Delhi District Court
State vs . Bhure Lal Sharma & Ors. on 1 February, 2020
IN THE COURT OF MS. SNIGDHA SARVARIA
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-01, SHAHDRA DISTRICT,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
State Vs. Bhure Lal Sharma & Ors.
FIR No. 173/11
PS: GTB Enclave
U/s 304A IPC
a. Comp. ID No. of the case : 77191/16
b. Date of commission of offence : On or before 23.07.2011
c. Date of institution of the case : 14.03.2013
d. Name of complainant : Sh. Vijay Kumar
S/o. Sh. Mohan Lal Dua
R/o H no. 1/6744, East Rohtash
Nagar, Delhi
e. Name of accused : 1.Bhure Lal Sharma
S/o Sh. Ramesh Chand
R/o H. No. 1/6, Krishan Vihar,
Juti, Near Niketa Inter College,
Bhopura, Sahibabad, UP
2. Manohar Lal Arora
S/o. Sh. P. R. Arora
R/o. H. No. 79, AGCR Enclave,
Near KKD Court, Delhi
3.Ganga Prasad Anand
S/o. Sh. Phool Singh
R/o. 7A, Pocket A,
Dilshad Garden, Delhi.
f. Offence complained of : U/s 304A IPC
g. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
h. Arguments heard on : 18.01.2020
i. Final order : Acquittal
j. Date of judgment : 01.02.2020
FIR No.173/11 PS GTB Enclave State V. Bhure Lal Sharma etc. (01.02.2020) Pg No. 1 of 14
JUDGMENT
FACTS IN BRIEF :
1. Briefly stating, the case as per prosecution is that on 23.07.2011 DD no. 88B PS GTB Enclave was recorded on receiving information of a person lying near Jhilmil Industrial Area at about 10.10 pm at side Jhuggi in front of factory no. B14/8, Jhilmil Industrial Area, Delhi. The DD was handed over to SI Mohd. Raziq and he went to the spot and came to know the name of the person lying on the ground as Mukesh Kumar Singhal and an electric wire was hanging and lying near his hands and it appeared that Mukesh Kumar Singhal had died due to electric shock. The accused persons Bhure Lal Sharma; Manohar Lal Arora and Ganga Prasad Anand being employees of BSES YPL did not maintain wire of street light installed at aforesaid address in such a manner so as to ensure safety of human being due to which deceased Mukesh Kumar Singhal got electrocuted from electric wire which was hanging in the air after breaking from street light and succumbed to the injuries as accused persons did not take steps to set right the said live snapped street light conductor which kept on hanging in the air for number of days and the guard wire provided under bare conductor the street light was found broken and MCCB provided in the said street light circuit was out of order and also air circuit breaker for LT feeder was burnt and thus, committed offences punishable U/s 304A IPC.
2. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed. Upon taking cognizance of the offence, accused persons were summoned and supplied copy of charge-sheet in compliance of section 207 of Cr.P.C. Charge u/s 304A was framed upon accused Bhure Lal Sharma, Manohar Lal Arora and Ganga Prasad on 12.02.2015. Accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Vide statements dated 25.01.2018 the accused persons had admitted FIR no. 173/11 PS GTB Enclave as Ex A1; 5 photographs of deceased and spot as Ex A2 (colly.) and MLC no. A 4235/11 of deceased as Ex A3.
FIR No.173/11 PS GTB Enclave State V. Bhure Lal Sharma etc. (01.02.2020) Pg No. 2 of 14
4. In order to prove its case the prosecution examined 6 witnesses. PW1 is Vijay Kumar, a public witness/complainant; PW-2 is Sh. Alok Verma, Electrical Inspector, PW-3 is Sh. Vijay Sharma is lineman with BSES, PW-4 Sh. Mukesh Kumar Sharma, who inspected the site; PW-5 is Sh. Harish Chander Pandey, who identified signatures of Dr. Meghali Kelkar on postmortem report and PW-6 is Investigating Officer Retired SI Mohd. Raziq and thereafter, PE was closed vide order dated 29.06.2019.
