Delhi District Court
State vs . Sarabjot Singh on 31 January, 2012
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. SUNENA SHARMA, MM-08
WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURT
FIR No.334/2001
PS: Kirti Nagar
U/S: 304-A IPC
State Vs. Sarabjot Singh
Sr. no. of the case : 790/2001
Date of commission of offence : 2.6.2001
Date of institution of the case :6.2.2002
Name of the complainant :SI Randhir Singh
Name of accused and address :Sarabjot Singh, S/o Sardar
Niranjan Singh, R/o H.No. G-42,
Sant Nagar, Extension, Tilak
Nagar, Delhi.
Offence complained of or proved :U/S 304-A IPC
Plea of the accused :Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Acquitted
Reserved for judgement : 31.1.2012
Date of judgment : 31.1.2012
J U D G M E N T:
1. In this case accused faced trial on the allegations that on 2.6.2001 at A-2/10,WHS Kirti Nagar while working as Assistant Manager of Citi Cable Company having its office at B-6/2, Double Storey, Ramesh Nagar, he caused death not amounting to culpable homicide of deceased Triveni by his rash and negligent act. It is alleged that deceased Triveni was working with Citi Cable and accused asked him to bring the amplifier box from a telephone poll without providing him any training/safety equipments due to which deceased got electrocuted and died and in this way accused has FIR No. 334/2001 State Vs Sarabjot Singh 2 committed an offence punishable U/s 304-A IPC. The case was registered on DD No. 17-A vide which information regarding electrocution of a person was received at PS Kirti Nagar. Upon receipt of said DD which is available on record as Ex. PW-9/A, IO prepared rukka Ex. PW-9/B and got the FIR Ex. PW-9/A registered.
2. As per rukka, the prosecution story is that after the receipt of aforementioned DD IO/SI Narender Singh, visited the spotA-2/10, WHS, Kirti Nagar. Upon enquiry, he found that one person had climbed over the telephone pole for inspecting the cable box, and while working on said cable box he got an electric shock and fell down and was taken to DDU Hospital in an unconscious state where he was brought declared brought dead vide MLC No.3289. As per rukka, no eye witness was found at the place of incident and the FIR U/s 304-A IPC was registered. During the course of investigation, it was revealed that the deceased was working with Citi Cable Company where accused Sarabjot was working as Assistant Manager having its office at B-6/2, Double Storey, Ramesh Nagar. It is alleged that the accused had employed deceased for cable operation work without giving him proper training and on the date of incident, accused had sent the deceased to work on the amplifier installed on telephone pole without providing him the gloves for avoiding any electrocution.
3. After completion of investigation, IO filed the charge sheet before this court on 6.2.2002 upon which cognizance was taken. Vide order dated 4.12.2002, charge for the offence punishable U/s 304-A IPC was framed FIR No. 334/2001 State Vs Sarabjot Singh 3 against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove its case, prosecution cited 15 witnesses out of whom 9 witnesses namely Raman Bhalla, Praveen Kumar, Dr. L.K. Barna, Ambika Prasad Verma, HC Rameshwar Dayal, Retd. AE S.K. Dua, Suresh Goenka, Ct. Narender and Retd. SI Randhir Singh were examined as PW-1 to PW-9 respectively. After completion of prosecution evidence SA was recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C. wherein the entire incriminating evidence was put to the accused and the same was denied by him as false and incorrect and he further pleaded his innocence and stated that he was falsely implicated in the present case. After SA, one witness namely Rinkesh Chopra was examined as DW1.
5. I have heard Ld. APP, the defence counsel and also perused the entire record.
6. It is a basic principle of criminal jurisprudence that for bringing home the guilt of accused, prosecution has to prove its case beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts. For proving the case beyond reasonable doubt, the prosecution has to prove two things. Firstly, that the witnesses examined in the case are reliable and trustworthy and secondly, that the material on record is sufficient to prove the essential ingredients of alleged offence. Let us now advert to prosecution evidence in order to ascertain as to whether prosecution has been able to prove its case on aforementioned standards. But before undertaking said exercise, let us have a glance on relevant provision of law. The accused has been charged with the offence punishable FIR No. 334/2001 State Vs Sarabjot Singh 4 U/s 304-A IPC which reads as under:-
Section 304-A "Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both".
