Delhi District Court
State vs . Baaz Singh on 6 August, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. NAVJEET BUDHIRAJA, METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE04,
SOUTH DISTRICT, NEW DELHI
STATE VS. Baaz Singh
FIR NO: 825/05
P. S. Sangam Vihar
U/s 288/337/338/304 A IPC
Unique ID no. 02403R0116072006
JUDGMENT
Sl. No. of the case : 2687/2 (20.1.2014)
Date of its institution : 4.3.2006
Name of the complainant : Sh. Malkhan, S/o Sh. Tafat Singh, R/o
Village Palarmaun, PS Raksha, Distt
Jhansi, U.P
Date of Commission of offence : 10.9.2005
Name of the accused : Sh. Baaj Singh, S/o Sh. Harbans
Singh, R/o Village Bakhtal Ki Chowki,
District Alwar, Rajasthan.
Offence complained of : Section 288/337/338/304 A IPC
Plea of accused : Not guilty
Case reserved for orders : 6.8.2014
Date of judgment : 6.8.2014
Final Order : ACQUITTED
BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR THE DECISION:
1. This is the prosecution of the accused Baaj Singh pursuant to a charge sheet filed by the Police Station Sangam Vihar under section 288/337/338/304 A Indian Penal Code, State Vs. Baaj Singh 1/4 FIR no. 825/05 1860 (for short "IPC") subsequent to the investigation carried out by them in FIR no. 825/05.
2. As per the prosecution's story on 10.9.2005 at about 8.30 am at Surender Dhabha Lal Kuan, MB road, Delhi accused knowingly or negligently failed to take sufficient guard against the probable danger to the human life and personal safety of others from the fall of the roof/building and negligent in not providing safety protection measures and instruments to the labourers namely Kishan Lal, Mukesh Kumar, Rajiv, Manoj Kumar, Surender, Malkhan, Mukhiya and fatal on the person of Sunil Kumar and Harish due to electrocution and fall of roof/building, thereby committed an offence u/s 288/337/338/304 A IPC.
3. After completing the formalities, charge sheet was filed against the accused. Charge was framed against the accused u/s 288/337/338/304 A IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined two witnesses.
5. PW 1 Sh. Manoj Kumar deposed that on 10.9.2005, he was working as a helper in the dhaba of the accused Baaj Singh. On that day, some repairing work was going on at the roof of the said dhaba and many labourers were working there who were lifting the bricks, cement, sand and badarpur on the roof of the said dhaba due to which the roof got collapsed and fell down and many labourers and other customers and himself also sustained injuries. He has not supported the case of the prosecution and with the permission of the Court he was cross examined by Ld. APP for the State wherein he admitted that his statement was recorded by the police. However, he denied the suggestion that the contractor Sh. Malkhan and other labourers refused to do the work of repairing on the roof as the roof was made of gutter and despite the refusal by the labourers, the accused insisted to carry on the work and while doing the work under compulsion the roof of the said dhaba got collapsed in which himself and other persons State Vs. Baaj Singh 2/4 FIR no. 825/05 sustained injuries. He further denied the suggestion that he has been won over by the accused or that due to the negligence of the accused, the said incident was happened. He was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
6. PW 2 Sh. Kamal proved the dead body identification of his deceased son namely Harish vide his statement Ex.PW2/A. He was not cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused despite according opportunity.
7. Accused has admitted genuineness of certain formal documents u/s 294 Cr.P.C. Hence, evidence of witnesses to these documents is dispensed with.
8. Accused was examined u/s 313 of Cr.P.C wherein the documents admitted by him were put to him to which he replied in affirmative and chose not to lead defence evidence.
9. I have heard the Ld. APP for State and Ld. counsel for accused person and perused the records of the case.
10. The prosecution's case is that on the aforesaid date, time and place of incident, accused failed to take sufficient guard against the probable danger to the human life and personal safety of to others from the fall of the roof/building and negligent in not providing safety protection measured and instruments to the labourers. In order to prove its case, prosecution has cited witnesses namely Kishan Lal, Mukesh Kumar, Rajiv, Manoj Kumar, Surender, Malkhan, Wahi Mukhia, Sunil, Sunil Kumar, Harish but to the dismay of the prosecution witness Manoj Kumar has not supported the case of the prosecution whereas witnesses Kishan Lal, Mukesh Kumar, Rajiv, Surender, Malkhan, Wahi Mukhia, Sunil, Sunil Kumar and Harish remained unserved despite repeated processes and even process through Deputy Commissioner of Police concerned. Witness Manoj Kumar has denied the suggestion that the contractor Sh. Malkhan and other labourers refused to do the work of repairing on the roof as the roof was made of gutter and despite the refusal by the labourers, the accused insisted to carry on the work and while doing the work under compulsion the roof of the said State Vs. Baaj Singh 3/4 FIR no. 825/05 dhaba got collapsed in which himself and other persons sustained injuries. He further denied the suggestion that he has been won over by the accused or that due to the negligence of the accused, the said incident was happened. Accused has admitted certain formal documents u/s 294 Cr.PC but that by itself is not sufficient to convict him. Therefore, it is said that there is no harm in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to connect the accused with the crime in question.
11. In a case titled as Satish Mehra Vs. Delhi Admn. & Anr. 1996 JCC 507 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, it is held that " in a case where, there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction, the valuable time of the court should not be wasted for holding a trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on the future date"
12. Therefore, in ultimate analysis as a result of trial, the accused Baaj Singh stands acquitted of the offences with which he is charged. He is set at liberty.
Announced in the open court (Navjeet Budhiraja)
on 06.8.2014 Metropolitan Magistrate04
South, New Delhi
State Vs. Baaj Singh 4/4 FIR no. 825/05