5. Statement U/s 313 Cr.PC r/w Section 281 Cr.P.C. of accused Bhure Lal Sharma was recorded on 12.12.2019 wherein he stated that he was never an employee of BSES YPL and that investigation has not been conducted fairly and he has been falsely implicated. He stated that it is a false case and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Deceased was having no electricity meter in his tea stall. On the day of incident, it was raining and the deceased who was habitually committing direct theft of electricity had got electrocuted after he was trying to commit direct theft from the street light with the help of one iron hook annexed with the danda by putting one end of the electricity wire line of his jhuggi hooked with the street light. He stated that he is innocent.
6. Statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C r/w Section 281 Cr.P.C. of accused Manohar Lal Arora was recorded on 12.12.2019 wherein he stated that investigation has not been conducted fairly and he has been falsely implicated. He stated that it is a false case and he has been falsely implicated in this case.
Deceased was having no electricity meter in his tea stall. On the day of incident, it was raining and the deceased who was habitually committing direct theft of electricity had got electrocuted after he was trying to commit direct theft from the street light with the help of one iron hook annexed with the danda by putting one end of the electricity wire line of his jhuggi hooked with the street light. He stated that he is innocent.
7. Statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C r/w Section 281 Cr.P.C. of accused Ganga Prasad was recorded on 12.12.2019 wherein he stated that investigation has FIR No.173/11 PS GTB Enclave State V. Bhure Lal Sharma etc. (01.02.2020) Pg No. 3 of 14 not been conducted fairly and he has been falsely implicated. He stated that it is a false case and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Deceased was having no electricity meter in his tea stall. On the day of incident, it was raining and the deceased who was habitually committing direct theft of electricity had got electrocuted after he was trying to commit direct theft from the street light with the help of one iron hook annexed with the danda by putting one end of the electricity wire line of his jhuggi hooked with the street light. He stated that he is innocent.
8. Accused persons namely Bhure Lal Sharma, Manohar Lal Arora and Ganga Prasad did not wish to lead any defence evidence and DE was closed vide order dated 12.12.2019.
9. I have heard Ld APP for the State and counsel for the accused, perused the record and have gone through the relevant provisions of the law.
Section 304-A IPC, says:
"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".
10. The requirements of this section 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 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. To prove the charge under Section 304A IPC, it is necessary to establish that the accused, acted in a negligent manner in not maintaining wire of street light installed at aforesaid address in such a manner so as to ensure safety of human being which resulted in electric shock to Mukesh Kumar SInghal and caused the death of deceased Mukesh Kumar SInghal due to electric shock.
11. A rash act is primarily an over hasty act. It is opposed to a deliberate act. Still a rash act can be a deliberate act in the sense that it was done FIR No.173/11 PS GTB Enclave State V. Bhure Lal Sharma etc. (01.02.2020) Pg No. 4 of 14 without due care and caution. Culpable rashness lies in running the risk of doing an act with recklessness and with indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negligence is the failure to exercise duty with reasonable and proper care and precaution guarding against injury to the public generally or to any individual in particular. It is the imperative duty of the driver of a vehicle to adopt such reasonable and proper care and precaution.
12. A negligent act is an act done without doing something which a reasonable man guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs would do or act which a prudent or reasonable man would not do in the circumstances attending it. A rash act is a negligent act done precipitately. Negligence is the genus, of which rashness is the species. It has sometimes been observed that in rashness the action is done precipitately that the mischievous or illegal consequences may fall, but with a hope that they will not.
