Delhi District Court
State vs . Ram Chander Mishra on 4 October, 2012
1 FIR No:1067/2000
State Vs. Ram Chander Mishra
IN THE COURT OF Dr. JAGMINDER SINGH: METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
FIR NO: 1067/2000
PS: Dabri
U/s 288/304A IPC
State V. Ram Chander Mishra
Date of institution of the case : 15.10.2001
Date on which Judgment was reserved : 04.10.2012
JUDGMENT
a) S. No. of the case : 1258/2
b) Date of commission of offence : 22.11.2000
c) Name of the Complainant : SI Satya Dev Sharma
PS: Dabri, New Delhi.
d) Name of accused and address : Ram Chander Mishra
S/o Sh. Ram Abhilakh
Mishra
R/o C343, New Ashok
Nagar, New Delhi.
2 FIR No:1067/2000
State Vs. Ram Chander Mishra
e) Offence complained of : u/s 288/304A IPC
f) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
g) Final order : Acquitted
h) Date of such order : 04.10.2012
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION :
1. The present case was registered on receiving DD No.35A dt. 22.11.2000 at PS: Dabri regarding the fact that deceased was brought to the hospital in injured condition because of falling of a wall who was declared brought dead by the concerned doctor at DDU hospital. On receiving information SI Satya Dev went to DDU hospital, collected the MLC and found no eye witness and thereafter went to the spot and prepared rukka and got the present case registered. After completion of investigation charge sheet was filed against accused for the offence u/s 288/304A IPC.
3 FIR No:1067/2000
2. Accused was summoned and notice was served upon him for the offence u/s 288/304A IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and trial started.
3. Prosecution has filed list of Eleven witnesses and has examined Nine witnesses.
4. PW1 HC Om Parkash recorded the FIR of the present case Ex.PW1/A and he also brought the original record of DD No.35A, copy of which is Ex.PW1/B.
5. PW2 Dr. M.M. Narnavware conducted the post mortem on the deadbody of deceased Laccha Ram vide P.M. report Ex.PW2/A. He further stated that cause of death was head injury.
4 FIR No:1067/2000
6. PW3 stated that on 22.11.2000 he was working at Plot No.2, Sector2 Pappan Kalan where construction was going on and 5060 labours were working. His cousin / deceased Lacchu Ram came to him from Jammu for work purpose. At about 1:00 pm he came to know that one person had fallen on the chabutra which was used for bathing purpose. He came to the spot and found his cousin Lacchu Ram in injured condition. Thereafter he brought him to DDU hospital where he was declared brought dead. He did not know how his cousin sustained injuries as he might be either fell down or slipped down from Chabutra.
7. PW4 Mahender Kumar stated that he was contractor at the said plot. The construction in question was supervised by accused Ram Chander to whom he had made a SPA photocopy of which is Ex.PW4/A. On 22.11.2000 construction was going on under the supervision of accused. 5 FIR No:1067/2000
8. PW5 Sidhu stated that on 22.11.2000 he was incharge of the labour at the construction work at the spot. On that day deceased went to take bath on the Chabutra. He went there on hearing noise and found injuries on the head of Lacchu Ram who was then removed to DDU hospital where he was declared brought dead.
9. PW6 Ct. Braham Dutt stated that on 22.01.2000 he along with ASI Satya Dev visited the DDU hospital and then they went to the spot. Where they found that a wall was erected and water tap was also installed with the support of the wall and the water was also stored in a water tank. When injured Laccha Ram went to take bath, the wall collapsed on the said Laccha Ram. He took rukka from spot to PS and got recorded the FIR. The photographs marked A1 to A5 were taken into his presence. 6 FIR No:1067/2000
10. PW7 Desh Raj record clerk DDU hospital brought the certified MLC of Laxman prepared by Dr. Roshan and identified his handwriting and signatures on the MLC Ex.PW7/A.
11. PW8 Retd. SI Satya Dev stated that on 22.11.2000 on receiving DD No.35A he along with Ct. Braham Dutt reached at DDU hospital where Laccha Ram was brought dead and obtained his MLC. He got registered the case vide his endorsement Ex.PW8/A. He prepared site plan Ex.PW8/A. Body of deceased was released to the LR's of deceased. He arrested the accused vide memo's Ex.PW8/C and Ex.PW8/D. His application for post mortem is Ex.PW8/F and identification statements are Ex.PW8/G, 8/H and 8/I. Handing over memo of deadbody Ex.PW8/J. He seized the SPA in respect of accused from Mahinder Kumar vide Ex.PW8/K. 7 FIR No:1067/2000 State Vs. Ram Chander Mishra
12. PW9 Sudhir Aggarwal deposed that on 28.01.2001 he along with accused went to PS: Dabri where IO arrested the accused vide memo Ex.PW8/D and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW8/C.
