Delhi District Court
State vs . Satvir Singh on 24 April, 2018
IN THE COURT OF MS. MANU VEDWAN:METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
(WEST DISTRICT) TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
JUDGMENT
FIR No. 619/2007
PS: Punjabi Bagh U/s. 288/337 IPC IPC Dated: 01.05.2018 Case No.:69850-2016 STATE VS. SATVIR SINGH Date of Institution : 06.05.2008 Date of Commission of offence : 05.09.2007 Name of the Complainant : Sh. Jai Nath S/o Sh. Barj Lal.
Name parentage and address :
of the accused Satvir Singh S/o Sh. Ajit Singh,
R/o; C-3, Sanjay Enclave, Main
Rajapuri Road, Uttam Nagar, New
Delhi.
Offence Complaint of : U/s. 288/337 IPC
Plea of the accused persons : Pleaded not guilty.
Final Order : Acquitted
Judgment reserved on : 23.04.2018
Date of judgment : 24.04.2018
BRIEF FACTS
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose off, the above captioned case FIR No. 619-2007, Police Station: Punjabi Bagh. The case of the prosecution as per the complaint, of the Complainant, is that on 05.09.2007, at about 9.40 AM at 15/77, West Punjabi Bagh, Delhi within the jurisdiction of Police Station Punjabi Bagh, accused negligently or knowingly omitted to take such order with building situated at, Kothi No. 15, Road No. 77, West Punjabi Bagh, as FIR No. 619/07, PS: Punjabi Bagh , State Vs. Satvir Singh. 1/7 is sufficient, to guard against any probable danger to human life from the fall of said building. Accused failed to do aforementioned while demolishing the said building, causing simple injuries to Jai Nath, Heera Lal, Raju, Suraj, Neeraj, Niranjan Dass, Babu Lal and Khaju. On the complaint of the complainant the said case was registered.
2. After the conclusion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against accused persons U/s. 288/337 IPC. After that vide order dated Charge u/s. 288/337 IPC was framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
3. The prosecution has examined nine witnesses in all in the present case.
The deposition of witnesses is touched upon in brief as under to have a better appreciation of the case.
PW-1 is Constable Ashok Kumar, who stated on oath that on 05.09.2007, he was posted at Police Statin Punjabi Bagh as a Constable. On that day, he accompanied IO/SI Ombir Singh and Constable Mahender Singh went to the spot i.e. 15/77, West Punjabi Bagh on receipt of DD No. 14-A, at about 10.00 AM in the morning. There they found that the back side of the roof of the chajja of the ground floor, was in broken condition, and one labour Heera Lal was taken to the hospital. He deposed that IO recorded the statement of another labour Jai Nath. PW-1 took other injured in PCR van to SGM Hospital. When he was at the hospital. IO came alongwith Constable Mahender Singh and received MLC of injured persons. They again went to the spot where they came to know that the Contractor Satveer Singh resides at Rajapuri, Uttam Nagar. He further deposed that they went there and could not find him. IO had recorded his statement and the statement of the other injured persons on that day. He further deposed that on 06.09.2007, he again accompanied IO to the spot where they apprehended Contractor accused Satveer Singh at the instance of Jai Nath. He further deposed that IO seized some documents pertaining to the work, register regarding wages of labour and other expenditure from the accused Satveer Singh vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/A bearing his signature at point FIR No. 619/07, PS: Punjabi Bagh , State Vs. Satvir Singh. 2/7 A. The accused was arrested vide memo Ex. PW1/B, bearing his signature at point A as witness. He further deposed that his personal search was carried out vide personal search memo Ex. PW1/C, bearing his signature at point A. He has no other role in the present matter.
PW-2 HC Ramesh Chander deposed that on 05.09.2007 he was posted at Police Station Punjabi Bagh as duty officer. He has registered the present FIR on the basis of rukka sent by SI Ombir Singh through Ct. Mahender. He proved the FIR as Ex.PW2/A and his endorsement on rukka as Ex.PW2/B. During cross examination, he denied the suggestion that the FIR is ante-time and ante dated.