13. Lord Atkin in Andrews v. Director of Public Prosecutions (1937) AC 576 at p.583 : 2 All ER 552) observed as under:
"Simple lack of care such as will constitute civil liability is not enough. For purposes of the criminal law there are degrees of negligence; and a very high degree of negligence is required to be proved before the felony is established. Probably of all the epithets that can be applied 'recklessness' most nearly covers the case. It is difficult to visualize a case of death, caused by reckless driving in the connotation of that term in ordinary speech which would not justify a conviction for manslaughter; but it is probably not all embracing, for 'recklessness' suggests an indifference to risk whereas the accused may have appreciated the risk and intended to avoid it, and yet shown in the means adopted to avoid the risk such a high degree of negligence as would justify a conviction."
14. "Rashness" consists in hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is so, and that it may cause injury. The criminality lies in such a case in running the risk of doing such an act with recklessness, or indifference as to the consequences. 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 FIR No.173/11 PS GTB Enclave State V. Bhure Lal Sharma etc. (01.02.2020) Pg No. 5 of 14 generally or to an individual in particular, which, having regard to all the circumstances out of which the charge has arisen it was the imperative duty of the accused person to have adopted. (AIR 2009 SUPREME COURT 1621 "State of Karnataka v. Muralidhar")
15. In Syed Akbar v. State of Karnataka, (1980) 1 SCC 30, it was held that :
"where negligence is an essential ingredient of the offence, the negligence to be established by the prosecution must be culpable or gross and not the negligence merely based upon an error of judgment."
16. In Kuldeep Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh-AIR 2008 SUPREME COURT 3062, it was held as under:
7. Section 304A IPC applies to cases where there is no intention to cause death and no knowledge that the act done, in all probabilities, will cause death. This provision is directed at offences outside the range of Sections 299 and 300 IPC. Section 304A applies only to such acts which are rash and negligent and are directly the cause of death of another person. Negligence and rashness are essential elements under Section 304A.
8. Section 304A carves out a specific offence where death is caused by doing a rash or negligent act and that act does not amount to culpable homicide under Section 299 or murder under Section 300. If a person willfully drives a motor vehicle into the midst of a crowd and thereby causes death to some person, it will not be a case of mere rash and negligent driving and the act will amount to culpable homicide. Doing an act with the intent to kill a person or knowledge that doing an act was likely to cause a person's death is culpable homicide. When the intent or knowledge is the direct motivating force of the act, Section 304A has to make room for the graver and more serious charge of culpable homicide.
The provision of this section is not limited to rash or negligent driving. Any rash or negligent act whereby death of any person is caused becomes punishable. Two elements either of which or both of which may be proved to establish the guilt of an accused are rashness/negligence, a person may cause death by a rash or negligent act which may have nothing to do with driving at all. Negligence and rashness to be punishable in terms of Section 304 A must be attributable to a state of mind wherein the criminality arises because of no error in judgment but of a deliberation in the mind risking the crime as well as the life of the person who may lose his life as a result of the crime. Section 304A discloses that criminality may be that apart from any mens rea, there may be no motive or intention still a person may venture or practice such rashness or negligence which may cause the death of other. The FIR No.173/11 PS GTB Enclave State V. Bhure Lal Sharma etc. (01.02.2020) Pg No. 6 of 14 death so caused is not the determining factor.
9. What constitutes negligence has been analysed in Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Edition) Volume 34 paragraph 1 (para 3) as follows :
"Negligence is a specific tort and in any given circumstances is the failure to exercise that care which the circumstances demand. What amounts to negligence depends on the facts of each particular case. It may consist in omitting to do something which ought to be done or in doing something which ought to be done either in a different manner or not at all. Where there is no duty to exercise care, negligence in the popular sense has no legal consequence, where there is a duty to exercise care, reasonable care must be taken to avoid acts or omissions which can be reasonably foreseen to be likely to cause physical injury to persons or property. The degree of care required in the particular case depends on the surrounding circumstances, and may vary according to the amount of the risk to be encountered and to the magnitude of the prospective injury. The duty of care is owed only to those persons who are in the area of foreseeable danger, the fact that the act of the defendant violated his duty of care to a third person does not enable the plaintiff who is also injured by the same act to claim unless he is also within the area of foreseeable danger. The same act or omission may accordingly in some circumstances involve liability as being negligent although in other circumstances it will not do so. The material considerations are the absence of care which is on the part of the defendant owed to the plaintiff in the circumstances of the case and damage suffered by the plaintiff, together with a demonstrable relation of cause and effect between the two".
