07.2015. He deposed that the original copy of mechanical inspection report of injection moulding machine has been already placed on record in the judicial file. He deposed that the inspection of the above mentioned machine has been done by him at the place of incident and the report prepared is Ex.PW3/A bearing his signature at point A. He deposed that as per the procedure, the inspection is done with the approval of senior i.e. Deputy Director, at that time Sh. S.P. Rana was the Deputy Director. He deposed that the approval on the inspection report is also given by the Deputy Director and all the facts written in the report are within my knowledge and the same are written by me.
8) PW-4 Ct. Rajesh deposed that on 10.07.2015, he was posted at PS Keshav Puram and on that day, he alongwith IO HC Prakash after receiving DD NO. 47-B, went to PS Subhash Place where HC Arun met them and handed over MLC No. 124/15. After seeing the said MLC, IO prepared the rukka and handed over the same to Ct. Rajesh and sent him to PS for registration of FIR. Thereafter, Ct. Rajesh went to PS Keshav Puram and got registered the present FIR, and after registration of FIR, Ct. Rajesh again went to Sector-15, ESI Hospital, Rohini along with original rukka and copy of FIR and handed over the same to the IO. No eye-witness was found at ESI Hospital. After that he alongwith IO went to the FIR No. 490/2015 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 287/338 IPC State Vs. Sunil Garg Page No. 5 of 11 spot i.e. B-70/4, DSIDC Complex, Lawrence Road Indl. Area, Delhi, where no witness was found. Thereafter, IO sealed alleged horizontal machine vide putting seal PV. IO clicked photographs of the alleged horizontal machine through his mobile phone. Thereafter, IO made inquiries from the public persons and on inquiries it was found that the accused Sunil Garg was not present. Ct. Rajesh identified the the alleged horizontal machine, through photographs and the said photographs are Ex.P-1 (Colly).
9) PW-5 ASI Prakashveer has deposed that on 10.07.2015, he was posted as Head constable at PS Keshav Puram and on that day, upon receiving information regarding DD No. 47-B from PS Subhash Place through HC Arun, same is already Ex.Y-2, he alongwith Ct. Rajesh went to PS Subhash Place where HC Arun handed over MLC of patient Munna bearing no. 124/2015 to me. He deposed that thereafter, HC Arun explained circumstances to him and after perusing the MLC, he prepared tehrir Ex.PW5/A and handed over the same to Ct. Rajesh for registration of FIR and he went to PS accordingly. He deposed that thereafter, he went to ESI Hospital, Sector-16, Rohini, Delhi and met with patient / complainant who was unfit to give his statement. He deposed that thereafter, searched the witness, but same could not be found there. He deposed that in the meanwhile, Ct. Rajesh came at hospital with copy of FIR and original tehrir and handed over the same to me. He deposed that thereafter, he alongwith Ct. Rajesh reached at the spot i.e. B-70/4, FIR No. 490/2015 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 287/338 IPC State Vs. Sunil Garg Page No. 6 of 11 DSIDC Complex, Lawrence Road, Delhi. He deposed that thereafter, he seized Horizontal Machine, Again said, he sealed the Horizontal Machine and took the photographs of the same, and four photographs which are correctly identified. He deposed that hereafter, on 23.07.2015, he recorded the statement of injured / complainant u/s 161 Cr.PC. He deposed that on 06.08.2015, he obtained result on the above said MLC, wherein the injury was opined as grievous. He deposed that thereafter, on 21.08.2015, he arrested and personally searched the accused vide memos Ex.PW5/B and Ex.PW5/C and accused was released on bail after furnishing personal bonds and surety bonds vide Ex.PW5/D and Ex.PW5/E. He deposed that he also prepared site plan vide Ex.PW5/F and thereafter, he recorded the statement of witnesses and prepared the chargesheet and submitted the same before the Court.
10) The prosecution evidence was thereafter closed upon request of the Ld APP for the State whereafter statement of accused and additional statement of accused were recorded under Section 281 read with Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 wherein the entire incriminating evidence was put to the accused who maintained his innocence stating that he had been falsely implicated. The accused chose not to lead any defence evidence.
11) Final arguments as advanced by Ld. APP for the State and by Ld. Counsel for the accused have been carefully FIR No. 490/2015 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 287/338 IPC State Vs. Sunil Garg Page No. 7 of 11 considered along with the evidence on record.
