Delhi District Court
State vs . Bal Mukund on 23 April, 2019
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-05,
DISTRICT NORTH, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
Presided by: Ms. Manu Goel Kharb, DJS
State Vs. Bal Mukund
FIR No. 126/2010
PS. Bawana
U/s. 288/338 IPC
JUDGMENT
1) SI No. of the case : 5282805/16
2) The date of commission of offence : 06.06.2010
3) The name of the complainant : ASI Karan Singh
PS Bawana
4) The name & parentage of accused : Bal Mukund
S/o Sh. Amar Nath
5) Offence involved : 288/338 IPC
6) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
7) Final order : Acquitted
8) The date of such order : 23.04.2019
Date of Institution : 01.06.2011
Judgment reserved on : 23.04.2019
Judgment announced on : 23.04.2019
FIR No. 126/10 PS Bawana State Vs. Bal Mukund Page no. 1 of 7
THE BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUDGMENT:
1. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on 06.06.2010 at about 12:55 PM at factory no. C-120, Sec.2, DSIIDC Bawana, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Bawana the accused Bal Mukund being the owner/incharge was getting the building constructed at the abovesaid factory premises without taking sufficient guard against any probable danger to human life and while getting the wall of the basement constructed, he did not get it repaired/changed despite requests of labours, which wall broke down and one labour Mithlesh who was working on the said wall sustained grievous hurt and the accused thereby has committed the offences punishable under section 288/338 IPC.
2. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused. The copy of charge-sheet and annexed documents were supplied to accused in compliance of Section 207 Cr. P.C. Thereafter notice for the offence punishable under Section 288/338 IPC was served upon the accused to which he had pleaded not guilty and had claimed trial.
3. In order to establish its case prosecution has examined two witnesses.
4. PW-1 Sh. Ramkesh deposed that he did not remember the exact date, month and year but it was eight years back from the date of his deposition at the time of Monsoons when he alongwith Mithlesh and FIR No. 126/10 PS Bawana State Vs. Bal Mukund Page no. 2 of 7 his mama, whose name he did not remember were working in factory at Bawana. He further deposed that they were filling the concrete in the basement and the wall of the basement was already built up and while they were working, the abovesaid wall of the basement, all of a sudden, fell down on all of them due to which Mithlesh sustained severe injuries. He further deposed that thereafter, they took Mithlesh to the hospital, Poothkhurd. He stated that the owner of the factory was not present at that time. He further deposed that after the incident, they called the owner who came at the spot at about 4-5 PM. He further deposed that he did not know by whose fault the wall fell down, however, there was an adjoining drain of about two feet wide which was filled up with silt and when the wall could not bear the weight of the soil and the flow in the said drain, it collapsed. He further deposed that the collapse was unforeseeable and it cannot be stated to be occasion by rashness or negligence on the part of anybody. The witness was cross-examined by Ld. APP on the ground that he was resiling from his statement made to the police. During cross- examination, he admitted that on 06.06.2010, he alongwith Ravinder and Mithlesh were working in the factory no. C-120, Sec. 2, DSIIDC Bawana. He denied the suggestion that they told the owner of the factory that the wall of the basement was weak and any incident might be occurred during the work but the owner did not pay any heed and told us to continue the work. He denied the suggestion that he told to the police that due to the negligence of the accused the incident had occurred or that he had been won over by the accused or that he was FIR No. 126/10 PS Bawana State Vs. Bal Mukund Page no. 3 of 7 intentionally not disclosing the true and correct facts.
5. PW- 2 Sh. Vijay Kumar deposed that in the year 2009, he was working at Bawana Factory No C-120 Sector 2 as gatekeeper and accused was the owner of said factory. He further deposed that during the month of summer season construction work was going on in the basement of the said factory and the wall in the basement was already raised at around 3 feet. That Mistri namely Rakesh and Ramkesh were filling concrete in the said wall and the said wall fell down upon the labour Mithlesh who was preparing concrete (masalla) near the said wall. He further deposed that the said wall fell down due to the blow of the wind. He stated that labour Mithlesh sustained injuries due to the said incident and thereafter Ramkesh and Rakesh took the injured Mithlesh to the MV Hospital. He was cross-examined by ld. APP on the ground that he was resiling from his statement made to the police. During his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that the wall which was already built was weak or that they told the accused that the wall may fall at any time and any incident might be occurred during the work but accused did not pay any heed to their request and told the Mithlesh and other mistries to continue to work. He denied the suggestion that the incident was occurred due to the negligence of the accused. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely to save the accused as he has been won over by him.
FIR No. 126/10 PS Bawana State Vs. Bal Mukund Page no. 4 of 7
6. In the matter the material witnesses i.e. PW-1 Ramkesh and PW-2 Vijay Kumar did not support the case of the prosecution as to the factum of the rashness and negligence on the part of the accused. The other material witnesses namely PWs Mithlesh and Ravinder were unserved through DCP concerned and hence it was futile to continue with the prosecution evidence for the purpose of examining other witnesses mentioned in the chargesheet who were concerned with the formal aspect of the investigation. The court as such vide its order dated 23.04.2019 closed the further prosecution evidence.
7. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C read with 281 Cr.P.C was dispensed with as no incriminating evidence had come on record against the accused. Accused stated that he did not want to lead DE. As such, final arguments were heard.
8. I have heard Ld. APP for State and the Ld Counsel for the accused and have perused the record.
9. It is the cardinal principle of criminal justice delivery system that the prosecution has to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubts. No matter how weak the defence of accused but, the golden rule of the criminal jurisprudence is that the case of the prosecution has to stand on its own legs.
FIR No. 126/10 PS Bawana State Vs. Bal Mukund Page no. 5 of 7
10. In the instant case, the allegations against the accused Bal Mukund are that he being the owner/incharge of the factory was getting constructed the same without taking sufficient guard against any probable danger to human life and while getting the wall of the basement, he did not get it repaired/changed despite requests of labours, which wall got broke down and one labour Mithlesh who was working on the said wall sustained grievous hurt.
11.It is noteworthy that PW1 and PW2 both were star witnesses of the prosecution, on whose statements prosecution was relying but both of them did not support the case of the prosecution and completely turned hostile. Both of them specifically denied that the accident occurred due to rashness and negligence on the part of the accused Bal Mukund. Therefore, the most important testimony that could connect the accused with the offence in question got lost rather their testimony has completely exonerated the accused from all the allegations levelled in present case. It was the testimony of PW1 and PW2 only which could have proved crucial in sustaining the conviction of accused. Hence, the prosecution has failed to connect the accused with the alleged incident and all other witnesses are formal in nature whose no amount of evidence can tantamount to conviction of the accused.
12.Hence, in the absence of any incriminating / inculpatory evidence against the accused in testimony of the eyewitnesses, the prosecution FIR No. 126/10 PS Bawana State Vs. Bal Mukund Page no. 6 of 7 has miserably failed to prove the charges against the accused and hence, the accused Bal Mukund is hereby acquitted from offences u/s 288/338 IPC.
13.File be consigned to Record room after necessary compliance.
MANU Digitally signed
by MANU GOEL
GOEL KHARB
Date: 2019.04.24
Announced in open court KHARB 15:49:51 +0530
on 23.04.2019 (MANU GOEL KHARB)
MM/NORTH/ROHINI COURTS
FIR No. 126/10 PS Bawana State Vs. Bal Mukund Page no. 7 of 7