10. In this context the following passage from Kenny's Outlines of Criminal Law, 19th Edition (1966) at page 38 may be usefully noted :
"Yet a man may bring about an event without having adverted to it at all, he may not have foreseen that his actions would have this consequence and it will come to him as a surprise. The event may be harmless or harmful, if harmful, the question rises whether there is legal liability for it. In tort, (at common law) this is decided by considering whether or not a reasonable man in the same circumstances would have realised the prospect of harm and would have stopped or changed his course so as to avoid it. If a reasonable man would not, then there is no liability and the harm must lie where it falls. But if the reasonable man would have avoided the harm then there is liability and the perpetrator of the harm is said to be guilty of negligence. The word 'negligence' denotes, and should be used only to denote, such blameworthy inadvertence, and the man who through his negligence has brought harm upon another is under a legal obligation to make reparation for it to the victim of the injury who may sue him in tort for damages. But it should now be recognized that at common law there is no criminal liability for harm thus caused by inadvertence. This has been laid down authoritatively for manslaughter again and again. There are only two states of mind which constitute mens rea FIR No.173/11 PS GTB Enclave State V. Bhure Lal Sharma etc. (01.02.2020) Pg No. 7 of 14 and they are intention and recklessness. The difference between recklessness and negligence is the difference between advertence and inadvertence they are opposed and it is a logical fallacy to suggest that recklessness is a degree of negligence The common habit of lawyers to qualify the word "negligence" with some moral epithet such as wicked' 'gross' or 'culpable' has been most unfortunate since it has inevitably led to great confusion of thought and of principle. It is equally misleading to speak of criminal negligence since this is merely to use an expression in order to explain itself."
11. "Negligence", says the Restatement of the Law of Torts published by the American Law Institute (1934) Vol. I. Section 28 "is conduct which falls below the standard established for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm". It is stated in Law of Torts by Fleming at page 124 (Australian Publication 1957) that this standard of conduct is ordinarily measured by what the reasonable man of ordinary prudence would do under the circumstances. In Director of Public Prosecutions v. Camplin (1978) 2 All ER 168 it was observed by Lord Diplock that "the reasonable man" was comparatively late arrival in the laws of provocation. As the law of negligence emerged in the first half of the 19th century it became the anthropomorphic embodiment of the standard of care required by law. In order to objectify the law's abstractions like "care" "reasonableness" or "foreseeability" the man of ordinary prudence was invented as a model of the standard of conduct to which all men are required to conform.
12. In Syed Akbar v. State of Karnataka, (1980) 1 SCC 30, it was held that "where negligence is an essential ingredient of the offence, the negligence to be established by the prosecution must be culpable or gross and not the negligence merely based upon an error of judgment. As pointed out by Lord Atkin in Andrews v. Director of Public Prosecutions (1937) (2) All ER 552 simple lack of care such as will constitute civil liability, is not enough; for liability under the criminal law a very high degree of negligence is required to be proved. Probably, of all the epithets that can be applied 'reckless' most nearly covers the case."
13. According to the dictionary meaning 'reckless' means 'careless', 'regardless' or heedless of the possible harmful consequences of one's acts'. It presupposes that if thought was given to the matter by the doer before the act was done, it would have been apparent to him that there was a real risk of its having the relevant harmful consequences; but, granted this, recklessness covers a whole range of states of mind from failing to give any thought at all to whether or not there is any risk of those harmful consequences, to recognizing the existence of the risk and nevertheless deciding to ignore it. In R. v. Briggs (1977) 1 All ER 475 it was observed that a man is reckless in the sense required when he carries out a deliberate act knowing that there is some risk of damage resulting from the act but nevertheless continues in the performance of that act.