13. No other witness was examined by the prosecution and PE closed. Statement of accused recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. in which he denied all the allegations against him and stated that he want to lead evidence in his defence. Thereafter, no DW was examined by the accused and DE was closed by Ld. Defence Counsel vide his separate statement and the matter fixed for final arguments.
14. I have heard the arguments of both the parties. Ld. APP for the State has argued that the accused is actual culprit and accused deliberately not took proper care and caution regarding the water tank because of which wall of the tank fell down resulting into death of deceased Lacche Ram. 8 FIR No:1067/2000
State Vs. Ram Chander Mishra Therefore he deserves maximum punishment. On the other hand Ld. Counsel for the accused stated that he is innocent. Story of the prosecution is concocted one. There is no evidence against the accused. He is falsely implicated in the present case and he is liable to be acquitted. I have gone through the oral and documentary evidence on record and analyzed the statement of witnesses.
15. In the present case the allegations against the accused are that he had not taken due care and caution against any probable danger regarding the water tank the wall of which fell down due to his negligence resulting into the death of deceased Laccha Ram. Therefore, it is to be proved by prosecution that accused was responsible person in handling the alleged water tank and he worked in rash and negligent manner regarding the handling of said water tank and because of his negligent act, the wall of water tank fell down upon the deceased.
9 FIR No:1067/2000
16. There is no eye witness examined by the prosecution. PW3 and PW5 are material witnesses who was present at the spot. But both of these witnesses stated that they had not seen the happening of incident in question. They both stated that they went to the spot only hearing from someone else regarding the incident and when they reached at the spot the incident already occurred. PW3 specifically stated in his statement that he do not know how his cousin or deceased sustained injury.
17. The main allegation of the prosecution are that accused not worked properly regarding the wall of water tank which was fallen down upon the deceased. In this regard both PW3 and PW5 stated in their cross examination that there was no water tank constructed at the place of occurrence. PW3 in his cross examination by the Ld.APP for the State further denied that he asked his contractor and supervisor that the wall 10 FIR No:1067/2000 State Vs. Ram Chander Mishra around the water tank was weak and it may fall. PW3 also denied to identify the accused. PW5 also denied the suggestion given by Ld. APP that he told the accused that water tank was weak and it may fall. PW5 admitted in his cross examination that there was no water tank and deceased was found dead below the Chabutra.
18. There is no any other evidence by which it can be established that deceased was died due to rash and negligent act of accused. PW4 only stated that he made the accused as incharge of the site vide SPA Ex.PW4/A. But only being incharge of the site, it cannot be held that he was responsible for the fall of wall of the alleged water tank and he not worked in proper care and caution regarding the said wall. In view of evidence of PW3 and PW5, existence of any water tank at the spot itself becomes doubtful.
11 FIR No:1067/2000
19. The other witnesses are formal procedural witnesses as PW1 recorded the FIR and DD entry, PW2 conducted the post mortem, PW6 joined the investigation with IO PW8. PW7 brought the record of MLC and PW9 brought the accused to the police station and got him arrested.
20. Therefore, there is nothing came on record to link the accused with the rash and negligent act because of which the alleged wall fell down. There is no any documentary or any circumstantial evidence came on record through which it can be ascertained that the accused not took proper care and caution regarding the wall of any water tank and because of his negligence, the wall fell down on the deceased resulting into his death. It is also held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in State Vs. Dharmender Singh Mehta and anr. 2012 V AD (Delhi) 108 that "it is now very well established that in all criminal cases, the prosecution has to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt through unimpeachable 12 FIR No:1067/2000 State Vs. Ram Chander Mishra evidence".
21. Therefore, in view of above said discussion shows that the material placed on record by the prosecution is not sufficient to complete the chain of evidence and ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused. Therefore, accused Ram Chander Mishra S/o Sh. Ram Abhilakh Mishra is hereby acquitted in the case FIR No.1067/2000 for the offence u/s 288/304A IPC. Bail bonds of accused shall remain in force for the period of six month starting from today in accordance with section 437A Cr.P.C as no fresh bail bond furnished by the accused. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court on this 04th day of October' 2012 (Dr. JAGMINDER SINGH) This Judgment contains 12 pages METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE which bears my signatures at DWARKA COURTS/DELHI each page.
13 FIR No:1067/2000
State Vs. Ram Chander Mishra FIR NO: 1067/2000 PS: Dabri U/s 288/304A IPC State V. Ram Chander Mishra 04.10.2012 Present: Ld. APP for the State.
Accused is present on bail with Ld. Counsel Sh. R.K. Doohan.
Final arguments heard today.
Vide separate judgment pronounced and dictated in the open court, accused Ram Chander Mishra is acquitted for the offence u/s 288/304A IPC. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
(Dr. JAGMINDER SINGH) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE DWARKA COURTS/DELHI 21.07.2012