Delhi District Court
Criminal Case/185/1992 on 1 October, 2012
FIR No. 185/92 S/v Madan Lal U/s 337/338 IPC PS: Subzi Mandi IN THE COURT OF SH. NEERAJ GAUR, LD.METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATEIII/NORTH, DELHI FIR No. 185/92. S/v Madan Lal U/s 337/338 IPC PS: Subzi Mandi C/N. 795/T U. ID No. 02401R0059061997. Date of Institution : 31.01.1993. Date of commission of offence : 23.08.1992. Name of the complainant : Sh. Bhim Singh s/o Sh Richpal. Name and address of accused : Madan Lal Khanna s/o Late Sh. Fakir Chand Khanna, aged about 75 years, r/o H. No. 5, Ganesh Park, Rashid Market, Delhi51 Offence complaint off : U/S 337/338 IPC Plea of guilt : Pleaded not guilty Final Order : Acquitted. Date of reserve for order : 01.10.2012 Date for announcing the order : 01.10.2012. U. ID NO. 02401R0059061997 Page No. 1 of 9 FIR No. 185/92 S/v Madan Lal U/s 337/338 IPC PS: Subzi Mandi JUDGMENT:
Brief facts and pre trial proceedings
1. The prosecution case is that on 23.08.92, one wall of St. Stephen Hospital fell down thereby causing injuries to some persons present on the other side of the wall. During investigation, it was revealed that on the fateful day, Sh Bhim Singh, Sh Ram Singh, Sh Baldev and Sh Ramesh, who were all staying in the servant quarter of the adjoining property of St. Stephen Hospital, were present on a cot near the wall in question. The construction work was going on on the other side of the wall towards St. Stephen Hospital. A contractor got unloaded Badarpur along side the wall. Due to the weight of Badarpur and Malba, the wall collapsed and fell over the aforementioned persons. The accused Madan Lal Khanna was found to be responsible for the construction work and he was finally charge sheeted u/s 337 and 338 IPC.
U. ID NO. 02401R0059061997 Page No. 2 of 9 FIR No. 185/92 S/v Madan Lal U/s 337/338 IPC PS: Subzi Mandi
2. After about 20 years of the incident, on 24.01.12, aforementioned charges were framed against the accused and he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Trial
3. During trial prosecution examined seven witnesses in total, whose testimonies are briefly touched upon as under :
(i) The complainant Sh Bhim Singh has been examined as PW2, who although, deposed that due to collapsing of the wall, he and his friends sustained injuries. However, he stated that he did not know as to why the wall collapsed and who was responsible for that. During cross examination by Ld. APP for the State, he stated that police never met him during investigation. He identified his complaint as Ex. PW 2/A. He also admitted that the incident occurred due to weight of the building material on the other side of the wall. He also admitted that the contractor was negligent hence, the wall collapsed. During cross U. ID NO. 02401R0059061997 Page No. 3 of 9 FIR No. 185/92 S/v Madan Lal U/s 337/338 IPC PS: Subzi Mandi examination by Ld. Defence counsel, he stated that he did not know who brought the building material.
(ii) PW1 Sh Ramesh deposed that in the year 1992, he and his friends were sitting on a cot, when at about 11/11:30 am, the wall of the nearby house was collapsed, due to certain construction work which was going on on the other side of the wall and due to the negligence of the contractor.
(iii) PW6 Sh Baldev Raj deposed that due to the construction work on the other side of the wall, the wall collapsed thereby causing injuries to him and his friends. He also stated that wall collapsed due to dumping of some material nearby the wall on the St. Stephen Hospital side.
(iv) PW3 Dr. Anil Chabra deposed that on 23.08.92, he was the CMO at HRH and he medically examined injured Baldev and Ramesh vide MLCs Ex. PW 3/A and PW 3/B. PW 4 Dr. M.M. Gupta deposed U. ID NO. 02401R0059061997 Page No. 4 of 9 FIR No. 185/92 S/v Madan Lal U/s 337/338 IPC PS: Subzi Mandi that on 23.08.92 he examined patient Bhim Singh and Ram Singh vide MLCs Ex.PW 4/A and PW 4/B.
