Delhi District Court
State V. Manish Goel vs K. Jha on 30 January, 2020
State v. Manish Goel
IN THE COURT OF MS. RASHMI GUPTA, MM06, NORTH DISTRICT,
ROHINI COURTS, NEW DELHI
State v. Manish Goel
FIR no. 165/13 Date of Institution 13.11.2014
Police Station Adarsh Nagar Judgment Reserved on 18.01.2020
Sections 287/304 A IPC Date of Judgment 30.01.2020
JUDGMENT
a) Serial Number of the case 5291084/16
b) Date of offence 16.06.2013
c) Name of Complainant ASI Tejpal Singh
d) Name and address of the Manish Goel S/o Sh. Brij Goel, R/o K
accused
39, Saraba Nagar, Ludhiyana, Punjab.
e) Offence complained of Section 287/304A IPC
f) Plea of accused Not guilty
g) Final Order Acquitted u/s 304 A IPC
Convicted u/s 287 IPC
h) Date of Order 30.01.2020
JUDGMENT:
1. The accused persons namely Manish Goel has stood trial for offences u/s 287/304A IPC.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 16.06.2013 at khasra no. 123, Flat no. 15 A, Sarai Pipal Thala, Adarsh Nagar Extension the accused Manish Goel was the running a service centre at the said premises and was also the owner of the same. He omitted to take such order as is sufficient to guard against any probable danger to human life as he did not make proper arrangement for drainage of water and repair of faulty electrical wirings in the service centre. On FIR No. 165/13, PS Adarsh Nagar Page 1 of 9 State v. Manish Goel 16.06.2013 at unknown time one of his servant namely Kalim Ahmad @ Chunna s/o Shafiq got electrocuted in the said premises due to faulty electrical lines and water stagnation.
3. After taking the cognizance and compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C, charge against the accused persons was framed for offence under section 287/304A IPC. vide order dated 22.01.2015.
4. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for prosecution evidence. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses.
5. Mohd. Azim was examined as PW1. He deposed that on 16.06.2013 he was present at his work place i.e. at Model Town. At around 3:30 pm he received a call from one messon who used to work near the place where his father late Sh. Kalim Ahmad used to work. He told him that his father had expired due to electrocution. He immediately rushed at the spot i.e. Goel Service Center probably at A15, Sarai Pepal Thala, Adarsh Nagar. Upon reaching there he went inside the room where his father used to work and saw that he was lying in the water in the room. He was in a state of shock and the relatives who had visited the said spot had called at 100 number. After some time the police officials arrived and recorded his statement. That he used to tell his father not to work in the said service center as he could see the electric connection in the said room where he used to work were not properly done and his father used to tell him that he had already complained many times about the said problem to the owner of the service center namely Manish Goel. He identified the dead body of his father vide identification memo Ex. PW 1/A bearing his signature at point A. After the post mortom the dead body of his father was handed over to him vide handing over memo Ex. PW1/B bearing my signature at point A.
6. Ct. Sachin was examined as PW2. He deposed that on 16.06.2013, he was posted at PS Adarsh Nagar as a constable. On that day, he alongwith IO ASI FIR No. 165/13, PS Adarsh Nagar Page 2 of 9 State v. Manish Goel Tejpal Singh went at Sarai Peepalthla Ext. Adarsh Nagar where they came to know that one person namely Mohd. Kaleem has died due to electric current. Thereafter, I alongwith IO ASI Tejpal Singh took the dead body and went to BJRM Hospital. Thereafter, the dead body of deceased Mohd. Kaleem was got identified by his son namely Mohd. Azim. After that the dead body of the deceased was handed over to his son Mohd. Azim. Thereafter, IO recorded the statement of Mohd. Azim. Identification statement of Mohd. Azim was recorded vide identification memo already Ex. PW1/A bearing his signature at point B. The witness correctly identified the place of the incident and the dead body through a photograph in the court.
7. Sh. Amit Dahiya, was examined as PW3. He deposed that the Dy. Electrical Inspector of their department had marked him one letter of SHO Adarsh Nagar to give opinion regarding the cause of electric shock received by the deceased. A reply had been filed by him department which was endorsed by him, Umesh Kumar Rai and Dy. Electrical Inspector Arun and the same is Ex.PW3/A bearing him signature at point A.
8. Sh. Umesh Kumar Rai, was examined as PW4. He deposed that the Dy. Electrical Inspector of their department had marked him one letter of SHO Adarsh Nagar to give opinion regarding the cause of electric shock received by the deceased. A reply had been filed by his department which is endorsed by him, Amit Dahiya and Dy. Electrical Inspector Arun and the same is already Ex.PW3/A bearing his signature at point B. The witness correctly identified the spot through photograph in the court.