PW-3 is Constable Mahender Kumar, who had deposed on the same lines as deposed by PW-1 Constable Ashok Kumar.
The said witness was not cross examined on behalf of the Ld. Counsel for the defence at length.
PW-4 is Subash Chander Chauhan, who stated on oath that he had given the contract for demolition for the old structure situated at 15/77, Punjabi Bagh, West, New Delhi to Mr. Satveer Singh. He had made a contract for the same with Mr. Satveer Singh, which is Ex. PW4/A bearing his signature at point A. Mr. Satveer Singh had given him a quotation for the said contract, which is Ex. PW4/B. PW-5 is retired SI Omvir Singh, who had stated on oath that on 05.09.2007, he was posted at Police Station Punjabi Bagh as Sub Inspector. On that day, at about 9.15 am, he obtained DD No. 14-Am, regarding incident at 15/77, West Punjabi Bagh, and he alongwith Constable Ashok and Constable Mahender reached at the spot. He deposed that he saw the work of demolition of building was going on over there. During the demolition, terrace of the building was broken and some persons got injured due to the collapse of terrace of the building. He further deposed that Fire Brigade Team and DRF Team was already present over FIR No. 619/07, PS: Punjabi Bagh , State Vs. Satvir Singh. 3/7 there. When DRF Team removed the rubble, eight persons were found to be injured in that incident from which injured Hira Lal was already taken to the hospital. Other injured were taken to SGM Hospital by him. He further deposed that he recorded the statement of laborer Sh. Jagan Nayth. He disclosed the name of Contractor was Sanjeev Verma, but during the investigation, he came to know that Sanjeev Verma was Munshi and accused Satveer was Contractor on that building. He prepared the rukka which is Mark A bearing his signature at point B and same was handed over to Constable Mahender for registration of FIR. He further deposed that Constable Mahender went to the police station to get the FIR registered and came back at the spot alongwith copy of FIR and original rukka and same was handed over to him. He prepared the site plan at the instance of laborer Sh. Jagan Nath. Photographs of the spot, where clicked by the private Photographer namely Sh. Ashok, which are Ex. P-1 to P-7. He further deposed that after that he reached at Maharaja Aggarsen Hospital and recorded the statement of injured Hira Lal. Subsequently, he reached at SGM Hospital and recorded the statement of other seven injured persons.
He further deposed that on 06.09.2007, he contacted with the accused Satveer. He seized the copies of the contract with the owner of the building vide seizure memo which is already Ex. PW1/A, bearing his signature at point B and the original copies of the contract are already Ex. PW4/A and Ex. PW4/B. He further deposed that the accused Satveer also produced the site plan which is Mark B and also produced one register containing the particulars of payment to the laborers which is Ex. PW5/A. He arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex. PW5/B. Personal search of the accused was conducted, vide personal search memo Ex. PW5/C. He recored the MLCs of all the injured persons. He recorded the statement of witness.
PW-6 is Sh. Ashok Kumar, who stated on oath that he have a shop of Photographer in the name of Gupta Digital Studio at 29, S.S. Colony, West Punjabi Bagh, Delhi. He deposed that on 05.09.2007, SI Omvir called him FIR No. 619/07, PS: Punjabi Bagh , State Vs. Satvir Singh. 4/7 at Road no. 77. He reached over there, wherein there was work of demolition of building going on and he clicked the photographs from every angle and thereafter, on the next day, he handed over the photographs which are already Ex. P1- P-7.
PW-7 is Dr. Megha Bhardwaj, who had stated on oath that she had appeared to identify the hand writing and signatures of Dr. Somender Singh Kashyap. However, she had not worked with Dr. Somender Singh Kashyap as MLC prepared by him in the year 2007, therefore, she cannot identify the hand writing and signatures of Dr. Somender Singh Kashyap.
