Delhi District Court
State vs . Dharam Ver on 15 December, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. AASHISH GUPTA, ACMM
NORTH EAST KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
CR Cases 22/14/2011 465549/2015
STATE Vs. DHARAM VER
FIR No: 118 /2010
PS: (Sonia Vihar)
1. FIR No. of the case : 118/2010
2. Date of commission of offence : 10.10.2010
3. Date of institution of the case : 18.04.2011
4. Name of the complainant : Sanjay
5. Name of accused & address : Dharam Veer @Dharma
S/o Sh. Shyam Lal
R/o E-4/259, Main Sagar
Market,
Sonia Vihar, 4 ½ Pusta, Delhi
6. Offence charged with : 337/338/304A IPC
7. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
8. Date of final arguments : 15.12.2022
9. Final Order : Acquitted
10. Date of Judgement : 15.12.2022.
JUDGEMENT:
1. Prosecution has alleged that accused had erected a 4 inch thick wall at his house No. E-4/259, Gali No. 8, Sagar Market, 4 ½ Pusta, Sonia Vihar, Delhi without any proper precaution and the said act was rash State Vs. Dharam Veer FIR no. 118/2010 Page no. 1/7 and negligent so as to endanger the human life and personal safety of others. Prosecution claimed that on 10.10.2010 at 01:00 PM the aforesaid wall collapsed and debris of the same fell on the roof of neighbouring house and as result of which the roof of the complainant's house also collapsed and a person namely Surender sustained simple injuries; Saniya and Vanshu sustained grievous injuries and Mukesh succumbed to his injuries. Thus, as per prosecution, accused has committed offences punishable U/s 337/338/304A IPC. FIR was registered by police for the said offences and accused was arrested and released on police bail. Charge-sheet was filed after investigation.
2. Accused appeared before this Court and after compliance of Section 207 IPC, charge under sections 337/338/304A IPC was framed against him to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. To discharge its onus, prosecution examined four witnesses. A brief summary of prosecution evidence is as follows: -
Sr.No. Witness Witness Remarks
name no.
1 Sanjay PW-1 Complainant of the present case. He lives
adjacent to the house of accused and
claimed during cross-examination (done by
Ld. APP) that he had asked the accused to
not to construct 4 inch wall on his property.
2. Har Prasad PW-2 Deceased Mukesh who died due to wall
collapse was his brother-in-law. He
identified the dead body.
State Vs. Dharam Veer FIR no. 118/2010 Page no. 2/7
3 Smt. Maya PW-3 Wife of the deceased. She identified the
dead body of the deceased Mukesh Kumar
4 SI Mintoo PW-4 IO in the present case.
Singh
4. Prosecution has also relied upon the following documents:-
Sr. No. Items Exhibits
1 Compromise letter Ex. P1/D1
2. Statement of complainant Ex. PW1/A
3 Arrest and personal search memo of accused Ex. PW1/B and
Ex. PW1/C
4 Identification memo of deceased Ex. PW2/A
5. Rukka of present case Ex. PW4/A
6. Site plan of the present case Ex. PW4/B
7. Identification memo of deceased by Smt. Maya Ex. PW4/C
8. Copy of FIR (admitted by accused) Ex. A1
9 Post mortem report No. 1428/10 of deceased Ex. A2
Mukesh (admitted by accused)
10 MLC No B4623/10 dated 10.10.2010 (admitted Ex. A3
by accused)
11. MLC No. 127202 dated 10.10.2010 (admitted by Ex. A4 accused)
12. MLC No. 12703 dated 10.10.2010 (admitted by Ex. A5 accused)
13. MLC No. C4695 (admitted by accused) Ex. A6
14. The X ray plates of Surender, Sania and Vanshu Ex. A7 (4 nos) (admitted by accused) State Vs. Dharam Veer FIR no. 118/2010 Page no. 3/7 Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed.
5. Accused was examined u/s 313 CrPC and he has denied all the allegations and submitted that he had taken due precautions in the construction of the building and he is not aware as to how did the building collapse. He has not led any evidence in his defence.
6. I have heard the final arguments and have perused the record.
7. It is the case of the prosecution that due to the rash and negligent conduct of the accused, one person namely Mukesh lost his life and other persons namely Surender, Sania and Vanshu received injuries.