Criminal negligence is a gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise that reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard against injury either to the public generally or to an individual in particular. It is also necessary that death should have been the direct result of the negligent act. That act must be the proximate cause, without any other supervening act or intervention.
7. Let us now advert to the evidence adduced by the prosecution. Out of the nine witnesses PW-1 Raman Bhalla, PW-5 HC Rameshwar Dayal, PW-7 Suresh Goenka and PW-3 Dr. L.K. Barna are the formal witnesses. Except PW-7 Suresh Goenka none of the other formal witnesses were cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel.
8. PW-1, Raman Bhalla is the cable operator who was working with Lucky Cables on the relevant date. As per his version, he did not remember the date, month or year of the alleged incident, but on that day he was present in the office and had received an information on telephone that one person who was working on a pole had fallen down due to electrocution. On FIR No. 334/2001 State Vs Sarabjot Singh 5 further enquiry, he came to know that the said person was employed with Citi Cable, Ramesh Nagar and accordingly, he informed the office of Citi Cable.
9. PW-3 Dr. L.K. Barna, proved on record the postmortem report of the deceased as Ex. PW-3/A and deposed that on 4.6.2001 at about 11.00am, he had conducted post mortem on the dead body of deceased Triveni, who had died due to electrocution.
10. PW-5 HC Rameshwar Dayal is the duty officer and he simply proved on record the FIR Ex. PW-5/A by identifying his signatures at points A and B. As per PW-5, the FIR No. 334/2001 Ex. PW-5/B signed by him at points A and B was sent by IO SI Randhir Singh through Ct. Narender on 2.6.2001 at 9.40am.
11. As per the testimony of PW-7, Suresh Goenka, on 20.5.2000 he was working as Managing Director of Delhi Prime Communication Network Pvt. Ltd. and the work of said company was to provide cable connections to their customers. PW-7 further deposed that on 20.5.2000, Mr. Sarabjot Singh Grover was appointed as Assistant Manager in their organization vide appointment letter dated Ex. PW-7/A.
12. As per cross examination of PW-7, the Delhi Prime Communication Network Pvt. Ltd. was a registered company and he used to issue appointment letters to the appointees and he had never issued any appointment letter in the name of deceased. He further deposed that no specific area was assigned to their employees.
FIR No. 334/2001 State Vs Sarabjot Singh 6
13. PW-2, Praveen Kumar, PW-4, Ambika Prasad Verma and PW-6 Retd. AE S.K. Dua are the material witnesses of the prosecution case.
14. PW-2 in his examination in chief deposed that prior to the year 2002, he had been working with Citi Cable Company, Ramesh Nagar. Further that, on 1.6.2001, one person namely Triveni who was the cousin brother of Ambika Prasad was working with said cable company at their Ramesh Nagar Office as a Line man/Helper. Further that on that day, he (PW-2) was present in the control room in the cable company and received an information that Triveni had received some injuries due to current. Thereafter, he alongwith Ambika Parsad went to place of occurrence where the deceased had gone to remove the box from the telephone pole. Further that, at the place of occurrence, he found one PCR van and he alongwith Ambika removed the deceased to hospital through PCR van. In the hospital, the deceased was declared brought dead. PW-2 further deposed that he did not know whether the gloves had been given to the deceased or not or that on whose directions Triveni had gone to remove the box from the pole. He deposed further that at the time of incident accused Sarabjot Singh was working as an Assistant Manager in City Cable. PW-2 correctly identified the accused in the court on that day. He further deposed that he could not say as to whether any training was given to deceased.
15. At that stage PW-2 was declared hostile and Ld. APP sought permission to cross examine him. In the cross examination by Ld. APP, PW-2 admitted the suggestion that accused Sarabjot Singh had directed the FIR No. 334/2001 State Vs Sarabjot Singh 7 deceased to come on work on 1.6.2001. He deposed further that he could not say as to whether the deceased had any knowledge of work of lineman. He admitted the suggestion that when the deceased had left for the place of occurrence, deceased was not wearing any gloves in his hands. He deposed further that he did not know whether the manager had directed the deceased to to bring the amplifier box from A-2/10 Building, Laxmi Glass House, Near Marble Market. He deposed further that he could not say whether any gloves were given to the deceased. He denied the suggestion that he was won over by the accused and therefore, he was deposing falsely.
