Delhi District Court
State vs Shiv Vriksh on 16 July, 2014
1
IN THE COURT OF MR. PRITAM SINGH, ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE/ SOUTH EAST DISTRICT/ SAKET
COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI.
Unique Identification no. 02403R0210362002
Case no. RBT143/I dated 28.01.2014
FIR No. 522/01
PSBadarpur
State Vs Shiv Vriksh
JUDGEMENT
S. No. of Case : RBT143/I dated 28.01.2014
Date of Commission : 09.08.2003
of offence
Name of Complainant : Pinno S/o Late Sh.Parbhati Lal,
R/o House No.F388, Harsh Vihar,
Tanki Road, Badarpur,
New Delhi.
Name and address : Shiv Vriksh S/o Late Shn.Shiv Pujan,
of accused R/o House No.D32, Sourabh Vihar,
Badarpur, New Delhi.
Offence Complained : U/s. 336/304A IPC
Plea of accused : Not guilty
Arguments heard : 09.07.2014
Date of judgment : 16.07.2014
Final order : Acquitted
1. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on 09.10.2001 at about 8.00 a.m., the accused had surrounded his farm near Harsh Vihar, Nala (drain), New Delhi by iron fencing, which was given to the accused on contract by Ram FIR No. 522/01, P.S. Badarpur State Vs Shiv Vriksh 1 of 7 2 Parkash. Accused negligently released electric current in the said iron fencing. At that time, a boy namely Suraj Pal, who was playing near the said farm, came in contact with the said iron fencing and got the electric shock, which caused his death, not amounting to culpable homicide.
2. Chargesheet was filed in the court and the accused was supplied complete set of documents. Thereafter, vide order dated 06.08.2003, charge for the offence punishable u/s 336/304A IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to prove charge against the accused, the prosecution has examined six witnesses. The complainant namely Pinno was examined as PW1, Ram Prakash S/o Late Sh.Hari Chand, who gave the farm in question on contract to the accused, was examined as PW2, Dr. Arvind Kumar, AIIMS Hospital, New Delhi was examined as PW3 to prove the postmortem report conducted by Dr. Ravi Rautji, HC Vijay Singh, who accompanied the IO to the spot, was examined as PW4, Ct. Virender, in whose presence the accused was arrested and gave disclosure statement, was examined as PW5 and SI Raj Kumar, who is the IO, was examined as PW6. During prosecution evidence, the following documents were exhibited:
(i) Complainant Ex.PW1/A
(ii) Identification statement of dead body Ex.PW1/B
(iii) Arrest memo of accused Ex.PW2/A
(iv) Personal search memo of accused Ex.PW2/B
(v) Pointing out memo Ex.PW2/C
(vi) Disclosure statement of accused Ex.PW2/D FIR No. 522/01, P.S. Badarpur State Vs Shiv Vriksh 2 of 7 3
(vii) MLC report Ex.PW3/A
(viii) Rukka Ex.PW6/A
(ix) Site Plan Ex.PW6/B
(x) Case property i.e. Iron wire Ex.P1
(xi) Photographs Ex.A1 to A5
4. The statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 28.01.2014 wherein he denied the deposition of witnesses against him being false & interested witnesses. Accused examined Sh.Jamadar Ojha in his defence evidence as DW1.
5. Final arguments heard. Record perused and considered carefully. Sections 279 and 304A provide as under: Section 336 IPC provides :
Act endangering life or personal safety of others - Whoever dos any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to two hundred and fifty rupees, or with both.
Section 304A IPC provides :
Cause death by negligence - 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.
6. PW1 deposed that on 9.10.2001, his son Suraj Pal, aged about 11 years, went out to play and at 8.00 a.m., he was playing near the field of Hari Chand which was near to Harsh Vihar Nala (drain). PW1 further deposed that the farm was fenced with iron wire and accused was present there. There was supply of electricity in the said iron wire. His son touched the iron wire and due to which FIR No. 522/01, P.S. Badarpur State Vs Shiv Vriksh 3 of 7 4 got electric shock and died. He reached the spot after the incident and took his son to AIIMS Hospital. Accused was looking after the iron wire at the time of the incident and three cows were also got electric shock about one week prior to that. PW1 further deposed that he told accused not to release electric current in the iron wire, but the accused secretly released the electricity current in the iron wire. PW1 further deposed that his statement Ex.PW1/A was recorded by the police in the hospital, which bore his signature at point 'A'. Police prepared the site plan at his instance and he received dead body of his son after postmortem vide Ex.PW1/B. PW1 had identified the wire and place where the incident took place in the photographs A1 to A5. PW1 deposed in his crossexamination that crowd gathered on the spot and he saw that his son died on the spot. The police had removed the iron wire. PW1 denied the suggestion that people from Harsh Vihar colony were illegally taking the electricity by putting wires in the electric pole and due to those wires, the incident took place. PW1 further deposed that at the time of the incident, he was working as labourer at Okhla estate and he received the information by telephone. He reached the spot after 20 to 25 minutes of the incident by threewheeler. PW1 further deposed that he did not know that the wire fencing was done to prevent the pigs from entering the field. PW1 further deposed that he did not remember where police recorded his statement and he did not tell the police that three cows were died due to electric shock.