9. Ct. Rakesh, was examined as PW5. He deposed that on 16.06.2013, he was posted at PS Adarsh Nagar as a Ct. On that day he was working as DD writer from 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM and at about 3:55 pm, he received an information. He entered the same at serial no. 21A of DD and copy of same was FIR No. 165/13, PS Adarsh Nagar Page 3 of 9 State v. Manish Goel given to Ct. Ramesh Tiwari. He brought the original record of the aforesaid DD entry. He recorded the same in DD register vide DD no. 21A PS: Adarsh Nagar attested true copy of DD no. 21A dt. 16.06.2013 is Ex. PW5/A (OSR) bearing his signature at point A.
10. HC Ramesh, was examined as PW6. He deposed that on 16.06.2013, he was posted at PS Adarsh Nagar as Ct. On that day, he was part of investigation of the present case along with IO based upon DD no. 21A and the same was marked to ASI Tejpal at about 3:55 pm. Thereafter, they reached at the spot ie., khasra no. 123, Flat no. 15A, Saria Pipal Thala, Adarsh Nagar Extn. Delhi. When they reached at the Manish Service Center ie., the spot, they found out that there was a dead body lying down in water which was knee deep. Upon inquiry they found out that the body was of Mohd. Kalim. Thereafter, IO prepared one tehrir and handed over the same to him for registration of FIR. He accordingly went to PS and got the FIR registered. After getting FIR registered, he returned back at the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and original tehrir to the IO. Thereafter the IO had locked and sealed the premises with the seal of TPS at the spot. Thereafter, the body of victim was sent to BJRM mortuary. He correctly identified the spot through photograph in the court.
11. ASI Mange Ram was examined as PW7. He deposed that on 16.06.2013, he was posted at PS Adarsh Nagar as a HC. On that day he was working as DO and his duty hours were 3:45 pm to 12:00 midnight. At about 6:15 pm, Ct. Ramesh Tiwari handed over rukka to him, which was sent by ASI Tejpal. On the basis of which he recorded FIR in the present case. He has brought in court original FIR register. Copy of the FIR is ExPW7/A bearing his signature at point A. He also made endorsement on rukka as ExPW7/B. After registration of the case he handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to Ct. Ramesh Tiwari for handing over the same to ASI Tejpal.
FIR No. 165/13, PS Adarsh Nagar Page 4 of 912. Dr. V. K. Jha, was examined as PW8. He deposed that he was deputed by the concerned M. S. of BJRM Hospital to depose in the case on behalf of Dr. Bhim Singh as he had left the hospital and his whereabouts were not known. As per the postmortem report no.478/13 dated 17.06.2013, Dr. Bhim Singh had conducted the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased Kalim Ahmad @ Chunna aged 35 years, Male. His detailed report is contained in the said PM no.478/13 which is now Ex. PW8/A bearing the signatures of Dr.Bhim Singh at point A. He identified the hand writing and signatures of Dr.Bhim Singh as he had seen him signing and writing during the usual course of duty. As per the said PM report the death was caused due to shock consequent upon ante mortem electrocution.
13. HC Bhagwan Singh, was examined as PW9. He deposed that on 15.09.2013, he was posted at PS Adarsh Nagar as Constable. On that day he joined the investigation with the IO. On that day the accused was present at the PS on the calling of the IO. IO inquired him and arrested him vide arrest memo Ex. PW9/A bearing his signatures at point A. The personal search of the accused was conducted vide memo Ex. PW9/B bearing his signatures at point A. IO recorded his statement. After that he was relieved from by the IO.
14. SI Tej Pal was examined as PW10. He deposed that on 16.06.2013 he was posted at PS Adarsh Nagar as ASI. On that day after receiving DD No. 21A he alongwith Ct. Ramesh reached at Khasra No. 123 Adarsh Nagar Extension where he found water logging at Auto Service Station. On inspection he found live wires were hanging and one person was lying inside the logged water in unconscious condition. He had taken out the said person with the help of his staff. In the meanwhile others staff from PS also reached the spot . Thereafter, the said person was sent to BJRM Hospital through one constable who returned to the spot and stated that the person was declared brought dead by the doctors FIR No. 165/13, PS Adarsh Nagar Page 5 of 9 State v. Manish Goel and his dead body was got preserved. Thereafter, he tried to search out any his eye witness of the incident but no one could be found. Thereafter, he prepared tehrir Ex. PW 10/A bearing his signature at point A. On the basis of DD No. 21 A and handed over the same to Ct. Ramesh for registration of FIR who went to PS and returned to the spot alongwith the copy of FIR and original tehrir which he handed over tehrir. Thereafter, the premises the was sealed with the seal of TPS. Thereafter, the dead body of deceased was handed over to his relative after identification and handed over memo Ex. PW 1/B bearing his signature at point B after the postmortem.