14. In R. v. Caldwell (1981) 1 All ER 961, it was observed that : FIR No.173/11 PS GTB Enclave State V. Bhure Lal Sharma etc. (01.02.2020) Pg No. 8 of 14 "Nevertheless, to decide whether someone has been 'reckless', whether harmful consequences of a particular kind will result from his act, as distinguished from his actually intending such harmful consequences to follow, does call for some consideration of how the mind of the ordinary prudent individual would have reacted to a similar situation. If there were nothing in the circumstances that ought to have drawn the attention of an ordinary prudent individual to the possibility of that kind of harmful consequence, the accused would not be described as 'reckless' in the natural meaning of that word for failing to address his mind to the possibility; nor, if the risk of the harmful consequences was so slight that the ordinary prudent individual on due consideration of the risk would not he deterred from treating it as negligible, could the accused be described as reckless in its ordinary sense, if, having considered the risk, he decided to ignore it. (In this connection the gravity of the possible harmful consequences would be an important factor. To endanger life must be one of the most grave). So, to this extent, even if one ascribes to 'reckless' only the restricted meaning adopted by the Court of Appeal in Stephenson and Briggs, of foreseeing that a particular kind of harm might happen and yet going on to take the risk of it, it involves a test that would be described in part as 'objective' in current legal jargon. Questions of criminal liability are seldom solved by simply asking whether the test is subjective or objective."
15. The decision of R. v. Caldwell (supra) has been cited with approval in R. v. Lawrence (1981) 1 All ER 974 and it was observed that :
"...... Recklessness on the part of the doer of an act does presuppose that there is something in the circumstances that would have drawn the attention of an ordinary prudent individual to the possibility that his act was capable of causing the kind of serious harmful consequences that the section which creates the offence was intended to prevent, and that the risk of those harmful consequences occurring was not so slight that an ordinary prudent individual would feel justified in treating them as negligible. It is only when this is so that the doer of the act is acting 'recklessly' if, before doing the act, he either fails to give any thought to the possibility of there being any such risk or, having recognized that there was such risk, he nevertheless goes on to do it".
16. The above position was highlighted in Naresh Giri v. State of M.P. [2008(1) SCC 791].
17. Complainant PW1 Vijay Kumar has deposed that on 23.07.2011 he was present at the factory of his brother at B-14/8 Jhilimil Industrial Area Delhi and after stopping of rain he saw Mukesh Singhal a tea shopkeeper was lying on the earth in front of factory no. B-17 in unconscious state of mind. PW-1 called at 100 number and he had noticed that one electric wire FIR No.173/11 PS GTB Enclave State V. Bhure Lal Sharma etc. (01.02.2020) Pg No. 9 of 14 was hanging from electric pole near the body of Mukesh Singhal. Police officials took Mukesh Singhal to the hospital in an unconscious state.
18. PW2 Alok Verma deposed that on 23.07.2011 he received a letter from PS GTB Enclave regarding electrical inspection of Jhilmil Industrial Area, regarding overhead electrical lines and damaged conditions of street lights/wires. The street light was found in damaged condition and another wire was found hanging near Jhuggi, which was coming from one wall through street light. He further deposed that when he tested the current flow of said street light it was found to having 220 volts current and was sufficient to cause any incident. He had also prepared a report in this regard which is Ex. PW2/A.
19. PW3 Vijay Sharma deposed that that he was working as lineman in BSES and was posted at Sai Chowk Dilshad Garden and on 24.07.2011 he along with Kavinder Singh (Lineman) had visited for inspection at one Jhuggi in front of gate of factory no . B-17. It was rainy day. He had found that one electric wire was broken. One end of the aluminum wire of street light was coming from the branches of tree and the other end was connected with the street light. He also noticed that the wire coming from the branches of tree was falling in spiral form. At that time, the crime team and electric contractor had checked the current in the wire and since there was current in the wire, the street light supply was got switched off. He had cut 12-13 feet of the said wire and handed over the same to the IO who seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW3/A.
