Delhi District Court
Fir No. 512/11 State vs . Dharambir 1/ 15 on 31 October, 2022
IN THE COURT OF MS. SANYA DALAL ,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-01
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI.
TITLE : State v. Dharambir
FIR NO. : 512/11
P.S. : Sultanpuri
R-NO. : 535890/16
Date of commission of offence : 06.11.2011
Name of Informant/complainant : SI Dayanand Yadav
No. D-4107, PS Sultanpuri.
Name of accused : Dharambir Goyal
S/o Mithan Lal Goyal
R/o H. No. 81, East Friends
Enclave, Sultanpuri, Delhi.
Offence/s complained of : u/s. 287/304-A IPC
Charges framed under section/s : u/s. 287/304-A IPC
Plea of the Accused : Not Guilty
Date of hearing Final Arguments: : 27.10.2022
Date of reserving judgment : 27.10.2022
Date of pronouncement : 31.10.2022
Final Order : Acquittal
For the Prosecution : Ld. APP Sh. Pankaj Yadav
For the Defence : Sh. Gajraj Singh.
FIR No. 512/11 State Vs. Dharambir 1/ 15
JUDGEMENT
1. The accused has faced trial for offences u/s 287/304-A IPC.
2. Stated succinctly, the facts germane for the prosecution of the case are that on 06.11.2011 at about 8.30 AM, at A Block, Hari Enclave, Sultanpuri, Delhi accused knowingly or negligently omitted to take such order with the pipe making machine whose electronic wire was not functioning properly, sufficient to guard against any probable danger to human life from such machinery and caused death of Ram Kumar S/o Hira Lal by doing such an act i.e. omitting to take proper order with the pipe making machine from which the deceased got electric shock and died.
3. In pursuance of statement given by the informant, Sultanpuri P.S. registered in relation to the above incident as FIR no. 512/11 and, after investigation, submitted the charge sheet against the aforementioned accused person u/s. 287/304-A IPC. Cognizance of the offence was taken on 08.02.2013 and provisions of section 207 Cr.P.C. were complied.
4. Charges u/s 287/304-A IPC were framed and read over to the accused, in Hindi, on 07.07.2015 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. The prosecution, in order to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt, examined 9 witnesses in support of its case during the course of trial.
6. PW-1 Yogesh Kumar Verma, Asstt. Electrical Inspector, Govt. of NCT of Delhi deposed that on 08.11.2011,he alongwith IO and Naveen FIR No. 512/11 State Vs. Dharambir 2/ 15 Kumar visited at M/s Laxmi Pipe Industries for inspection of pipe making machine where he collected the electrical inspection of extruder machine fitted with 415 volt, electrical motor (3 nos.) 230 volts, electric strip heaters. He deposed that on physical examination, he found that naked conductor of the electric supply wire of one of the strip heater of said extruder machine and it was in close contact with metallic body of the said machine. He deposed that due to leakage of current through naked conductor, the metallic body of the said extruder machine got electrically charged. He deposed that the said machine was not found properly earthed. He deposed that he mentioned in his report that electrical installation of the said extruder machine has not being found protected and maintained in such a manner as to ensure safety of human being, animals and property as required under the provision of regulation 12 (I) r/w regulation 13 (I) of the Central Electricity Authority (Measures relating to Safety and Electric Supply) Regulation, 2010. He prepared report vide Ex. PW1/A. 6.1 During his cross-examination, he deposed that he could not tell the dates regarding his 100 times inspection and he had not placed on record the details of his 100 times inspection. He deposed that the application filed by IO for electrical inspection of the machine was marked by HOD of the Department. He admitted that he did not take any photograph of the machine. He denied the suggestion that IO did not disclose to him that deceased died due to electric shock. He admitted that IO did not record his statement. He admitted that he had inspected the above said factory on 09.11.2011. He denied the suggestion that there was delay of dispatching the report which was falsely prepared at the instance of IO. He denied the suggestion that the above said machine was properly installed in the factory and there was no leakage of current through naked conductor of electric supply wires of said strip heater.
FIR No. 512/11 State Vs. Dharambir 3/ 15 He denied the suggestion that machine has found properly earthed and the electrical installation was found properly protected and maintained to ensure safety of human being, animal and property under the provision of the regulations. He denied the suggestion that there was no fault of the machine or that alleged incident took place due to the negligence and fault of deceased.
