Delhi District Court
State vs . Nand Pal Singh on 6 December, 2018
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE05, DISTRICT
NORTH, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
Presided by: Mr. Jitendra Pratap Singh, DJS
State Vs. Nand Pal Singh
FIR No. 160/2010
PS. Bawana
U/s. 287/304A IPC
JUDGMENT
1) SI No. of the case : 5281417/16
2) The date of commission of offence : 14.07.2010
3) The name of the complainant : Sh. Vijender Pal
s/o Sh. Nekshupal
4) The name & parentage of accused : Nand Pal Singh
s/o Sh. Jai Pal
5) Offence involved : 287/304A IPC
6) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
7) Final order : Acquitted
8) The date of such order : 06.12.2018
Date of Institution : 30.11.2011
Judgment reserved on : 28.11.2018
Judgment announced on : 06.12.2018
FIR No. 160/10 State Vs. Nand Pal Singh 1 of 14
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1.Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 14.07.2010 at about 7.00 PM at J130, Sec. 3, DSIIDC Bawana, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Bawana, the accused Nand Pal Singh caused death of one Rahul as he forced plumber Vijender Pal and his son namely Rahul to further lower down the Submersible pump motor at the aforesaid premises despite there being danger of electric current on it and while working upon his directions, Rahul died due to electrocution. That the accused as such had caused death of Rahul due to his rash and negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide and thus the accused has been sent to face trial for offences U/s 304A IPC.
2. Upon completion of investigation charge sheet U/s 173 Cr.P.C. was filed on behalf of the IO and the accused was consequently summoned. A formal notice for the offence U/s 304A IPC was served upon the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined eight witnesses.
4. PW1 is complainant Sh. Vijender Pal who deposed that during July 2010, he used to live on rent at premises no. J117, Sector 3 FIR No. 160/10 State Vs. Nand Pal Singh 2 of 14 DSIDC Bawana along with his family members. That on 14.07.2010, at about 09:00 am the owner of premises no. J130, Sector 3, DSIDC Bawana came to him for some plumbing work. That he along with his son Rahul went to the plot at J130, along with the owner. That one more labour namely Anand was called by him to help them as the work was more. He correctly identified the accused as the said owner of premises no. J130. He stated that the accused told them to lower down the said pump. That he told the accused that it could not be done as there will be danger of electrocution but the accused said that he would pay them only if the pump was further lowered down. He deposed that unwillingly they started the work again and as soon as the work was started his son Rahul got electrocuted. He immediately took his son to MB Hospital where the doctors declared him dead. He deposed that the incident of electrocution took place because of the rash and negligent act of the accused in as much as he pressurized them to do the above said work despite their objection and warning of danger. That the police met him at the hospital and recorded his statement Ex. PW1/A. He deposed that he had shown the site to the IO, who prepared site plan at his instance. That after postmortem the dead body of his son was handed over to him after due identification vide memo Ex. PW1/B. He further deposed that after about 20 days the accused was arrested by the police after his identification vide memo Ex. PW1/C and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW1/D. The witness FIR No. 160/10 State Vs. Nand Pal Singh 3 of 14 identified the photographs of the submersible pump.
5. PW2 Dr. S.K. Aggarwal, proved the MLC of injured Rahul prepared by him at MB Hospital as Ex. PW2/A. He deposed that after examination, he found that the patient was brought dead with the alleged history of electric shock.
