Delhi District Court
State vs Sukhvir. on 31 May, 2019
IN THE COURT OF Ms POOJA AGGARWAL:
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-04: NORTH-WEST DISTRICT:
ROHINI DISTRICT COURTS: NEW DELHI
FIR No.309/2006
PS Shalimar Bagh
State Vs Sukhvir.
Date of Institution: 27.11.2007
Date of Judgment: 31.05.2019
JUDGMENT
(a) Serial Number of the case : 538842/16
(b) Date of commission of offence : 30.04.2006
(c) Name of the complainant : SI Ravinder Singh
(d) Name of Accused, his : Sukhvir Singh
parentage & residence S/o Sh. Ram Samajh,
R/o H no. 136, Vill Haiderpur, Delhi
(e) Offence complained of : Under Section 287/304A IPC
(f) Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty
(g) Final Order : Acquittal
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION
1) The accused Sukhvir Singh has been sent to face trial for the commission of offences under Sections 287/304A of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') upon the allegations that on 30.04.2006, at about 10.30 a.m, at Plot No.4 Volvo Ice-cream factory, Haiderpur village, Delhi, he compelled Bushan who was an employee FIR No. 309/2006 PS Shalimar Bagh U/s 287/304A IPC State Vs Sukhvir Page No. 1 of 8 in the said factory to work on an ice-cream cart without providing safety devices ie requisite sockets and he acted with the said machine rashly and negligently as to endanger human life and knowingly negligently omitted to provide safety devices while working on the machinery in his possession to guard against any probable danger to human life from the said machinery and due to said negligence, one employee Bhushan expired with such death not amounting to culpable homicide.
2) After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed in the Court, cognizance of the offences was taken, the accused was summoned and after he entered appearance, copy of chargesheet and the documents were supplied to him in compliance of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
3) After consideration of the submissions made on the point of notice, notice was served upon the accused for the commission of offences under Section 287/304A of Indian Penal Code by the Ld Predecessor to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4) To prove its case, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses.
5) PW1 Shivji Rai testified as to working with his son ie deceased Bhushan at ice-cream factory in Haiderpur with his son selling the ice cream on rehri. He further testified as to the deceased Bhushan having FIR No. 309/2006 PS Shalimar Bagh U/s 287/304A IPC State Vs Sukhvir Page No. 2 of 8 expired due to electrocution, as to having identified his dead body at BJRM hospital vide Ex PW1/A and as to having received the dead body of the deceased vide Ex PW1/B. He was not cross examined on behalf of the accused despite opportunity.
6) PW2 G S Walia and PW4 Mukesh Gupta testified on similar lines as to letter/intimation having been received in their office on 02.05.2006 as to one Bhushan having expired due to electric shock in Vovlo Ice- cream factory in Haiderpur village on 30.04.2006 in which letter a request had also been made to inspect the site upon which they visited the site on 03.05.2006, inspected the ice-cream machine and found that the electric supply leads of the compressor motor had not been provided with the plug top due to which the copper conductors of the electric supply were exposed. They further testified that an extension board was found at the top of the ice cream cart for supplying electricity to the cart and the electric supply lead used to be inserted in the socket in the extension board whenever the compressor was required to be run. They further testified that the deceased might have come in contact with the copper conductor of electricity supply leads while he inserted it in the socket of the extension board. They further testified as to having found during their inspection that the electrical installation of the ice cream cart had not been maintained in a manner so as to ensure safety of humans. They also proved the report Ex PW2/A. While PW2 G.S. Walia was not cross examined by the Ld Counsel for the accused despite opportunity, PW4 Mukesh Gupta was FIR No. 309/2006 PS Shalimar Bagh U/s 287/304A IPC State Vs Sukhvir Page No. 3 of 8 duly cross-examined on behalf of the accused.
7) PW3 W/ASI Urmila Devi being duty officer proved the factum of registration of the present FIR Ex. PW3/A on 30.04.2006 on the basis of rukka brought by Ct. Satender which was sent by SI Ravinder and also proved the endorsement Ex.PW3/B on the same. She was not cross-examined on behalf of the accused despite opportunity.
8) PW5 ASI Surender testified as to having been posted at Mobile Crime Team on 30.04.2006 and further testified that on 30.04.2006, on the request of the IO/SI Ravinder, he had visited the spot ie Plot no 4, Ice factory, Haiderpur village and further testified as to having clicked 5 photographs of the spot on the direction of the IO. He proved the photographs Ex. P1 to P5 as well as the negatives Ex. P6 to P10. He was duly cross examined at length by the Ld Counsel for the accused.