7. PW2 Bablu deposed that on 06.11.2011, he was working in a plastic pipe making factory at A-block, Hari Enclave, S. Puri, Delhi. He deposed that on that day, he was working on machine and Ram Kumar (since deceased, another labourer) was making tea on heater. He deposed that while making tea, he got electrocution from heater and sustained injuries, on seeing this, he called the owner of the said factory namely Dharambir and then they took the injured to SGM hospital where concerned doctor declared him brought dead.
7.1 Ld. APP for the State had cross examined him as he was resiling from his previous statement. He denied the suggestion that on 06.11.2011 from 08.30 pm to 08.30 am, the deceased Ram Kumar was also working in the said factory on the plastic pipe making machine. He denied the suggestion that at about 08.05 am, the deceased was changing the dye of the said machine on which the deceased was working and he was working on another machine. He denied the suggestion that when he saw him in strange condition, he thought that he got electrocution from the said machine or that he immediately switched off the said machine. He denied the suggestion that due to electrocution, he fell down on the floor. He denied the suggestion that the deceased got electrocutions due to the negligence of owner of factory as the safety measures were not provided to the workers or that the naked wires were not covered properly. (all facts confronted with his statement Mark A, where it is so recorded.) He denied the suggestion that IO prepared site plan at his FIR No. 512/11 State Vs. Dharambir 4/ 15 instance Ex. PW2/A. He denied the suggestion that IO recorded his statement Ex. PW2/B. IO arrested and personally searched the accused vide memo Ex. PW2/C and PW2/D. 7.2 During cross-examination, he admitted that no mechanical inspection of machines was conducted in his presence or that no concerned officials of department came to the factory regarding inspection of the machines. He admitted that his signatures were obtained by police officials on certain blank papers. He admitted that the deceased was not working in the factory on machine at that time. He admitted that the all the wires of the machines were covered by safety measurements or that the machines were working properly. He admitted that none of the labour did complaint at any point of time regarding the safety measures in the factory.
8. PW3 AS Rakesh Kumar deposed that he was the Duty Officer and on 06.11.2011 at about 9.35 PM, he received a call from SGM hospital, on the basis of which he registered DD no. 21B vide Ex. PW3/A. He deposed that he received rukka brought by Ct. Prakash, on the basis of which he registered the present FIR vide Ex. PW3/B and made an endorsement vide Ex. PW3/C. 8.1 During cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that the FIR is ante dated and time.
9. PW4 Dr. Manoj Dhingra, Incharge, Mortuary, SGM hospital deposed that he alongwith Dr. Deepak Sharma conducted a postmortem of deceased on 07.11.2011 and detailed postmortem report exhibited as Ex. PW4/A. 9.1 The said witness was not cross examined despite opportunity was given.
FIR No. 512/11 State Vs. Dharambir 5/ 15
10. PW5 ASI Karanbir deposed that on 06.11.2011, he was posted at Mobile Crime Team, Outer as photographer/ HC. He deposed that on that day, on the instructions of SI Anil Kumar, Incharge, he went to A-2/126, Hari Enclave, S. Puri, Delhi where he clicked the photographs from different angels. He deposed that he had brought the negatives of the said photographs of the spot. 20 photographs of the spot from the judicial file are shown to the witness to which witness correctly identified the same and the same are Ex. P1 to P20 and the negatives of the same are Ex. PX-2.
10.1 During cross-examination, he deposed that on that day, he received information at about 11.05 am and reached at the spot on govt. vehicle, however, he did not remember the number of said vehicle. He denied the suggestion that he had never visited at the spot that is why he did not remember the number of the vehicle and about the departure or arrival entries. He voluntarily deposed that departure or arrival entries were used to be made by the Incharge. He deposed that he had completed 06 months course as a photographer in his department and when he reached at the spot, 2-3 police officials were present there. He admitted that no date and time was mentioned on the photographs. He denied the suggestion that the date and time was not mentioned at the photographs as the same were manipulated. He did not know whether the person who had developed the photographs was examined as a witness or not. He denied the suggestion that he had never visited at the spot or that no such photographs were clicked by him or that all the photographs were clicked later on and they are false and fabricated.
