Delhi District Court
State vs Jagmal Singh on 21 March, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SHRI BHUPINDER SINGH:
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: DELHI
State V/s JAGMAL SINGH
FIR No.277/00
PS:SARASWATI VIHAR
U/s 304-A IPC.
JUDGMENT
A) Sr. No. of the Case : 48/2
B) The date of commission : 03/05/2000
of offence.
C) The name of the complainant : HC Baljeet Singh No.166/NW
P.S. Saraswati Vihar.
D) The name & address of accused : Jagmal Singh
S/o Sh. Kehar Singh
E) Offence complained of : U/s 304-A IPC
F) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
G) Final order : Acquitted
H) The date of such order : 21/03/2012
Date of Institution : 19/07/2001
Judgment reserved on : Not reserved.
Judgment announced on : 21/03/2012
State V/s Jagmal Singh FIR No. 277/00 PS: Saraswati Vihar Page No. 1/8
THE BRIEF REASON FOR THE JUDGMENT:-
1. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on 03/05/2000 in between 8:30 am to 9:25 am at WZ-1, Rani Bagh, Shriram Chowk, Mahindra Park, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Saraswati Vihar, the accused had put the Ballis on the wall, which fell down due to the heavy load and fell upon one Abdul Mehlan due to which he expired.
2. After completion of investigation challan was filed by the police U/s 304-A IPC of which cognizance was taken by the Ld. Predecessor of this court.
3. Compliance of Sec.207 was carried out and complete set of documents was supplied to the accused.
4. Vide order dated 22/08/03 notice U/s 251 Cr.P.C was served upon the accused for trial of offences U/s 304-A IPC by the Ld. Predecessor to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter matter was fixed for prosecution evidence.
5. Prosecution has examined 6 witnesses to prove guilt of accused. A brief scrutiny of the examined witnesses is as below.
State V/s Jagmal Singh FIR No. 277/00 PS: Saraswati Vihar Page No. 2/8PW-1 is Gurnam Singh deposed that he do not remember the exact date month and year but it was almost three years back when he was working as Mason, one day at about 9:00 am, five six persons were standing at the bus stop Mahendra park and a vehicle containing bricks was being moved back and in the process said vehicle struck against a wall and a wall was fallen. He further deposed that wall fell on a person as a result of which said person sustained injuries and that person was taken to Jaipur Golden Hospital by a person namely Raj Kumar resident of the area and one other person whose name he do not remember. He further deposed that he do not know the name of that person who was injured in the incident. He further deposed that at about 9:30 am, police came at the spot interrogated him and recorded his statement.
This witness was cross examined by the Ld. APP for the State wherein he deposed that he is illiterate and he denied having made any statements Mark-A and Mark-B. He further denied the suggestion that he has been won over by the accused and that is why he deposed falsely.
This witness was cross examined by Sh. R.N. Sharma Ld. Counsel for the accused wherein he deposed that the timber store situated at WZ-1 Mahindera Park, Rani Bagh is being run by one Jai Singh Yadav. He further deposed that the person who got injured in the incident was alone and accompanied by none.
PW-2 is ASI Baljeet Singh first IO of the present case and has detailed about the steps taken by him during the course of investigation. He proved the rukka as Ex.PW-2/A and got registered the case FIR. He also proved the site plan prepared by SI Manoj at his instance as Ex.PW-2/B. State V/s Jagmal Singh FIR No. 277/00 PS: Saraswati Vihar Page No. 3/8 PW-3 is Abdul Wariq has identified the dead body of his brother Abdul Manan vide memo Ex.PW-3/A and also received the dead body vide memo Ex.PW-3/B. PW-4 is Dr. B.K. Sharma deposed that he conducted the postmortem on the body of Abdul Manan aged about 20 years and proved his report as Ex. PW-4/A. PW-5 HC Lala Ram deposed that he joined the investigation with HC Baljeet Singh and on receipt of DD No. 4 they reached at spot i.e. Sri Ram Chowk WZ-1, Mahendra Park where they noticed that the wall of the building was collapsed and wooden planks were lying scattered and one person had come under the collapsed wall and planks. He further deposed the injured/deceased was taken to Ambedkar Hospital. He further deposed that on receipt of rukka from HC Baljeet Singh he got registered the case FIR. He also identified the 6 photographs of the spot which are mark-A. This witness was cross examined by Sh. Ashok Kaushik Ld. Counsel for the accused where he deposed that he do not know the number of departure entry was made when they proceeded for the spot from the PP. He further deposed that he went to the spot with HC Baljeet but he do not remember as to who else was accompanying him at the said time. He further deposed that they have received information to the effect that some wall had fallen under which a person had got buried. He further deposed that the alleged injured person had already been taken to the hospital before he reached to the spot. Further he deposed that he do not remember if any fatta ballies etc were seized in his presence. He further denied the suggestion that no fatta bally etc. were present at the spot.