(v) PW7 Sh Dinesh Kr is the medical record clerk from HRH, who deposed that Dr. Sunil Gupta gave the opinion as to the nature of the injuries on the aforementioned four MLCs. The opinion has been marked as Ex. PW 7/A, PW 7/B, PW 7/C and PW 7/D. He further identified the signatures of Dr. Punit Gupta and stated that Dr. Gupta had left the hospital.
(vi) PW5 Ms. Kusum Ahuja stated that she is the Director of Ahuja Kashyap Pvt. Ltd. since 1984. In the year 1992, her firm was constructing a new building for St. Stephen Hospital. She stated that she could not recollect as to who was the supervisor of the construction site as the incident occurred about 20 years back. During cross examination by Ld. APP for the State, she deposed that police never met her in connection with this case and never recorded her statement marked as U. ID NO. 02401R0059061997 Page No. 5 of 9 FIR No. 185/92 S/v Madan Lal U/s 337/338 IPC PS: Subzi Mandi Mark A. She admitted that the accused was her employee but she could not say whether accused was in any manner connected with the construction work at St. Stephen Hospital. She denied that the accused was Site Incharge of St. Stephen Hospital or that he was responsible for the construction work.
Statement of accused and defence
4. During trial, it was reported that witness Ram Singh has expired. Repeated opportunities were granted for concluding PE and summons were repeatedly issued to the witnesses through SHO as well as DCP. All the PWs, whose presence could be secured, have been examined. PE was finally closed vide order dated 25.09.12. On 29.09.12, statement of accused u/s 313 CRPC was recorded in which he claimed innocent and did not prefer to lead DE.
Arguments and appreciation of evidence
5. I have given my due consideration to the evidence available on U. ID NO. 02401R0059061997 Page No. 6 of 9 FIR No. 185/92 S/v Madan Lal U/s 337/338 IPC PS: Subzi Mandi record. From the statement of PW1, PW2 and PW6, it has been proved that on the fateful day, one wall of St. Stephen Hospital collapsed due to which these PWs suffered injuries. As per the prosecution story, the wall collapsed due to the dumping of construction material. The prosecution has not examined or even cited any qualified technical person to prove that the weight of the construction material on the other side of the wall was such as to cause the collapsing of the wall. The width of the wall has not been measured during the entire investigation. PW2 stated in the cross examination that the wall must have been pushed by the labourers from the other side of the wall. If this was the case, it would amount to an intentional act of the labourer. In such a case, the contractor cannot be held liable for any negligence. 5.1 In these circumstances, the reason for the collapsing of the wall has remained questionable. It has not been undoubtedly proved that the dumping of the construction material was the sole and proximate U. ID NO. 02401R0059061997 Page No. 7 of 9 FIR No. 185/92 S/v Madan Lal U/s 337/338 IPC PS: Subzi Mandi reason for collapsing of the wall.
6. The next question before this Court is regarding the involvement of the accused in the alleged offence. The accused has been shown as the employee of M/s Ahuja Kashyap Pvt. Ltd. who was supervising and responsible for the construction work being carried out at St. Stephen Hospital. However, the sole witness in this regard namely Ms. Kusum Ahuja/ PW 5 has given no support to the prosecution case. She denied that the accused was the Site Incharge of the construction work or that he was responsible for the construction work. The evidence on record is highly insufficient to prove that the accused was responsible for the construction work. In these circumstances, the accused cannot be fastened with any vicarious liability on account of any criminal negligence in the construction work. This fact assumes more importance when none of the victims deposed that the accused was present at the site at the time of incident.
U. ID NO. 02401R0059061997 Page No. 8 of 9 FIR No. 185/92 S/v Madan Lal U/s 337/338 IPC PS: Subzi Mandi Conclusion
7. After giving my due consideration to the evidence available on record and to the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the discussion made hereinabove, I have arrived at the conclusion that the charges u/s 337 and 338 IPC framed against the accused could not be proved beyond pale of doubts. Accused deserves to be acquitted. Accused Madan Lal is accordingly acquitted.
Announced in open court (Neeraj Gaur)
today i.e. 01.10.2012 Metropolitan MagistrateIII/N
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
U. ID NO. 02401R0059061997 Page No. 9 of 9