8. As per record, accused had erected a 4'' thick wall in his house, without taking any due precautions. This led to collapse of the said wall on 10.10.2010 and debris of the same fell on the roof of neighbouring house and as result of which the roof of the complainant's house also collapsed and a person namely Surender sustained simple injuries; Saniya and Vanshu sustained grievous injuries and Mukesh succumbed to his injuries. It may be noted that both, Surender and Mukesh were working for accused herein with Surender working as a mason and Mukesh as plumber.
9. Prosecution claims that the act of the accused of constructing the said wall was responsible for the eventual collapse of wall leading to State Vs. Dharam Veer FIR no. 118/2010 Page no. 4/7 death/injury of the aforesaid victims. On the said allegations, accused herein has been charge-sheeted U/s 337/338/304A IPC.
10. For a criminal offence to be made out under the aforesaid sections, a very high degree of rash or negligent conduct (which borders on recklessness) is required to be done on the part of the accused before the accused can be said to have committed the aforesaid offences. Before it can be considered as to whether the any act/omission of the accused amounted to negligence within the meaning of Section 337/338/304A IPC, it may be stated herein that criminal law does not per-se makes negligence simplicitor as an offence. Only when negligence is of such gravity that it amount to recklessness on the part of accused can the same be punished U/s 337/338/304A IPC.
11. In this regard I may place reliance on the judgement passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of 'P.B. Desai Vs. State of Maharashtra [2013] 11 SCR 863' wherein while interpreting Section 337/338 IPC, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has stated that:-
"46. The only state of mind which is deserving of punishment is that which demonstrates an intention to cause harm to others, or where there is a deliberate willingness to subject others to the risk of harm. Negligent conduct does not entail an intention to cause harm, but only involves a deliberate act subjecting another to the risk of harm where the actor is aware of the existence of the risk and, nonetheless, proceeds in the face of the risk. This, however, is the classic definition of recklessness, which is conceptually different from negligence and which is widely accepted as being a basis of criminal liability.
State Vs. Dharam Veer FIR no. 118/2010 Page no. 5/7
47. The solution to the issue of punishing what is described loosely, and possibly inaccurate, as negligence is to make a clear distinction between negligence and recklessness and to reserve criminal punishment for the latter. If the conduct in question involves elements of recklessness, then it is punishable and should not be described as merely negligent. If, however, there is nothing to suggest that the actor was aware of the risk deliberately taken then he is morally blameless and should face, at the most, a civil action for damages."
12. A bare reading of the aforesaid judgement shows that when the conduct of the accused is reckless in as much as the accused deliberately subjects others to risk without due regard to the risk of harm to others, such act/ omission of the accused is considered as reckless act. Cases where the accused is not aware about the risk being taken by him deliberately, in such cases, only negligence (for which a civil remedy shall lie) shall come into play and such acts shall not be treated as reckless for invoking the rigour of criminal law.
13. Simply put what Sections 337/338/304A IPC demand is gross negligence or reckless conduct on the part of the accused. When the act or omission of the act is only negligent and not grossly negligent so as to amount to recklessness, such cases shall not be punishable under the aforesaid sections.
14. In the present case, as per prosecution, accused had erected a 4'' wall without any precaution, which eventually collapsed and debris of the same fell on the roof of complainant and resultantly, adjacent house belonging to complainant also collapsed. Even if the said facts are taken State Vs. Dharam Veer FIR no. 118/2010 Page no. 6/7 on their face value, in my opinion, the said act of the accused cannot be said to be a reckless act meaning thereby that the accused had no regard for the safety of others when he erected the said wall in his house. In my opinion, the act of erecting of wall by accused in his own house; thereafter, the collapse of the wall; and the collapsing debris thereafter falling on the house of complainant are too remote from each other. It means that the act of the accused and the death of or injury to victims are too remote from each other so as to say that the act of the accused was responsible for death/injury of victims. It cannot be said that when the accused erected the said wall in his house, he could have easily foreseen the chain of events like its collapse and thereafter the debris falling on the victims house. The cause and event in this case are extremely remote so as to say that the eventual result was a direct or probable result of the act of the accused. If that be the case, in my opinion, the act of the accused may be culpable in a civil court but the same cannot be said to a reckless act and thus, if there was no recklessness or negligence on the part of the accused he cannot be convicted U/s 337/338/304A IPC, as the same are the necessary ingredients for the said offences.
15. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, in my humble opinion, accused is entitled to be acquitted in this case. It is ordered Digitally signed accordingly. AASHISH by AASHISH GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2022.12.15 16:51:40 +0530 ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT AASHISH GUPTA On 15.12.2022 ACMM (NORTH EAST) KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI State Vs. Dharam Veer FIR no. 118/2010 Page no. 7/7