6. PW3 is Ct. Baljeet who deposed that on 14.07.2010 on receipt of DD no. 73B, he along with IO/SI Deepak Purohit reached at MB Hospital Pooth Khurd, Delhi. That IO collected the MLC of Rahul on which the doctor had endorsed brought dead. That IO found the father of deceased namely Vijender Pal in the hospital itself and recorded his statement and prepared a rukka and sent him to PS for getting the FIR registered. That he got the FIR registered and again went to the hospital and handed over the original rukka and copy of FIR to IO. That IO sent him to BJRM Hospital in a government vehicle for getting the dead body preserved at the BJRM Hospital Mortuary. He further deposed that on the next day the dead body was handed over to the legal representatives of the deceased after postmortem. That thereafter he along with IO went to factory no. J130, Sector 3 DSIDC Bawana but the factory was found locked. That they inquired from the neighbours about the factory owner but no clue could be found and thereafter they returned to PS. FIR No. 160/10 State Vs. Nand Pal Singh 4 of 14
7. PW4 is Sh. Anand who deposed that he was a plumber by profession. That on 14.07.2010 he was called by Bijender Pal, father of deceased Rahul to work in the factory premises no J130, Sec.3, Bawana. That he alongwith Vijender Pal and Rahul went to the spot where the owner of the factory i.e. accused Nand Pal Singh (correctly identified the accused in the court) met them. That Vijender and Rahul also used to work as plumber. That they started working and finished their work at about 04.00 PM. That thereafter, accused asked them to further lower down the submersible pump which was installed by them but they told him that it was already below the level of ground and it could not be further lowered down but the accused kept on insisting. That upon the asking of accused, they started lowering down the submersible pump and in that process, the deceased Rahul got electrocuted and resultantly, died. That the deceased died while working on the submersible pump and no one is responsible for the death of deceased Rahul. He again said, that accused is responsible for the death of deceased Rahul as he kept on insisting them and forced Rahul to further lower down the submersible pump which was already below the ground level. That his statement was recorded by the IO. He identified the submersible pump and the wires/cables as Ex. P1 (colly).
8. PW5 is Sh. Yogesh Kumar Verma, Asstt. Electrical Inspector, FIR No. 160/10 State Vs. Nand Pal Singh 5 of 14 Labour Department. He deposed that on 23.02.2011 he inspected the site of incident i.e. J130 Sector3, DSIIDC Bawana in the presence of IO SI Deepak Kumar and Sh. Bijender Pal, father of the deceased Rahul. That after inspecting the site of the incident i.e. submersible pump motor installed in front of the abovesaid factory premises, he prepared the inspection report Ex.PW5/A. That during the inspection the PVC flat cable was found sheared off into pieces near the metallic clamp holding the GI water pipe and the naked conductor of the piece connected with the MCB was in contact with the metallic clamp, thereby charged the metallic clamp and GI water pipe electrically. That the frame of the said submersible pump motor and the metallic clamp has not been found earthed. The complete facts and finding of the inspection is mentioned by him in the report Ex. PW5/A.
9. PW6 Dr. Kul Bhushan Goyal, deposed that on 15.07.2010 he was posted at BJRM hospital mortuary and on that day he conducted the postmortem on the dead body of deceased Rahul s/o Bijender Singh with the alleged history of sustained electric current. He proved his detailed PM report in this regard as Ex. PW6/A. He opined the cause of death as cardiac fibrillation and element of respiratory distress consequent upon electrocution. That the solitary injury was antemortem in nature and caused by electric current.
FIR No. 160/10 State Vs. Nand Pal Singh 6 of 14
10. PW7 is IO SI Deepak Purohit who deposed that on 14.07.2010 on receipt of DD No. 73B Ex.PW7/A he along with Ct. Manjeet went to the M.V Hospital and collected the MLC No. 2311/10 in respect of Rahul S/o Sh. Vijender Pal. That the father of Rahul was also present at the hospital and the patient Rahul was declared brought dead. That he recorded the statement of father of deceased Rahul namely Vijender Pal Ex.PW1/A and prepared the rukka Ex.PW7/B and handed over the same to Ct. Baljeet for registration of the case. That after registration of the case Ct. Baljeet returned to the hospital along with original rukka and computerized FIR and handed over the same to him. That thereafter he sent the body of the victim to BJRM mortuary through Ct. Baljeet along with request letter to the concerned incharge mortuary. Copy of said application is mark A1. That thereafter, he along with eyewitness/complainant Sh. Vijender Pal went to the spot ie., J 130, Sector3, DSIIDC Bawana where he prepared the site plan at the instance of complainant as Ex.PW7/C. That thereafter, he recorded the statement of another eyewitness Anand and supplementary statement of complainant Vijender. That thereafter, he sealed the submersible pump with the seal of DP and took the photographs of the said