PW-8 is Dr. Shankar Gupta, who had stated on oath that he had been deputed by MS, SGM Hospital to depose the MLC No. 13902, dated 05.09.2007 and MLC No. 13901 dated 05.09.2007. These MLC(s) were prepared by Dr. Bhupender Kumar, who had left the hospital and his whereabouts are not known. He was acquainted with the hand writing of Dr. Bhupender Kumar. MLC No. 13901 & 13902 are Ex. PW8/A and Ex. PW8/B, both bears the signatures of Dr. Bhupender at point A. PW-9 is Sh. Deepak Rana, Record Clerk, SGM Hospital, Delhi, who had proved record Ex. PW9/A, Ex. PW9/B, Ex. PW9/C, Ex. PW9/D and Ex. PW9/E. STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 OF CR.P.C.
4. Thereafter, PE was closed. Statement U/s. 313 Cr.PC of the accused was recorded, where he denies all the allegations of prosecution and lead his DE. In support of his defence evidence, accused examined Sh. Anand Rao as DW-1. After that, DE was closed. Final arguments have been heard from both the sides and record has been meticulously perused.
5. Now I shall refer to the rival submissions made by the parties. During the course of arguments, it is submitted by the Ld. counsel for the accused that there are material contradictions in the deposition of Prosecution witnesses.
FIR No. 619/07, PS: Punjabi Bagh , State Vs. Satvir Singh. 5/7 It is further submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the accused that the injured persons namely Heera Lal, Khaju, Jai Nath, Neeraj and Babul had already compromised the instant matter with the accused and they had taken an amount of Rs. 2000/- each from the accused and statement dated 08.04.2011 in this regard is already on record. It is further submitted that other injured persons namely Raju, Suraj and Niranjan Dass were found not traceable. It is further submitted that witnesses who are examined by the prosecution are formal in nature. Accordingly, accused is liable to be acquitted in the instant matter.
6. Per contra, it is stated by Ld. APP for the State that all the witnesses had duly identified the accused. They had deposed that the entire sequence of events and their testimonies duly corroborate each other. There is no contradiction in the same. Thus, it is stated that offences charged against the accused Jahid stand duly proved beyond any reasonable doubt and accused deserves to be convicted.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
7. As per the case of the prosecution, Jai Nath, Heera Lal, Raju, Suraj, Neeraj, Niranjan Dass, Babu Lal and Khaju are public witness. Out of which Jai Nath, Heera Lal, Neeraj, Babu Lal and Khaju had already compromised the present matter and injured persons namely Raju, Suraj, Niranjan were found not traceable. Despite the summons through concerned DCP, injured persons namely Raju, Suraj and Niranjan were found not traceable. The witnesses who were examined by the prosecution are formal in nature.
8. For proving the offences, it is necessary to prove that the injury has been caused by the accused to the injured persons. In the instant case, the injury caused by the accused can only be proved by the statement of public witnesses/injured persons. Without the testimony of the injured persons, it can never be established that the injury has been caused by the accused. Non examination of the injured persons are fatal to the case of the prosecution.
9. In case law reported as "Sadhu Singh Vs. State of Punjab" 1997 (3) Crime 55 the Punjab & Haryana High Court had observed as under:-
FIR No. 619/07, PS: Punjabi Bagh , State Vs. Satvir Singh. 6/7 "5. In a criminal trial, it is for the prosecution to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from 'may have' to 'must have'. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused".
DECISION
10. The aforementioned contradictions, omissions and lacunas clearly shows that the prosecution has been unable to prove the alleged incident qua accused beyond reasonable doubt, whereby the accused has therefore, entitled to the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, I accord the benefit of doubt to the accused and thereby the accused Satvir Singh s/o Ajeet Singh is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. Compliance under Section 437A Cr.P.C made in the ordersheet.
Announced in the open court today itself i.e. 24.04.2018 (MANU VEDWAN) METOROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE WEST DISTRICT/THC COURTS FIR No. 619/07, PS: Punjabi Bagh , State Vs. Satvir Singh. 7/7