9) PW6 Roshan, PW7 Kanhaiya, PW8 Satendra Kumar, PW9 Jitender Ray, PW10 Shankar and PW12 Braijmohan Kumar all turned completely hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution whereupon they were all duly cross-examined by the Ld APP for the State during which the State was unable to elicit any admission either as to accident having taken place despite the deceased having repeatedly requested the owner of the ice cream factory for installing a socket in the said wire which the owner ignored, nor the prosecution was able to elicit any admission as to the identity of the FIR No. 309/2006 PS Shalimar Bagh U/s 287/304A IPC State Vs Sukhvir Page No. 4 of 8 accused as owner of such factory. The witnesses PW6 to PW10 even failed to identify the photographs of the spot Ex P1 to P5 and Mark A1 to A4. The witnesses PW6 to PW9 and PW12 were duly cross- examined on behalf of the accused but PW10 was not cross-examined by the accused despite opportunity.
10) PW11 Virender Kumar also turned completely hostile and during his cross-examination by the Ld APP for the State, he denied having identified the dead body of the deceased Bhushan at mortuary BJRM hospital on 02.05.2006 and he also did not identify his signatures on the dead body identification memo Mark ZA. He was not cross examined by the accused despite opportunity.
11) Thereafter, upon the request of the Ld APP for the State, prosecution evidence was closed without examining the remaining witnesses and as no incriminating evidence had come on record against the accused recording of the statement of accused under Section 281 read with 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was dispensed with.
12) Final arguments as advanced on behalf of the State as well as by the Ld. Counsel for the accused have been carefully considered along with the evidence on record.
13)It is a settled proposition of law that in a criminal trial, it is for the State FIR No. 309/2006 PS Shalimar Bagh U/s 287/304A IPC State Vs Sukhvir Page No. 5 of 8 to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts by leading reliable, co- gent and convincing evidence and it is for the prosecution to ensure that its case is able to stand on its own legs. The prosecution cannot derive any benefit whatsoever from the weakness of the defence of the ac- cused if any. Accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution version.
14)Since the accused have been charged with having committed an offence under Section 287 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, it was for the State to prove that the accused knowingly or negligently omitted to take such order with the machinery in his possession ie the ice cream cart and under his care as was sufficient to guard against any probable danger to human life from such machinery.
15) Further to prove the offences under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, it was also for the prosecution to prove that due to said negligence, one employee Bhushan expired with such death not amounting to culpable homicide.
16) However, in the present case, prosecution has failed to bring on record any conclusive evidence as to the exact cause due to which the deceased was electrocuted as PW2 G S Walia and PW4 Mukesh Gupta have merely testified that the deceased might have come in contact with the copper conductor of electricity supply leads while he inserted it in the socket of the extension board. Thus, only a possibility has been FIR No. 309/2006 PS Shalimar Bagh U/s 287/304A IPC State Vs Sukhvir Page No. 6 of 8 expressed but no conclusive finding has come on record as to the reason for the electrocution. Further, all the public/ independent witnesses have turned completely hostile and have not supported the case of the prosecution in respect of the presence of any negligence/ omission to take care in respect of the ice-cream cart or as to the death of Bharat due to such negligence/omission nor any conclusive evidence has come on record to even prove that the accused was in fact the owner of the volvo factory where the accident took place.
17) The remaining witnesses being formal in nature could only prove the investigation carried out in this case but could not prove the factum of negligence/omission of the accused in respect of the machinery ie the ice cream machine.
Decision
18) In view of the above discussion, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable by leading cogent evidence. Accordingly, the accused Sukhbir S/o. Ram Samajh is given the benefit of doubt and is hereby acquitted of the offence under Section 287304A IPC in the FIR no.309/06 PS Shalimar Bagh.
19) The accused is directed to furnish personal bond in a sum of Rs.
10,000/- with one surety in like amount in compliance of provisions of Section 437A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and are directed to be present before the Ld. Appellate Court as and when notice is served FIR No. 309/2006 PS Shalimar Bagh U/s 287/304A IPC State Vs Sukhvir Page No. 7 of 8 upon him.
20) File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the Open Court on 31.05.2019 POOJA Digitally signed by POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: +0530 2019.05.31 11:06:14 (POOJA AGGARWAL) Metropolitan Magistrate-04/ North West District Rohini District Court/New Delhi Certified that this judgment contains 08 pages and each page bears my signature. Digitally signed by POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2019.05.31 11:06:23 +0530 (POOJA AGGARWAL) Metropolitan Magistrate-04/ North West District Rohini District Court/New Delhi FIR No. 309/2006 PS Shalimar Bagh U/s 287/304A IPC State Vs Sukhvir Page No. 8 of 8