State V/s Jagmal Singh FIR No. 277/00 PS: Saraswati Vihar Page No. 4/8Further he deposed that he do not remember if the IO joined any public person as witness. He further deposed that he reached with the rukka to the Police Chowki for the registration of FIR at 8:30am - 9:00am he again deposed that he had reached with the rukka to the PS at about 11:00am. Further he deposed that he do not know as to up to what time he had remained at the spot and in the hospital.
PW-6 WHC Savitri proved the copy of FIR as Ex. PW-6/A and endorsement on rukka as Ex. PW-6/B.
6. P.E. stood closed on 29.02.2012 whereupon Statement of Accused U/s. 281 Cr.P.C was recorded wherein accused denied all the allegations & pleaded innocence, and submitted that he does not want to lead D.E.
7. It is submitted by Ld. Defence Counsel that the accused has been falsely implicated in this case and that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case.
8. Per contra Ld. APP for the State states that prosecution has been able to prove its case without any doubt.
9. I have heard the arguments advanced by Ld. APP for the State as well as Ld. Counsel for the accused and have gone through the evidence and the material available on record .
State V/s Jagmal Singh FIR No. 277/00 PS: Saraswati Vihar Page No. 5/810. To bring home the conviction of the accused U/s 304 A IPC the prosecution has to prove that the act of accused was either rash or negligent. Having heard the arguments advanced by Ld. APP for the State as well as Ld. Counsel for the accused and after gone through the evidence and the material available on record, this court is of the considered view that the prosecution has completely failed to prove their case against the accused.
11. In my opinion the charges against the accused could not be substantiated. To prove the said charges the prosecution has examined only one eye witness i.e. PW-1 Gurnam Singh who has ventured into all together different story from that of the prosecution. The case of the prosecution was that the wall fell down due to the putting of ballis on the wall because of which the wall could not take the heavy load and fell upon the deceased Abdul Mehlan. Whereas PW-1 has deposed that on the fateful day a vehicle containing bricks was moving back and in the said process the vehicle struck against the wall due to which it well. Despite being cross examined by Ld. APP, the story of the prosecution could not be corroborated. The witness denied having made any statement mark A and mark B.
12. The casein hand rest upon the direct/ocular evidence and investigations have not been done in a scientific manner so as to enable the court to rely upon circumstantial evidence to deduce if the accused State V/s Jagmal Singh FIR No. 277/00 PS: Saraswati Vihar Page No. 6/8 was rash or negligent.
13. The photographs mark A shows that the ballis and other wooden planks were stored inside the wall and no weight of the same can be deemed to be over the wall due to which the same could have been collapsed. No investigation has been done as to check the strength of the wall, whether it was made of cement or mortar or with mud etc. cement samples should have been taken and sent for FSL to check the amount of cement used to make the wall which has not been done. The ownership of the said plot has also not been proved by the prosecution. The identity of the accused as well as his negligent act remains unproved.
14. The doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur i.e. "things speaks of itself" does not find its application in the criminal law. The things have to be explained beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution to substantiate the guilt of the accused.
The negligence or rashness of the accused has to be explained and it cannot be left for the court to deduce from the state of things.
15. Prosecution is under legal obligation to prove each and every ingredient of the offence alleged against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt. Suspicion how so ever strong it may be, cannot replace the standard of proof required to establish the guilt of the accused. In the present case, the prosecution has failed to discharge its onus. The evidence available on record is not sufficient enough to substantiate the State V/s Jagmal Singh FIR No. 277/00 PS: Saraswati Vihar Page No. 7/8 guilt of the accused. Accordingly the accused deserves acquittal for offence charge U/s. 304-A IPC.
16. It is ordered accordingly.
(Bhupinder Singh) Metropolitan Magistrate Rohini Courts : Delhi Announced in the open court on March 21, 2012.
State V/s Jagmal Singh FIR No. 277/00 PS: Saraswati Vihar Page No. 8/8