16. PW-4, Ambika Prasad Verma is the cousin brother of the deceased. As per his examination in chief, he was working in Citi Cable Company, B-6/2 Double Storey, Ramesh Nagar, Delhi with the deceased. At the time of incident i.e. on 1.6.2001, accused Sarabjot Singh was working as Assistant Manager of the company whereas, Suresh Goenka was the Manager of said company. Further as per PW-4, deceased Triveni had joined the office of Citi Cable Company 15 days prior to his death and he was not given any training about the work of company. He deposed further that deceased himself went to Mansarover Garden, near Lakkad Mandi and climbed over the telephone pole, where the amplifier box was installed by Citi Cable Company for removing the same. He further deposed that the information regarding injuries of deceased Triveni was received by him at their office on telephone from Lucky Cable and thereafter, he alongwith one of his FIR No. 334/2001 State Vs Sarabjot Singh 8 colleague namely Praveen went to the place of incident and removed Triveni to DDU Hospital where he (deceased) was declared brought dead. PW-4 further deposed that his brother was employed in the company as helper and he already had the knowledge of removal of amplifier box. He deposed further that the deceased himself went to the spot for removing the box. As the witness was resiling from his previous statement, he was cross examined by Ld. AP with the permission of the court. In his cross examination by Ld. APP, Pw-4 deposed that the alleged incident had occurred on 2.6.2001. He further admitted the suggestion that the deceased had not been provided with any gloves or safety equipments by the accused Sarabjot Singh. Witness voluntarily deposed that said type of equipments were kept in the office and the employees could take the same for their use. He further deposed that the accused had disclosed to the deceased about the use of the safety equipments. He further deposed that he could not say as to whether the accused Sarabjot Singh had asked the deceased to remove the amplifier box which was installed on the telephone pole near A-2/10 Building, Laxmi Glass House near marble market. He admitted the suggestion that deceased Triveni had no experience about this work. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely. PW-4 was not cross examined by the Ld. Defence counsel.
17. PW-6, Retired Assistant Engineer, S.K. Dua, in his examination in chief deposed that on 18.7.2001, he was posted as Assistant Engineer in Delhi Vidhyut Board at Kirti Nagar Office. Further as per his version on FIR No. 334/2001 State Vs Sarabjot Singh 9 2.6.2001, one complaint was received at their office and consequently, a line staff visited the spot and found that there was no leakage in the telephone pole , but they found illegal wires of JJ Clusters supporting the telephone line and the same were immediately removed for the sake of safety. He further deposed that one person had died but he could not tell the cause of death of said person. PW-6 further testified that a report regarding the incident of 2.6.2001 was prepared by Ashok Sharma presently working in NDPL Office at Inderpuri, District Moti Nagar and the same is lying on record as Ex. PW-6/A bearing his signatures at point A and signature of said inspector at point B. In his cross examination, PW-6 further deposed that the pole where the deceased had climbed was not belonging to their department hence, there was no question of the liability of their department. He further deposed that he had not visited the spot at the time of death of deceased as complaint was received at their officer sometime later.
18. PW-9, IO/Retired SI Randhir Singh had investigated the matter. As per his version, on 2.6.2001, he was posted at PS Kirti Nagar and after receipt of DD No. 17A Ex. PW-9/A, he alongwith Ct. Narender Singh reached at A-2/10, WHS Kirti Nagar where he came to know that a person had got an electric shock had already been removed to DDU Hospital through PCR. Thereafter, he (PW-9) left the spot and went to DDU Hospital whereas Ct. Narender remained present at the spot. In the hospital, Pw-6 obtained MLC of the injured wherein the deceased was declared as brought dead. On the FIR No. 334/2001 State Vs Sarabjot Singh 10 basis of MLC and DD No. 17-A, IO prepared the rukka Ex. PW-9/B bearing his signature at point A. After registration of FIR, IO prepared site plan Ex. PW-9/C bearing his signature at point A. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of Ambika Prasad, Raman Bhalla and Praveen Dharman and photographs of spot were also taken. The ladder used for climbing the pole was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW-9/D bearing his signatures at point A. The photographs of spot available on record are Ex. PW-9/E. IO further deposed that after postmortem, dead body of the deceased was handed over to his (deceased) relatives vide handing over memo Ex. PW-9/F bearing his (PW-9) signatures at point A. Thereafter, notice U/s 160 Cr.P.C. was given to the Director of the Cable Company namely Suresh who informed that accused Sarabjot Singh was the Assistant Manager at that time. Thereafter, on the basis of said information given by the witnesses, the accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW-4/A and his personal search was conducted vide personal search memo Ex. PW-4/B. IO also recorded the disclosure statement of accused as and the same is Ex. PW-4/C.
