Delhi District Court
State vs . Ranjan Singh on 12 April, 2012
State vs. Ranjan Singh
IN THE COURT OF SH AJAY GARG
Metropolitan Magistrate, South, New Delhi
State Vs. Ranjan Singh
FIR N0. : 581/00
U/S : 288/304-A IPC
PS : Vasant Kunj
JUDGM ENT ;
a) Sl. No. of the case : 378/1
b) Date of commission of offence : 12.11.2000
c) Date of institution of the case : 11.12.2001
d) Name of the complainant : SI D.L. Sharma
e) Name & address of the : Ranjan Singh
accused s/o Sh. Andi Singh
R/o Vill. & PO Dumda
PS Bhawani Pur
District Purnya
Bihar
f) Offence complained off : 288/304-A IPC
g) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
h) Arguments heard on : 13.04.2012
i) Final order : Acquitted
j) Date of Judgment : 13.04.2012
FIR No. 581/00 Page 1 of 5
State vs. Ranjan Singh
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1.Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 12.11.2000 at unknown time at Jhuggi Masoodpur, behind House no. K-94, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Vasant Kunj accused Ranjan Singh, being a contractor carrying out the construction work and while doing so he knowingly or negligently omitted to take sufficient guard against any probable danger to human life at K-94, Masoodpur, due to which wall of said building fell down upon a child namely Surya and caused death of said child. With these allegations, accused has been sent to face trial for offences U/s 288/304-A 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 288/304-A IPC was served upon the accused on 28.08.2003 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to substantiate the allegations, seven witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution.
4. PW1; Sh. Satbir Singh is the owner of plot bearing no. K-94, Masoodpur i.e. spot/ alleged place of incident. He has deposed that he had given contract to accused for construction of a house on the said plot. He has identified copy of an agreement executed between him and accused with regard to construction as Ex. PW1/A and PW1/B. He has deposed that the construction of the house including labourers were to be managed by the accused. He has deposed that he does not remember the date of accident. He has further deposed that he was not present at the spot at the time of alleged incident.
5. PW2; Sh. Anbu has identified the dead body of his nephew namely Surya.
He has identified his statement to that effect as Ex. PW2/A. He has further FIR No. 581/00 Page 2 of 5 State vs. Ranjan Singh deposed that his brother/ father of deceased namely Shiva had also expired. He identified signatures of PW Shiva on dead body identification memo Ex. PW2/B.
6. Testimony of PW3 Ct. Devender Singh cannot be read into evidence as his examination-in-chief was deferred for want of case property and thereafter he was never examined on behalf of the prosecution.
7. PW4; Dr. Sudhir has deposed on behalf of Dr. Nav Jyoti who had prepared MLC of injured/ deceased Surya. He has identified signatures of Dr. Nav Jyoti on MLC Ex. PW4/A.
8. PW5; HC Mahabir Singh is the Duty Officer who has registered FIR Ex.
PW5/A on the basis of rukka sent by SI D.L. Sharma. He has identified his endorsement on rukka Ex. PW5/B.
9. PW6; Dr. Arvind Thergaonkar had conducted postmortem of deceased child namely Surya. He has deposed that the cause of death was craniocerebral damage consequent upon blunt force impact like fall of heavy object on skull. He has identified his postmortem report Ex. PW6/A.
10. PW7; SI Sehdev is the subsequent IO who prepared challan and submitted the same in Court.
11. P.E. was closed by order of the court dated 06.09.2011 and statement of accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C was recorded on 28.09.2011 wherein accused has abjured guilt and pleaded innocence.
12. I have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the record.
FIR No. 581/00 Page 3 of 513. 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.
14. In the present case no eye-witness has been examined by the prosecution. Star witnesses namely Shiva and Vinita were not examined by the prosecution as they were not available. Even Sh. Satbir Singh (PW1 ), who is the owner of the plot bearing no. K-94 where the alleged incident took place, has not stated anything incriminating against the accused. Though he stated that accused is the contractor for carrying out the construction and therefore responsible for the due care of the workers carrying out the work but the original agreement in respect of the said contract has not been placed on record. Further, he has not imputed any allegation of rashness or negligence on the part of accused which is sine qua non for the offence U/s 288/304-A IPC. It has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Suleman Rahiman Mulani V. State of Maharashtra reported in 1968 (2) SCR 515 that:
"The requirements of Sec. 304A, IPC are that the death of any person must have been caused by the accused by doing any rash or negligent act. In other words, there must be proof that the rash or negligent act of the accused was the proximate cause of the death. There must be direct nexus between the death of a person and the rash or negligent act of the accused."
15. In the instant case no evidence has been led to the effect that the wall was collapsed / fell down due to negligence of the accused. There is nothing on record to show that the death is caused due to the omission of due care on the part of the accused. Law is no more res integra that in order to secure the FIR No. 581/00 Page 4 of 5 State vs. Ranjan Singh conviction U/s 304-A IPC, death must be a direct result of rash or negligent act of the accused and the act must be sufficient cause without the intervention of another act of negligence. It must be the causa causans, it is not enough that it may have been the causa sine qua non. Thus where death is not the direct result of rash or negligent act on the part of the accused and was not a proximate and sufficient cause without the intervention of another act of negligence, the accused must be acquitted of the charge under section 304-A IPC. (Ref:-Ambalal vs. State AIR 1972 SC 1150).
16. Further, the photographs placed on record by the prosecution are not proved as the photographer who took those photographs was not examined by the prosecution. Even the initial IO i.e. SI D.L. Sharma who carried out the crucial investigation of this case was not examined by the prosecution.
17. In the absence of testimony of any eye-witness or any circumstantial evidence establishing rashness or negligence of the accused, ingredients of Section 288 and 304-A IPC could not be proved. In view of the aforesaid, it is held that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts and the accused deserves to be acquitted of the charges U/s 288/304-A IPC levelled against him. Ordered accordingly.
Announced in the open court
on 12.04.2012 (Ajay Garg)
MM/Delhi /12.04.2012
FIR No. 581/00 Page 5 of 5