11. PW6 Inspector Anil Kumar deposed that he received a call from control room regarding the accident from electric shock at A-126, Hari Enclave, Sultanpuri, accordingly, he alongwith photographer HC Karamvir FIR No. 512/11 State Vs. Dharambir 6/ 15 and other staff visited and inspected the spot. On his directions, HC Karamvir took photographs of the spot from different angles. After inspection, he prepared report vide Ex. PW6/A. 11.1 During cross-examination, he deposed that they reached at the spot at about 11.25 PM and went to the spot in government vehicle. He deposed that he did not remember the registration no. of that vehicle. He deposed that he did not make any arrival entry in PS.
12. PW7 SI Dayanand deposed that on 06.11.2011, at about 09:30 am, the Duty Officer from PS Sultan Puri gave a DD entry of DD No.21-B dated 06.11.2011 regarding the person namely Raj Kumar was admitted into the SGM Hospital and the doctors declared him dead. He deposed that he along with Ct. Prakash Chand went to the SGM Hospital and received the MLC of the deceased namely Raj Kumar and on the MLC, the doctor declared "brought dead" and he transferred the dead body to the Mortuary, SGM Hospital. He deposed that he prepared the tehreer and handed over the same to Ct. Prakash Chand for registration of FIR and the same is Ex.PW-7/A. He deposed that he went to the spot and where he met with one person namely Babloo. He deposed that he inquired from Babloo and informed the Crime Investigation Team about the incident. Thereafter, Crime Investigation Team came at the spot and took the photographs of the spot. He deposed that he recorded the statement of Incharge of the Crime Investigation Team and the photographer. Thereafter, Ct. Prakash Chand came back to the spot with the original rukka and copy of FIR and the same was handed over to him. He deposed that he prepared the site plan at the instance of Babloo and the site plan. He deposed that the owner of the factory namely Dharamveer Goyal where the incident happened, came to the spot and he inquired from him about the incident. He deposed that during the investigation he arrested the accused FIR No. 512/11 State Vs. Dharambir 7/ 15 vide memo already Ex.PW-2/C and personally searched the accused vide memo already Ex.PW-2/D. He deposed that offence being the bailable, he released the accused on Bail bond and personal bond vide Ex.PW-7/B. Thereafter, he came back to the PS and recorded the statement of Ct. Prakash. He deposed that on next day i.e. 07.11.2011, he requested to perform autopsy of the deceased vide Ex.PW-7/C and handed over the dead body of the deceased to his relatives vide memo Ex.PW-7/D and Ex.PW-7/E and seized the viscera preserved by the doctors of the deceased vide seizure memo Ex.PW-7/F. He deposed that he returned to the PS and deposited the same viscera into the maalkhana and requested the Office of the Electric Inspector for mechanical inspection of the place of incident in the present case vide Ex.PW-7/G. He deposed that thereafter, Inspector Yogesh Kumar from the office of Electric Inspector came to the spot and mechanically inspected the machine and he deposited the Ex.PW-7/F into the FSL, Rohini and he received the report from the Mechanical Inspector Ex.PW-1/A and the FSL result was awaited during investigation.
12.1 During cross-examination, he deposed that he reached at the spot at about 10:30 am. He deposed that he did not obtain the photographs of the place of incident from his mobile phone. He deposed that he did not know as how many persons were working in the factory of the accused. Vol. Babloo told him that in the night shift there were only 2 workers including the Babloo. He deposed that he did not seize or file any report pertaining to work of deceased on the afore said machine. He deposed that he did not collect any document regarding employment of deceased in the factory of accused. He denied the suggestion that he did not seize or file any report /record regarding work of deceased on the machine as deceased was not working on the said machine as deposed by him. He deposed that the crime team officials did not FIR No. 512/11 State Vs. Dharambir 8/ 15 reach at the spot or that they did not obtain the photographs of the spot or that the scene of crime was falsely created by him later on in order to create false evidence against the accused. He denied the suggestion that there were no naked wire in the factory or that all the wires were covered with safety measurements. He denied the suggestion that the photographs Ex.P1 to Ex.P20 are false and fabricated. He denied the suggestion that the signature of Babloo were obtained on certain blank papers and later on the same were converted into various documents like statement, memos etc. in order to create false evidence against the accused. He denied the suggestion that site plan Ex.PW- 2/A was not prepared at the instance of Babloo or that the same was prepared later on while sitting in the PS. He admitted that in the site plan Ex.PW-2/A he had not shown the position of Babloo, installation of machine and installation of wiring at the spot. He denied the suggestion that he had intentionally not shown the afore said arrangements as there was no naked wires at the spot or that all the wires were covered with safety measurements. He admitted that he did not seal the machine in the present case. He deposed that he did not remember when Inspection report was prepared by the Electricity Department. He deposed that after going through the photographs Ex.P1 to P-20, he cannot specifically tell whether the aforesaid photographs shown the address of the factory of the accused. He voluntarily deposed that after receiving the call, he reached at the factory and the said factory was belonging to accused. He deposed that he inquired and found that accused was the owner of the factory. However, he did not collect any document regarding the same. He denied the suggestion that did not give any disclosure statement or that the Electrical Department officials have given false report at his instance or that they did not inspect the spot or that the Inspection Report was prepared while sitting in the PS or that he had not done fair and proper investigation in the present case or that he had tampered with the case property FIR No. 512/11 State Vs. Dharambir 9/ 15 or that he did not seal the machine or the premises (factory) as there was no naked wire on the spot or that the machine was covered with all the safety equipments. He denied the suggestion that deceased was not working on the said machine with Babloo or that the deceased was making tea on the electric heater or that during the said period, he got electrocution from heater because of his own negligence or that he sustained electric shock or that the deceased had not died while working on the machine or that there is no negligence on the part of the accused or that he has been falsely implicated in the present case in order to solve the present case or that all the witnesses who have deposed against the accused were tutored by me or that they deposed against the accused at my instance.