7. PW6/IO deposed that on 09.10.2001 on receiving DD No.7A, he went to the spot i.e. near fields, Harsh Vihar Nala alongwith HC Vijay Kumar. They found that the field which was an agriculture field were fenced by thin naked FIR No. 522/01, P.S. Badarpur State Vs Shiv Vriksh 4 of 7 5 iron wire. On inquiry, they came to know that one child was electrocuted in the field and already removed to the hospital. No eye witness was found at the spot. PW6 further deposed that he came to know from the crowd that the said field was owned by Sh.Hari Singh and his sons and they gave the said field on Theka to accused Shiv Vriksh. PW6 further deposed that he went to AIIMS Hospital alongwith HC Vijay Kumar, but did not find the guardian of the deceased child in the hospital. He met father of the deceased child at his house and recorded his statement Ex.PW1/A , which bore his signature at point 'X'. He prepared rukka and handed over the same to Ct. Vijay for registration of the FIR. He prepared the site plan Ex.PW6/B and recorded the statement of public witnesses Ram Asre and Sinde. He got photograph of the spot and sealed naked wire with the seal of 'RK'. PW6 further deposed that it was found at the spot that the said wire was directly connected through hook. The accused was not found at his residence. The accused was produced on 13.10.2001 by Ram Parkash. He had got conducted postmortem of the deceased on 10.10.2001. PW1 identified the case property i.e. iron wire as Ex.P1. PW1 deposed in his crossexamination that crowd was gathered at the spot. The electric pole from which the wire was connected was in the farm only. When he reached the spot, the wire was already removed from the pole by the public. Thereafter for testing, they had again connected the wire to the pole and found that the wire got charged with electricity. PW6 further deposed that he did not know whether the Jhuggi in Harsh Vihar were getting the electricity from the same pole. The said pole was having one hook only. He could not admit or deny the suggestion that electricity to the Jhuggies at Harsh Vihar FIR No. 522/01, P.S. Badarpur State Vs Shiv Vriksh 5 of 7 6 was passed through said pole. The distance between pole and Hash Vihar colony was about 200 yards.
8. PW1 deposed that at the time of the incident, he was working as a labourer at Okhla Estate and he had received the information by telephone. He reached the spot after 2025 minutes of the incident by a threewheeler. From this deposition of PW1, it is established that at the time of the incident, he was not present on the spot. Therefore, the deposition of PW1 that the field was fenced with iron wire and accused was present there and there was supply of electricity in said iron wire and his son touched the iron wire cannot be relied upon. From the deposition of PW1, it is clear that he had not seen the accused releasing electricity current in the fencing of his field. It is important to mention here that PW1 in his statement Ex.PW1/A stated that on hearing the noise, he ran and picked up his son and took him to the hospital. As PW1 was not present near the spot at the time of the incident, therefore, this part of his statement Ex.PW1/A "on hearing the noise, he ran and picked up his son and took him to the hospital" is selfcontradictory. PW1 further deposed that three cows were also got electric shock about one week prior to the incident. However, PW1 has not stated this fact in his statement Ex.PW1/A. Thus, it is established that PW1 has made improvement when he deposed in the court. It makes his testimony doubtful.
9. PW6 deposed that the electric pole from which the wire was connected was in the farm in question. When he reached the spot, the wire was already removed from the pole by the public. PW6 further deposed that he did not know whether the jhuggies in Harsh Vihar were getting the electricity from the FIR No. 522/01, P.S. Badarpur State Vs Shiv Vriksh 6 of 7 7 same pole and he could not admit or deny the suggestion that electricity to the jhuggies at Harsh Vihar passed through the said pole. From the deposition of PW6, it is further established that he had not seen the fencing around the filed of the accused connected to the pole as the wire was already removed from the pole by the public. PW6 even could not admit or deny the suggestion that electricity to the jhuggies at Harsh Vihar was passed through the said pole. From this, it is established that the people who were living in Jhuggies at Harsh Vihar were getting electricity from the said pole and a broken electric wire from said pole fell down and due to which deceased Suraj Pal electrocuted. The prosecution has failed to lead the evidence of any witness who had seen that the accused had released the electric current in the fencing surrounding his field.
10. In view of the above discussions, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubts for offence u/s 336/304A IPC and it is well settled law that benefit of doubt always goes in favour of the accused.
11. Accordingly, accused Shiv Vriksh is acquitted from the charge of offence u/s 336/304A IPC.
Announced in Open Court (PRITAM SINGH )
Dated: 16.07.2014 Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
South East District/Saket Court Complex,
New Delhi/16.07.2014
FIR No. 522/01, P.S. Badarpur State Vs Shiv Vriksh 7 of 7