20. PW-4 Mukesh Kumar Sharma deposed that on dt. 25.07.2011 he was posted as Electrical Inspector and on recieving of intimation about an electrical accident from BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. and on the direction of his superior, he inspected the site of accident i.e. BSES YPL LT Line near B-14/8 Jhilmil industrrial Area, Delhi alongwith his subordinate Sh. Rama Kant Singh, Electrical Overseer on 29.07.2011. Sh. N.C Flora, DGM BYPL and senior manager BYPL and Mohd Raziq Sub Inspector of Police Station GTB FIR No.173/11 PS GTB Enclave State V. Bhure Lal Sharma etc. (01.02.2020) Pg No. 10 of 14 Enclave were also present at the time inspection of The LT (Low Tension) network, which was not found being maintained in safe condition at that time and the detail technical report Ex PW4/A was issued to SHO PS GTB Enclave upon receipt of his request on 24.11.2011.
21. In his cross-examination PW1 Vijay Kumar deposed that he had no idea if chaiwala deceased Mukesh Singhal was having an electricity connection from BSES.
22. In his cross-examination PW2 Alok Verma deposed that there was no electricity meter in the Jhuggi and one end of street light wire which had fallen on the tree was in jhuggi in front of factory no. B14/8, Jhilmil Industrial Area and the other end of the wire was near jhuggi. He stated that it was possible that the man in the jhuggi could have died of electrocution in case he tried to attach any appliance with negligence with the wire coming inside the jhuggi while the other end of the wire is connected to the street light. He also stated that it was rainy season when he had conducted inspection.
23. PW3 Vijay stated in his cross-examination that no meter was found in the jhuggi of the deceased which was also inspected by PW3 and that 24.07.2011 was a rainy day. He also stated that it is possible that man in jhuggi could have died of electrocution due to earthing in case he tried to attach an appliance with negligence with the wire coming in jhuggi with the other end of wire connecting to the street light with the help of danda at the time of rain. He stated that the deceased was warned several times not to steal electricity by them from the street light by directly connecting the bulb in the jhuggi with the wire in an illegal manner connected in the street light but he paid no heed.
24. In his cross-examination PW4 Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sharma deposed that if there is short circuiting/overloading then efficiently working protection system will break the supply instantly. He also stated that the place of incident was reportedly a tea stall constructed in jhuggi and there was no FIR No.173/11 PS GTB Enclave State V. Bhure Lal Sharma etc. (01.02.2020) Pg No. 11 of 14 electricity meter installed for the said tea stall. He admitted that he did not handover the rough inspection report prepared at the spot by him to the IO nor his inspection report bears signatures of witnesses to inspection.
25. PW6 IO SI Mohd. Raziq stated in his cross-examination that when he reached at the spot at the time of the incident it was raining and there was storm and deceased was running a tea stall without any electricity meter. He also stated that the deceased was running electricity through bulb by directly stealing electricity from the live wire running above the tea stall. He stated that as per Ex PW6/I statements of Satya Prakash Pandey, Satish Aggarwal, Vijay Kumar Dua, Jitender Kunwar and K Chandra Mohan, all workers of factories situated near tea stall, the deceased used to steal electricity from live wire.