19. In his cross examination, IO deposed that he had not issued any notice for seeking any information regarding the employment and nature of duty of the deceased. As per IO, Director of the company had not handed over any documentary proof for showing the employment of the deceased with their cable company. PW-9 deposed further that he had not annexed any document on record in order to show that the deceased at the relevant FIR No. 334/2001 State Vs Sarabjot Singh 11 time had been working with the company. He denied the suggestion that he had registered a false case against the accused. IO further denied the suggestion that the accused and the deceased were working in different departments and the accused had no occasion to depute the deceased for repair work of cable.
20. In defence, accused also examined one witness namely Rinkesh Chopra as DW-1. DW-1 in his examination in chief deposed that accused Sarabjot Singh was his boss in the company. Further as per version of DW-1, he (DW-1) was doing the job of collection from the cable operators and accused Sarabjot Singh was the Assistant Manager in Citi Cable and he (accused) was not involved in the company in technical department. He deposed further that the technical department of the company was separate from the finance department. He further submitted that he did not know the name of the official who was deputed to assign the work to the labour person in technical department.
21. In his cross examination by Ld. APP, DW1 deposed that he had not brought any identity card for showing that he was working in said company in collection department. He further deposed that he could not produce any document of the company to show that the business and technical department in the company were working separately. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely at the instance of accused to save him. He admitted the suggestion that he was a summoned witness and had come to the court at the instance of accused.
FIR No. 334/2001 State Vs Sarabjot Singh
12
22. As per the version of PW-2 and 4, the deceased Triveni was
working in Citi Cable Company as helper/lineman at the relevant time. As per prosecution story, the deceased had climbed on a telephone pole for removing the amplifier box of Citi Cable which was installed there and got an electric shock and fell down from the pole. After the said incident, the deceased was removed to DDU Hospital, where he was declared brought dead.
23. In order to prove the charges for the offence U/s 304-A IPC, the prosecution has to prove that the rash and negligent act of the accused was the proximate cause of death of deceased. The prosecution has to further prove that the negligence and rashness on the part of the accused was of such a degree so as to endanger the human life and safety. Rashness convey idea of doing reckless act without considering any of its consequences whereas, negligence connotes want of proper care. Reliance placed on Abdul Subhash vs State 133 (2006) DLT 562.
24. In the present case, it is an admitted position on record that the deceased had died due to electrocution from the electric wires which were passing through near the telephone pole on which the deceased had climbed. The prosecution witness PW-6 Retired AE S.K. Dua from NDPL has deposed in this regard that upon the receipt of complaint on 2.6.2001, line staff of NDPL Department went to the spot and found that there was no leakage in the telephone pole and some illegal wires belonging to JJ Cluster were found supported on the telephone line. In this regard, a report from FIR No. 334/2001 State Vs Sarabjot Singh 13 the NDPL Office was also filed alongwith charge sheet and the same was proved by PW-6 as Ex. PW-6/A. PW-6 deposed that the said report was prepared by Inspector Ashok, who had signed the same at point B. PW-6 further identified the signatures of inspector Ashok as well as his own signature on the report. Hence, the deposition of PW-6 and said report Ex. Pw6/A has made it categorically clear that the pole on which the deceased had climbed for removing the amplifier box was a telephone pole and it could never be expected that the same would have electricity current of such a high voltage so as to endanger the human life and safety.
