Delhi District Court
Sate vs . Harvinder Singh on 4 December, 2014
FIR No. 550/05
PS Narela
U/s. 287/338 IPC
Sate Vs. Harvinder Singh
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANDEEP GUPTA
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: ROHINI COURT: DELHI.
FIR No. 550/05
PS Narela
U/s. 287/338 IPC
Sate Vs. Harvinder Singh
Date of Institution of case:- 06.09.06
Date of Judgment reserved:- 04.12.14
Date on which Judgment pronounced:- 04.12.14
JUDGMENT
Unique ID no. :02404R0258062006
Date of commission of offence :30.10.05
Name of complainant :Arjun S/o Suresh
R/o H.No. N/77C-167, Sawan Park,
Ashok Vihar, Delhi
Name and address of accused :Harvinder Singh
S/o. Sh. Kartar Singh, R/o
B-3/258, Paschim Vihar, Delhi.
Offence complained of :287/338 IPC
Plea of accused :Pleaded not guilty
Final order :Acquitted
Date of order :04.12.2014
BRIEF REASONS FOR DECISION:
The story of the prosecution in brief is as under:-
1. The accused Harvinder Singh S/o Sh. Kartar Singh has been sent to face trial under Section 287/338 Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called as IPC) on the allegations that on 30.10.05 at about 1:45 pm., he while running a factory at at B-2536, DSIDC, Narela, Delhi he did not take proper care knowingly and negligently and as such omitted to take such precaution/safety guard with the mechanical apparatus i.e. design machine whom the injured Arjun was operating in his possession and he forced Page No.1 of 5 FIR No. 550/05 PS Narela U/s. 287/338 IPC Sate Vs. Harvinder Singh him to operate the same to meet his orders and could not guard him against any probable danger to human life from such machinery and by doing this act, he caused grievous injury to injured Arjun on his left hand and on the basis of the said allegations, the present FIR bearing no.550/05 was registered at Police station Narela and the accused has been charged with the offence under Section 287/338 IPC.
2. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused. The copies of charge sheet were supplied to the accused in compliance of Section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called as Cr.P.C) and notice U/s. 251 Cr.P.C. for the offence U/s. 287/338 IPC was served upon the accused on 27.08.10, to which he has pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In support of its version, the prosecution examined only one witness.
4. PW1 is Sh. Naresh S/o Sh. Gajraj, R/o B-1/65, B Block, Swarn Jayanti Vihar, Village Tikri Khurd, Narela, Delhi-110040. He deposed that around 8-9 years ago, he used to work in a factory situated at B Block, DSIDC, Narela, Delhi. He further deposed that he was the owner of the factory. He further deposed that the incident occurred in the year 2005 but he did Page No.2 of 5 FIR No. 550/05 PS Narela U/s. 287/338 IPC Sate Vs. Harvinder Singh not remember the date and month of the incident. He further deposed that complainant Arjun S/o Sh. Suresh used to work with him as a helper in the aforesaid factory. He further deposed that door hinges used to be made in their factory with the help of power operated machinery. He further deposed that while working on the aforesaid machinery, complainant Arjun met with an accident and his fingers came into the machinery. He further deposed that he did not know whether Arjun knew how to operate the said machinery or not. He further deposed that he did not know as to because of whose negligence Arjun got injured. He correctly identified the accused.
Ld. APP for the state sought permission to cross examine the witness as he was resiling from his previous statement. During his cross examination by Ld. APP for the state, he denied that factory owner Harvinder forced Arjun to operate the said machinery while Arjun did not know how to operate the machine. He further denied the suggestion that no safety measures were provided by the owner while working on the said machine. Witness is confronted with the statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C mark A from portion A to A1 to which witness denied having made any such statement before the police. He further deposed that he had deposed falsely being won over by the accused. He has not been cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel despite given opportunity.
5. It is also a matter of record that no other eye witness was Page No.3 of 5 FIR No. 550/05 PS Narela U/s. 287/338 IPC Sate Vs. Harvinder Singh examined by the prosecution and accordingly after perusing the record, prosecution evidence was closed on 25.09.2014 and in the absence of any incriminating evidence/testimony of any public witness on record against the accused, his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C was dispensed with.
6. I have heard the arguments advanced by Ld. APP for the state as well as the accused and perused the record.
7. In the present case to convict the accused for offences u/s 287/338 IPC, testimony of the injured/complainant/eye witness was most crucial. It is a matter of record that the complainant/ injured Arjun remained unserved and untraceable despite repeated efforts. Other witness Naresh has also turned hostile in the present case. There is no other eye witness cited by the prosecution. All other witnesses cited by the prosecution are formal in nature whose no amount of evidence can tantamount to the conviction of the accused. Therefore, in the absence of testimony of any eye witness on record, prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 25.09.2014 and the statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C was dispensed with in the absence of any incriminating evidence on record against the accused.
8. Since the injured/eye witness Arjun had been unserved and untraceable despite repeatedly issuance of summons and Page No.4 of 5 FIR No. 550/05 PS Narela U/s. 287/338 IPC Sate Vs. Harvinder Singh despite repeated efforts and the other witness Naresh has turned hostile in the present case, I have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused and therefore, the accused Harvinder Singh is hereby acquitted for the offences u/s 287/338 IPC.
9. File be consigned to Record Room after necessary compliance.
(SANDEEP GUPTA) Metropolitan Magistrate Rohini/Delhi Announced in open court today, Dated 04th December, 2014.
Page No.5 of 5 FIR No. 550/05PS Narela U/s. 287/338 IPC Sate Vs. Harvinder Singh FIR No. 550/05 PS Narela U/s. 287/338 IPC Sate Vs. Harvinder Singh 04.12.2014 Present : Ld. APP for the State.
Accused on bail alongwith Ld. counsel. Perusal of the record shows there is nothing incriminating evidence/testimony on record against the accused, his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C was dispensed with.
I have heard the arguments and perused the record. Vide separate judgment dictated to the steno in the open court, accused Harvinder Singh is acquitted of the said offence U/s 287/338 IPC.
At request, bail bond of accused Harvinder Singh is extended in terms of Section 437 A of Cr.P.C.
File be consigned to Record Room, after due compliance.
(Sandeep Gupta) Metropolitan Magistrate Rohini/Delhi Page No.6 of 5