26. From the cross-examination of PW1 to PW5 it is manifest that the deceased was running a tea stall in a jhuggi at the spot and was not having any electricity connection in that tea stall. Also, the deceased was found lying on ground at about 10.10 pm as per DD no. 88B Dated 23.07.2011 PS GTB Enclave. Obviously by 10.10pm it must have fallen night and sky must have been dark. The deceased was obviously required a light source for running a tea stall at night/evening after dark. Furthermore, as per report Ex PW4/A the street lights near the spot were not glowing for past sometime before the date of the incident. As per Ex PW6/I relied upon by the prosecution and cross- examination of PW3 and PW6 it is manifest that deceased Mukesh Kumar Singhal used to steal electricity from live wire. It is also an admitted fact that it was raining on the date of the incident.
27. Also, as per Ex PW6/I letter dated 22.02.2013 of DGM (O&M) D-GTR, Dilshad Garden on behalf of BSES YPL, BSES YPL and its employees were not responsible for death of Sh Mukesh Kumar Singhal as per enquiry report sent to the IO.
FIR No.173/11 PS GTB Enclave State V. Bhure Lal Sharma etc. (01.02.2020) Pg No. 12 of 14
28. As per the postmortem report Ex. PW5/A (also Mark Y1) of the deceased Mukesh Kumar Singhal died due to shock as a result of antemortem electrocution.
29. There is no evidence on record to suggest that the accused persons Bhure Lal Sharma; Manohar Lal Arora and Ganga Prasad Anand being employees of BSES YPL had a duty to maintain wire of street light installed at near in front of factory no. B14/8, Jhilmil Industrial Area, Delhi in such a manner so as to ensure safety of human being due to which deceased Mukesh Kumar Singhal got electrocuted from electric wire which was hanging in the air after breaking from street light and succumbed to the injuries as accused persons did not take steps to set right the said live snapped street light conductor which kept on hanging in the air for number of days and the guard wire provided under bare conductor the street light was found broken and MCCB provided in the said street light circuit was out of order and also air circuit breaker for LT feeder was burnt.
30. The contracts of BSES YPL with Associated Traders and Manufacturers have not been proved as per Indian Evidence Act by the prosecution. Also, there is nothing on record to show relation of the accused persons with BSES YPL or even Associated Traders and Manufacturers. Consequently, the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused persons were in any manner responsible for the death of Mukesh Kumar Singhal. Admittedly, there is no eye-witness to the incident in question.
31. The identity of the accused persons have also not been established by the prosecution as persons responsible to maintain wire of street light installed at near in front of factory no. B14/8, Jhilmil Industrial Area, Delhi in such a manner so as to ensure safety of human being due to which deceased Mukesh Kumar Singhal got electrocuted from electric wire which was hanging in the air after breaking from street light and succumbed to the injuries as accused persons did not take steps to set right the said live snapped street light conductor which kept on hanging in the air for number of FIR No.173/11 PS GTB Enclave State V. Bhure Lal Sharma etc. (01.02.2020) Pg No. 13 of 14 days and the guard wire provided under bare conductor the street light was found broken and MCCB provided in the said street light circuit was out of order and also air circuit breaker for LT feeder was burnt.
32. Thus, from the foregoing discussions, accused persons deserve benefit of doubt.
33. In the facts and circumstances of the case, clearly, prosecution has failed to prove that any act of the accused persons was rash and negligent resulting in the death of sh. Mukesh Kumar Singhal and thus, it is held that prosecution has not been able to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused persons with respect to offences punishable under S. 304A IPC. Accordingly, accused Bhure Lal, Manohar Lal and Ganga Prasad stand acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 304 A IPC.
34. Previous Bail bonds are cancelled. Surety, if any, are discharged. Endorsement, if any, be cancelled. Original documents, if any, be returned.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance. Digitally signed
by SNIGDHA
SNIGDHA SARVARIA
SARVARIA Date:
2020.02.01
15:40:34 +0530
Announced in the open (SNIGDHA SARVARIA)
Court on 01.02.2020 Metropolitan Magistrate-01
Shahdara District, Karkardooma
Courts, Delhi
FIR No.173/11 PS GTB Enclave State V. Bhure Lal Sharma etc. (01.02.2020) Pg No. 14 of 14