25. During the course of arguments, Ld. Defence counsel submitted that the cable wires used by cable operators in net working of cable connections do not carry electricity current of more than 5 volts and such low intensity current can never cause death of any person. I find merit in the said contention as the cable wires and telephone wires usually carry current of a very negligible intensity and in no eventuality, the same can lead to a death of a person.
26. Ld. APP has argued that the accused was negligent in not providing proper training, safety equipment to the workman who was working under him and his said act of not equipping the deceased who was working a a line man with proper safety measures amounts to rash and negligent act within the meaning of section 304-A IPC and would certainly make him criminally liable for the death of the deceased.
27. In this regard, it is important to mention that prosecution has failed FIR No. 334/2001 State Vs Sarabjot Singh 14 to place any written manual or guidelines to be followed by the cable operators so as to ensure safety of their technical staff working in such like companies or in the company where the accused was working as an Assistant Manager. In view of the fact that Citi Cable where the deceased was employed, was engaged in the business of providing cable connections to their customers and considering the nature of job of a line man /helper who used to cater the needs of their customers and in providing them cable connections and attending their complaints regarding cable connections, it cannot be believed by any stretch of imagination that a line man could die due to electrocution from the electric current running in said cables. Even in the case in hand, the deceased had not died due to the electric current either in the telephone pole or in the amplifier, rather he had died due to the electric shock which the accused suffered due to touching of illegal high tension wires hanging near the telephone pole. As per PW-6, the said wires were unauthorised electric wires going towards JJ Cluster.
28. Furthermore, it has nowhere come on record that deceased Triveni had went to the place of occurrence for removing the amplifier box on the directions of accused. Though, PW-2 in his his cross examination by Ld. APP admitted that Assistant Manager had directed the deceased to come on work on 1.6.2001, but it nowhere shows that the accused had directed the deceased to remove the amplifier box from A-2/10 Building, Laxmi Glass House near marble market.
FIR No. 334/2001 State Vs Sarabjot Singh 15
29. Prosecution has also failed to place any material on record in order to show that the deceased had gone to the place of occurrence for removing the amplifier box from the telephone pole pursuant to any complaint of any customer received at the office of Citi Cable Company. Another witness PW-4, Ambika Prasad Verma is also one of the employee of Citi Cable Company and he is the cousin brother of the deceased. In his testimony, PW-4 deposed that his brother Triveni had joined the Citi Cable company just 15 days prior to date of occurrence. He further deposed that he (the deceased) was not given any training about the work of the company. PW-4 deposed further that deceased himself had went to A-2/10 Building, Laxmi Glass House near marble market and climbed over the telephone pole for removing the amplifier box installed there by Citi Cable Company. Even in his cross examination by Ld. APP, PW-4 deposed that he did not know whether accused Sarabjot had asked deceased Triveni to remove the amplifier box which was installed on the telephone pole near A-2/10 Building, Laxmi Glass House near marble market.
30. Ld. APP has raised one more contention that accused had also not been imparted any technical training to the technical staff and same also amounts to rashness and negligence on the part of accused. However, I do not find any merit in said contention for the reason that the accused had died due to electrocution from the high tension wires which were running/hanging near the telephone pole where the deceased had climbed.
It has already been noted above that there was no leakage of electric
FIR No. 334/2001 State Vs Sarabjot Singh
16
current either in the telephone pole or in the amplifier. It appears that while removing the amplifier, accused touched the high tension wires and got electrocuted and died. Had the death of the deceased been caused due to electric current in the amplifier box or in the telephone pole where the cable operators use to install their amplifier boxes, then only the question of lack of imparting training to technical staff or providing them safety equipments would have arisen. But, as the accused had died due to electric current of high tension wires hanging unauthorisedly near telephone pole, the question of negligence or rashness on the part of the accused does not arise. For attracting the provision of section 304-A IPC, it is necessary that death should have been the direct result of negligence on the part of accused and the negligent act must be the proximate cause of death.
31. In view of the aforementioned discussion, I am of the view that prosecution has failed to prove the complicity of accused in the alleged offence. Accused is accordingly acquitted in case FIR No. 334/2001, PS Kirti Nagar. Let the file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open (Sunena Sharma)
court on 31.01.2012 MM-08/West/Delhi
31.01.2012
FIR No. 334/2001 State Vs Sarabjot Singh