15. He further stated that on the next day, he visited the premises and recorded statement of Mahesh Mishra who was working at the premises who stated to me that the incident the occurred due to the negligence of Manish Goel who was the owner of the premises. Thereafter, the premises was got inspected from office of electrical inspector. Thereafter, he search for the owner of the premises in question but he could not be found there for notice U/s 160 Cr.P.C was served upon him which is now Ex. PW10/B bearing his signature at point A which was replied by the Manish Goel. Thereafter, Manish Goel was arrested after interrogation vide memo already Ex. PW 9/A bearing my signature at point B. Thereafter, electricity bill of the premises was obtained from the accused which was in the name of Goel Service Center being run by the accused. Site plan was prepared at the instance of Mahesh Mishra. Thereafter, he prepared the chargesheet and filed in the court. Identity of accused was not disputed during his examination in the court.
16. Thereafter, the prosecution evidence was closed and the matter was fixed for recording the statement of the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. The incriminating material was put to him and he was questioned on the same. He FIR No. 165/13, PS Adarsh Nagar Page 6 of 9 State v. Manish Goel stated that there was no negligence on his part and opted not to lead any evidence in his defence.
17. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for final arguments.
18. Sh. Anil Dabas advanced arguments on behalf of the accused persons and Ld. APP submitted on behalf of the state.
19. It has been submitted on behalf of the accused by Ld. Counsel Sh. Anil Dabas that the prosecution has failed to prove its case. There is no eye witness to the incident. That the mandate of Section 167 (5) Cr.PC was not followed in the present case. The challan had been filed beyond the period of 6 months from the date on which the accused was arrested. Order for stopping further investigation was not made by the court. Thus, the cognizance in the present case has become bad in law.
20. On the other hand, it has been argued by Ld. APP for state that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It has established that the deceased was the employee of the accused through examination of PW1 Mohd. Azim who is the son of the deceased. Electricity bill of the premises has also been produced on record which shows that the accused was the owner of the said premises in which the service centre was being run by the accused. It has also proved the report the electrical inspector which is Ex.PW3/A showing that the legal / statutory provisions were not followed by the accused in his electrical installation on the premises in which he used to run the service centre.
21. Both the sides have been heard in detail and the record has been carefully perused.
22. The prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses. The only public witness examined is Mohd. Azim (PW1). He is the son of the deceased and was also not present at the spot. No other eye witness has been examined by the FIR No. 165/13, PS Adarsh Nagar Page 7 of 9 State v. Manish Goel prosecution. During the investigation of the case, one public person namely Mahesh Mishra was also examined as a witness, however, he was never produced before the court for his examination on oath.
23. Notice against the accused had been framed for offence u/s 287/304A IPC. For offence u/s 304 A IPC there should be a direct nexus between the rash and negligent act on the part of the accused and the cause of death. In the present case, no eye witness was examined. Thus, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has not been able to establish direct connection / nexus between the cause of death of the deceased and rash and negligent act / omission on the part of the accused .
24. As per prosecution, after the incident, during the investigation of the case, inspection of the premises at which the alleged incident had taken place was done by the Electrical Inspector of Government of NCT of Delhi. Report to this effect dated 27.08.2013 given by the Dy. Electrical Inspector is on record and has been proved by the prosecution as Ex.PW3/A. As per report, the insulation resistance of the electrical installation of the pressure pump motor was found to be very low and below the prescribed standards. Further, the metallic body of the pressure pump motor was not connected by separate two distinct connections for protection against leakage of electric current in violation of the regulations. The supply of electricity to the pressure pump motor was not controlled through an earth leakage protective device. It was found that the provisions of 'Central Electricity Authority (Measures relating to Safety and Electrical Supply) Regulations, 2010' were not found to be complied with by the owner of the installation who is the accused in the present case.
25. As far as the submission made by the Ld. Defence counsel that the cognizance is bad in law as the time limit specified in Section 167 (5) Cr. PC was not followed is concerned, in my opinion it is is not sustainable. The proceedings FIR No. 165/13, PS Adarsh Nagar Page 8 of 9 State v. Manish Goel do not get vitiated even if the magistrate had not made an order for stopping further investigation into the offence beyond the period of 6 months from the arrest of the accused in a summons case.
26. Thus, in view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that in the present case offence u/s 304 A IPC is not made out. However, offence u/s 287 IPC is made out.
27. Thus, the accused Manish Goel is acquitted for offence u/s 304 A IPC and is convicted for offence u/s 287 IPC.
28. Heard separately on sentence qua the offence u/s 287 IPC.
29. Bond u/s 437 A Cr.PC furnished on behalf of the accused qua is acquittal u/s 304 A IPC.
Announced in open court Digitally signed
by RASHMI
on 30th of January 2020 RASHMI GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2020.01.30
16:21:07
+0530
(Rashmi Gupta)
MM06, North District
Rohini Courts, Delhi/30.01.2020
FIR No. 165/13, PS Adarsh Nagar Page 9 of 9