13. PW8 Dr. Mahipal Singh, CMO, SGM hospital deposed that on 06.11.2011, he was posted at SGM hospital as a Casualty Medical Officer and on that day, Dr. Anuj (JR) examined the patient namely Ram Kumar aged about 24 years vide MLC No. 17752/11 Ex. PW8/A. He deposed that as per MLC, prepared by Dr. Anuj under his supervision, the patient was declared brought dead and was shifted to mortuary.
13.1 The witness was not cross examined despite opportunity was given.
14. PW9 HC Parkash Chand deposed that after receiving DD No. 21B, he alongwith IO /SI Daya Nand went to the SGM Hospital where they collected the MLC of the deceased Ram Kumar on which doctor mentioned "patient declared brought dead". IO prepared the tehrir and handed over to him for the registration of FIR. He went to the PS for the same. He deposed that after registration of FIR, he came back to the spot at A-Block, Hari Enclave, Sultan Puri and handed over the copy of FIR alongwith original FIR No. 512/11 State Vs. Dharambir 10/ 15 rukka to the IO. He deposed that thereafter, IO arrested the accused from his factory and also conducted the personal search of accused. He deposed that IO released the accused from the spot after furnishing the surety and IO recorded his statement.
14.1 During cross-examination, he deposed that he left from the hospital at about 10:00 am and reached back at the spot after registration of the FIR at about 11:00 am. He denied the suggestion that he never joined the investigation with the IO in the above noted case. He denied the suggestion that the contents of the tehrir were false or that he manipulated the contents of the rukka and a false and fabricated FIR was registered against the accused at the instance of the IO. He denied the suggestion that the accused was not arrested in the manner as deposed by him. He denied the suggestion that the accused was called at the Police Station and his signatures were obtained on certain blank papers which were later on converted into various documents and memos in order to create false evidence against the accused. He denied the suggestion that no proceedings were done at the spot or that all the proceedings were done by the IO while sitting in the PS.
15. Evidence on behalf of the prosecution was closed. All the incriminating evidence which had come in evidence against the accused was put to the accused vide SA recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. on 08.03.2021 wherein the accused chose not to lead DE and stated that he has been falsely implicated while the date of occurrence was a Sunday and was not a working day.
16. Final arguments were heard on behalf of both sides on 27.10.2022 and the matter was fixed for judgment today.
FIR No. 512/11 State Vs. Dharambir 11/ 15
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
17. The accused in the present case has been charged for the offences u/s 287/304A IPC. The said sections are reproduced hereunder:
"287 IPC. Negligent conduct with respect to the machinery.- Whoever does, with any machinery, any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt of injury to any other person, or knowingly or negligently omits to take such order with any machinery in his possession or under his care as is sufficient to guard against any probable danger to human life from such machinery, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months,or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both.
"304-A IPC. Causing death by negligence. - Whoever causes death of any person by doing any rash and negligent act nor 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.
18. Before proceeding further, let us discuss the meaning of the expressions "rash" and "negligent". These words i.e "rash" and "negligent", have not been defined in the Indian Penal Code. However, as per Black's Law Dictionary, Eighth Edition the word 'Negligent' is characterized by a person's failure to exercise the degree of care that someone of ordinary prudence would have exercised in the same circumstances.