sealed pump through his mobile phone and photographs of the said sealed pump were already Ex.P1 (colly). That both the witnesses deposed in their statement about the negligence of the owner/accused namely Nand Pal Singh. He correctly identified the accused in the court. He FIR No. 160/10 State Vs. Nand Pal Singh 7 of 14 further deposed that on the next day, he along with father of deceased and other relatives went to the BJRM mortuary where he prepared the inquest paper Ex.PW7/D and also recorded the identification statement of Vijender Pal Ex.PW1/B and statement of Vinod Ex.PW7/E. That after postmortem dead body was handed over to the father of deceased and other relatives vide handing over memo Ex.PW7/F. That on 02.08.2010, he along with Ct. Baljeet went to the factory where complainant was residing and the complainant told him that the accused was present in his factor and they went to the abovesaid factory of the accused. There they met the accused and at the instance of the complainant, accused was arrested and personally searched vide memos Ex. PW1/C and Ex.PW1/D. That on producing surety, accused was released on bail. That thereafter, he moved the request letter to the labour department for the electrical inspection of the abovesaid submersible pump. That on 23.02.2011, he along with electrical inspector Yogesh Kumar went to the abovesaid factory of the accused where electrical inspector inspected the abovesaid pump in his presence as well as the presence of the complainant. That after electrical inspection of the abovesaid pump the expert handed over him one piece of cable and same was seized by him vide seizure memo Ex. PW7/G. That he collected the PM report and placed in file and after that received the electrical inspection report and after completion of investigation, prepared the challan and filed before the court. He FIR No. 160/10 State Vs. Nand Pal Singh 8 of 14 identified the case property i.e. wire as Ex. P1.
11. PW8 is Ct. Mukesh brought the photocopies of medical documents available in the records of first Battalion, Kingsway camp related to Ct. Dalvir, and proved the same as Ex. PW8/A. On the basis of the same the said witness could not be examined by the prosecution as he was not able to recall the facts due to his medical condition.
12. Upon closure of P.E. on 26.10.2018, the statement of accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C was recorded wherein accused has abjured guilt and pleaded innocence. Accused has opted not to lead any Defence Evidence.
13. I have heard the rival submissions and have carefully perused the record.
14. In a criminal trial, the onus remains on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and benefit of doubt, if any, must necessarily go in favour of the accused. 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.
FIR No. 160/10 State Vs. Nand Pal Singh 9 of 14
15. Ld APP states that in view of the testimony of PW1 Vijender Pal and of PW4 Sh. Anand which is supported by the evidence of the Assistant Electrical Inspector, Sh. Yogesh Kumar Verma and his report Ex.PW5/A as well as the postmortem report Ex.PW6/A, it is clear that the victim Rahul got electrocuted by coming into contact with the submersible pump which was installed in the plot of land owned by the accused and which was not properly maintained by him. That the accused as such is guilty of causing death of the victim Rahul by rash and negligent act and thereby is liable to be convicted for the offence punishable u/s 304A IPC.
16. On the other hand Ld Defence counsel stated that the accused had never engaged the victim to repair the submersible pump. That the victim was not a certified electrician and that the plot of land where the submersible pump was installed is lying vacant. It is stated that apparently the victim was trying to remove the said submersible pump without the consent and knowledge of the accused and in the process had suffered the electric shock. That there has been stated no fact by any witness of the prosecution that the accused had either committed any act or has failed to do any act which was necessary and required from him to prevent the incident.
17. The instant FIR was registered on the basis of statement FIR No. 160/10 State Vs. Nand Pal Singh 10 of 14 ex.PW1/A made by Sh. Vijender Pal who stated that he was a plumber and on 14.07.2010 at about 9 AM the owner of premises no.J130 Sector3, DSIIDC came to him for plumbing work and it is then that the witness and his son Rahul accompanied the said owner to premises no.J130 where he stated that the submersible pump is to be lowered. That they lowered the pump once but the owner demanded it to be lowered again. That the complainant and his son refused to do so citing danger but the owner threatened that he would not pay them if they do not lower the pump. That upon this he and his son started lowering the pump and it is then that Rahul got an electric shock. That thereafter he took the son to MV Hospital where he was declared dead. That the incident had taken place because of the owner of premises no.J130 as he compelled them to work despite their objection. In this statement the complainant could not name the owner of the plot stating that he did not know his name.