12) It is a settled proposition of law that in a criminal trial, it is for the State to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence and it is for the prosecution to ensure that its case is able to stand on its own legs. The prosecution cannot derive any benefit whatsoever from the weakness of the defence of the accused if any. Accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution version.
13) Learned counsel for the accused argued that other factory workers who were present during the incident were not examined by the prosecution, which weakens the case. He further argued that PW-1 gave contradictory statements regarding the presence of the accused at the scene of the incident, casting doubt on the accused's involvement and entire case of prosecution as it alleged that on the day of incident, accused asked the complainant to hasten the work Lastly, he argued that the inspection report shows inconsistencies, as it lacks details on specific safety violations and contradicts other documentary evidence on record.
14) The primary issues for consideration are; whether the accused acted in a rash or negligent manner that endangered life, thereby attracting liability under Section 287 IPC. Further, whether the alleged negligence caused grievous hurt FIR No. 490/2015 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 287/338 IPC State Vs. Sunil Garg Page No. 8 of 11 to Munna, satisfying the elements of Section 338 IPC.
15) Upon careful examination of the evidence , the court finds that the prosecution has not examined other workers who were reportedly present at the time of the incident. PW 1, PW4 and PW 5 have admitted in their evidences that other factory factory workers were present at the place of incident in question. IO has furnished no plausible explanation for not citing them in the list of witnesses. This omission is crucial, as the testimony of these witnesses could have substantiated or contradicted PW-1's account, thereby affecting the overall credibility of the prosecution's case. In judgment of "State of Maharashtra v. Nasir Ibrahim Sheikh (2001) passed by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Crl. LJ 3144, it is held that "In this case, the court emphasized the importance of direct testimony from key eyewitnesses, such as co-workers or people present at the scene. The accused was acquitted due to the prosecution's failure to examine available eyewitnesses. The court held that without corroborative evidence from other workers or direct witnesses, the prosecution's case was incomplete and unreliable."
16) Secondly, PW-1's testimony was inconsistent regarding the presence of the accused at the scene. The entire case of prosecution is on the day of incident, accused came to factory and asked complainant to quickly do the work. However, in his cross-examination, PW-1 has taken contradictory stance about whether the accused was actually present at the time of FIR No. 490/2015 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 287/338 IPC State Vs. Sunil Garg Page No. 9 of 11 the incident, raising doubts about the accused's direct involvement.
17) Lastly, the inspection report provided by the prosecution lacks clarity and shows contradictions with other documentary evidence regarding the alleged safety violations. The discrepancies in the report weaken the prosecution's claim that the accused failed to maintain proper safety protocols.
18) To establish guilt under Sections 287 and 338 IPC, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused acted with criminal negligence, which directly led to grievous hurt. In the absence of consistent and reliable evidence, especially regarding the accused's presence and specific acts of negligence, it is unsafe to hold the accused liable.
19) Based on the above analysis, the court finds that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The contradictions in the evidence and the failure to examine material witnesses cast substantial doubt on the prosecution's case. Therefore, the benefit of the doubt must be given to the accused.
20) In view of the aforesaid discussion, with the prosecution failing to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts, the accused Sunil Garg S/o Ved Prakash is FIR No. 490/2015 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 287/338 IPC State Vs. Sunil Garg Page No. 10 of 11 given the benefit of the doubt and is hereby acquitted of the offence under Section 287/338 IPC in FIR No. 490/2015 PS Keshav Puram.
21) Accused is directed to furnish bail bond / surety bond for Rs.
20,000/- each under section 437-A of Code of Criminal Procedure and is directed to be present before the Ld. Appellate Court as and when notice is served upon him.
22) File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court on 26.10.2024.
Divya Digitally signed by
Divya Arora
Arora Date: 2024.10.26
11:28:51 +0530
(DIVYA ARORA)
Judicial Magistrate First Class-04/North West District Rohini District Court/New Delhi Certified that this judgment contains 11 pages and each page bears my signature.
Divya Digitally signed by Divya
Arora
Arora Date: 2024.10.26
11:28:57 +0530
(DIVYA ARORA)
Judicial Magistrate First Class-04/North West District Rohini District Court/New Delhi FIR No. 490/2015 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 287/338 IPC State Vs. Sunil Garg Page No. 11 of 11