19. The terminology of criminal negligence has been discussed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the landmark case of "S.N. Hussain v. State of Andhra Pradesh", AIR 1972 SC 685 as under :
"Criminal negligence on the other hand, is the 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, which, having regard to all the circumstance out of which the charge has arisen it was the imperative FIR No. 512/11 State Vs. Dharambir 12/ 15 duty of the accused person to have adopted............Culpable negligence lies in the failure to exercise reasonable and proper care and the extent of its reasonableness will always depend upon the circumstances of each case".
20. The primary question which arises for determination in the present case is whether the accused did a negligent act knowingly or negligently omitted to do such act with the machinery in his possession so as to endanger the human life and as a result of which the accused got electrocuted on 06.11.2011 at about 8.30 AM at A Block, Hari Enclave, and consequently expired.
21. In order to determine the same, this Court will now proceed to see the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. The star witness of prosecution herein is PW1 and PW2. PW1 was the Asstt. Electrical Inspector who deposed that on 08.11.2011, he received the request in the present FIR regarding the inspection of plastic pipe making machine and on 09.11.2011, he examined the said premises and found that a naked conductor of the electric supply wire of one of the strip heater of one excruder machine was found in close contact with the metallic body of the said machine and due to the leakage of the current through the naked conductor, the metallic body of the said excruder machine was electrically charged. He also deposed that said machine was not properly earthed.
22. On the other hand, PW2 who is the eye witness of the present case, deposed that on 06.11.2011, his duty hours were from 8.00 PM to 8.00 AM and at about 8.00 AM, he was working on machine with the deceased and the deceased was making tea on heater. He deposed that while making tea, the deceased got electrocution from the heater and sustained injuries. He deposed FIR No. 512/11 State Vs. Dharambir 13/ 15 that upon seeing this, he called the owner of the factory and the owner of the factory alongwith him took the deceased to the hospital where he was declared brought dead. The said witness denied the suggestion that deceased got electrocution due to the negligence of factory owner or that the naked wires were not covered properly. He denied the suggestion that site plan was prepared at his instance. He denied the suggestion that IO recoded his statement Ex. PW2/B. He deposed that IO obtained his signature on some blank papers. He deposed during cross-examination that the deceased was not working in factory on machine at that time. He deposed that all the wires of the machines were covered by safety measurements and machine was working properly.
23. Now the only eye witness/material witness of the prosecution was PW2 who turned hostile and clearly denied that the deceased was working in the factory at the relevant period of time. He further went on to depose that all the machines were working properly in the factory of the accused and the wires were properly covered.
24. PW3 deposed in regard to registration of the present FIR.
25. PW4 conducted the postmortem of the deceased.
26. PW5,PW6 and PW7 deposed in regard to investigation carried out by them in the present case.
27. PW8 deposed in regard to preparation of MLC of the deceased.
28. PW9 deposed in regard to collecting of MLC of deceased.
29. In the case of Mrinal Dass & Ors vs. State of Tripura, the Hon'ble Supreme Court (2011) 9 SCC 479 observed that credible evidence even of hostile witnesses can form the basis for conviction in a criminal trial.
FIR No. 512/11 State Vs. Dharambir 14/ 15
30. However, in the present case, PW2 (the only eye witness) has clearly negated even the presence of the deceased at the alleged place of occurrence. The said witness has even clearly refused to become the witness to the fact that the site plan was prepared at his instance. There is no other independent material available on record which could suggest that it was sole negligence/omission on the part of the accused in properly maintaining the machines situated in his factory so as to avoid any danger to human life, limb or safety. Further, there is no document on record which can suggest that a cause of death of deceased was electrocution.
31. Accordingly, the court is of the view that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, accused Dharambir cannot be saddled with a criminal liability for the offences u/s 287/304A IPC. Accordingly, he stands acquitted of the said offences.
32. The bonds furnished in compliance of section 437A Cr.PC shall remain in force from today till six months. Documents of surety, apart from that of section 437A Cr.PC if any, be returned after cancellation of endorsement against due acknowledgement.
33. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court on 31.10.2022 (Sanya Dalal) MM-01/North West/Rohini Courts 31.10.2022 FIR No. 512/11 State Vs. Dharambir 15/ 15