18. This witness was examined as PW1 in the court and he reiterated the contents of his statement Ex.PW1/A. He identified the accused correctly in the court. He also identified the submersible pump correctly.
19. In addition thereto the prosecution has examined one Sh. Anand (PW4) who stated that he was a plumber and on 14.07.2010 FIR No. 160/10 State Vs. Nand Pal Singh 11 of 14 Vijender Pal called him to work in the factory no.J130 and they alongwith Rahul went there where the accused was present. That Vijender and Rahul also used to work as plumber. That they all three started working and worked till 4.00 PM and it is then that the accused asked them to lower the submersible pump to which they objected stating that it was already below the ground level and cannot be further lowered. That upon insistence of the accused they started lowering the pump and then Rahul suffered the fatal electrical shock. This witness first denied involvement of any person in the death of Rahul but thereafter stated that the accused was responsible as he forced Rahul to lower the pump it was already below the ground level. This witness identified the accused correctly in the court and the submersible pump from its photographs.
20. PW5 Assistant Electrical Inspector Sh. Yogesh Kumar Verma while proving his report of inspection of the pump i.e. Ex.PW5/A has stated that the PVC flat cable of the pump was found sheared and several places in the metallic clamp holding the GI water pipe and the naked conductor of the piece connected with the MCB was in contact with the metallic clamp thereby charging the metallic clamp and the GI water pipe electrically. That the frame of the pump and the metallic clamp were not found earthed.
FIR No. 160/10 State Vs. Nand Pal Singh 12 of 14
21. From the respective testimonies of these witnesses it appears that the accused had engaged Vijender Pal as a plumber for the electric submersible pump. Vijender alongwith his son Rahul and another plumber Anand visited the premises of the accused and they worked there for about 2 hours. That thereafter the victim Rahul suffered the fatal electric shock. From the report Ex.PW5/A the reason of this shock appears to be the shearing of the PVC cable and insufficient earthing of the metallic clamp. From the testimony of Vijender Pal and Anand it is apparent that they alongwith Rahul had worked for about 2 hours on the pump without there being any unfortunate incident during this time. The prosecution has failed to establish as to how the incident took place after two hours while the abovesaid witnesses conveniently worked before that. In such circumstances the contentions of the ld Defence counsel that even if the accused had engaged the victim the incident was not on account of any rashness or negligence of the accused cannot be ruled out. As per the testimony of PW1 and PW4 they were both plumbers and as such they were expected to know the perceptible threats involved in repairing of submersible electric water pumps and were expected to observe necessary care and caution while working on such pumps. It is not totally unexpected for a plumber repairing an electric submersible water pump that there could be a possibility of an electric shock and as such it was required from the person repairing it that he disconnects the electric supply to the pump before repairing it.
FIR No. 160/10 State Vs. Nand Pal Singh 13 of 14 The case of the prosecution is silent as to whether these witnesses PW1 and PW4 had disconnected the electric supply before working on the pump or whether they were having with them safety equipments in the form of gumboots or insulated gloves while they were working on the pump. Furthermore as per these witnesses the incident had taken place due to the insistence of the accused to lower the pump further but the electric inspection report Ex.PW5/A is not stating so. As per the report, it was the shearing of the PVC cable and insufficient earthing which was the cause of the incident. In these circumstances this court finds itself unable to hold the accused guilty of causing death of the victim by rashness or negligence. There is not mentioned any circumstance or event with which the victim was taken aback while working on the electric submersible pump of the accused.
22. In view of the abovesaid the prosecution has failed to establish its case against the accused. In the circumstances the accused Nand Pal Singh is acquitted for the offence punishable u/s 287/304A IPC. Ordered accordingly.
Digitally signed JITENDRA by JITENDRA
PRATAP PRATAP SINGH
Date: 2018.12.07
SINGH 15:14:11 +0530
Announced in open court (JITENDRA PRATAP SINGH)
on 06.12.2018 MM5/North/Rohini Courts/Delhi
FIR No. 160/10 State Vs. Nand Pal Singh 14 of 14