Delhi District Court
State vs : Puran Singh on 25 February, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUDHANSHU KAUSHIK, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE02, SOUTHEAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW
DELHI
State Vs : Puran Singh
FIR No : 847/05
U/s : 288/336/337 304 A IPC
PS : Okhla Industrial Area
Date of Institution: 27.06.2006
Date of Judgment reserved for: 25.02.2012
Date of Judgment: 25.02.2012
A. Sl. no. of the case 1280/2/06
B. Offence complained of
or proved U/s 288/336/337/304 A
IPC
C. Date of Offence 01.11.2011
D. Name of the complainant Vijay Pal
s/o Sh Govardhan
r/o VillageSihramau
PSShivraj Pur, Distt
Kanpur, UP
E. Name of the accused Puran Singh
s/o Sh Dhanwant Singh
r/o G107/8A, Sangam
Vihar, New Delhi
F. Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty.
G. Final order Acquitted
H. Date of Order 25.02.2012
The case of the prosecution is t hat accused Puran Singh,
being a contractor, hired by the owner of a building for pulling down
and repairing it, knowingly or negligently omitted to take such order
FIR No. 847/05 1/6
with the building as is sufficient to guard against any probable danger to
human life from the fall of that building. His said omission resulted in an
accident wherein a labourer Sanjay lost his life while the labourers
Kamal and Vijay Pal sustained simple injuries.
BRIEF FACTS/REASONS FOR DECISION:
2. On 16.09.2005, Sh Paramjit Singh Kohli, the owner of house no A243, Okhla Industrial Area (OIA) PhI, New Delhi, entered into a contract with the accused for construction of an underground water storage tank at the rear portion of the said property. The work at the construction site had been stopped on account of rain and the walls of the building were tilting. The labourers at the site were reluctant to proceed with the digging work but the accused insisted that the work has to be completed within time. On 26.09.2005, at around 9.30 am, while the labourers were digging the foundation of the building under the supervision of the accused, a wall collapsed and the labourers were burried under it. The police was summoned and the injured labourers were taken to the Hospital. The labourer Sanjay died on the way to the hospital while the labourers Vijay Pal and Kamal were provided treatment at Holy Family Hospital, Okhla Road.
3. The necessary investigation was carried out and the requisite documentation was done. The spot was inspected and the statements of witnesses were recorded. On completion of the investigation, FIR No. 847/05 2/6 chargesheet was put to the court. The copies of chargesheet were supplied to the accused and notice under section 304 A IPC was framed against him to which he pleaded 'not guilty' and claimed trial.
4. In order to establish charges against the accused, the prosecution examined five witnesses.
PW1 Sh Manmohan Singh (Witness of the construction agreement dated 16.09.2005) has mentioned that the owner Paramjit Singh Kohli entered into an agreement with the accused for the construction of a water tank in the basement of property number A243, OIA PhI, New Delhi and the specification of the proposed constructions were mentioned in the agreement dated 16.09.2005.
PW2 Sh Kamal (Labourer, who sustained injuries) has mentioned that he was working at the site and digging the basement alongwith Sanjay. He has stated that the mud collected after digging suddenly collapsed and fell down on him as well as on Sanjay. He has failed to identify the accused as the contractor under whom he was working. The witness was declared hostile and he was cross examined at length by the Ld APP but he has not deposed anything against the accused.
PW3 Sh Ganesh Sahani (Brother of the deceased Sanjay) has deposed that he identified the dead body of his brother vide identification statement Ex PW3/A. FIR No. 847/05 3/6 PW4 ASI Manohar Lal (Duty Officer) has mentioned about the registration of FIR. The copy of the FIR is Ex PW4/A. PW 5 Vijay Pal (Second injured/labourer) has deposed that he was digging the earth alongwith 23 other labourers. He mentioned that while they were carrying out the digging work, the side wall of the building suddenly collapsed and some of the workers were trapped in it. He stated that he himself sustained injuries but he does not recollect the name of the other labourers. He mentioned that he cannot identify the contractor under whom he was working. The said witness was also declared hostile and cross examined by the Ld APP but the witness reiterated his earlier stand that he cannot identify the contractor.
5. PW2 Kamal and PW5 Vijay Pal were the only cited eye witness of the incident. Both the witnesses have turned hostile and did not support the prosecution's case. In order to establish the charges under section 304A IPC, the rash and negligent act must be exhibited and proved on record. The record shows that there is no evidence to establish the alleged rashness or negligence of the accused. On appreciation of the testimony of both the eye witnesses, it is evident that they have not mentioned anything against the accused. Both of them have stated that the collapsing of the side wall of the building was a pure and simple accident. The witnesses have remain completely silent about the alleged omission of the accused of not providing adequate safety FIR No. 847/05 4/6 guards. It is the prosecution's version that the walls of the building tilted on account of rain and the accused being the contractor, forced the labourers working under his supervision, to continue the digging work but the witnesses have not stated so. Rather, they have even failed to identify the accused as their contractor.
6. Ld APP has contended that PW2 and PW5 were working under the accused and on account of the said reason they have turned hostile. Even if the said argument is taken to be correct, still, there is nothing on record which may demonstrate or prove the rash and negligent act of the accused. I have perused the site plan which is absolutely vague. Neither the height of the building nor the depth of the foundation has been mentioned in the said site plan. The material witnesses have turned hostile and there was nothing on record to establish rash and negligent act which is perhaps the gist of the offence. In such circumstances, it was felt that there was no point in proceeding ahead with the dead trial which would have ultimately resulted in acquittal of the accused. In the absence of any evidence about rash and negligent act, the prosecution cannot secure a conviction under section 304A IPC. The proceedings were stopped under section 258 Cr PC and the prosectuion evidence was closed.
7. Since, no incriminating evidence has came on record against the accused, therefore, recording of the statement under section 313 Cr FIR No. 847/05 5/6 PC has been dispensed with. The accused Puran Singh stands acquitted of the charges under Section 304A IPC.
8. Bail Bond stands cancelled. Surety stands discharged. Endorsement placed on the documents of the surety be cancelled and the same be returned to him, if retained on record.
9. File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
Announced in open Court (Sudhanshu Kaushik)
Dated 25.02.2012 Metropolitan Magistrate
Saket Courts, Delhi
FIR No. 847/05 6/6
FIR No. 12/10
PS C R Park
St. Vs. Mohd. Rafiq
01.11.2011
File taken up today on an application filed by the applicant Naresh Kumar seeking directions that the superdginama executed by him may be canceled and he may be granted liberty to dispose off the vehicle.
Present : Ld. APP for the State.
Applicant along with Ld. Counsel.
Applicant submits that the blue line Bus bearing No. DL 1 PA 7923, which was released on superdari has become very old. He states that the vehicle is more than 10 years old and in terms of the guideline issued by the Delhi Government, it can no longer be plied on the roads.
Perusal of the record reveals that on the previous date applicant was directed to produce the current photographs of the vehicle as well as the negative.
In compliance of the said order applicant has produced the photographs as well as the negative of the vehicle. The same be taken on record and be kept in a sealed envelope. Since, it is not commercially viable to ply the vehicle, therefore, no point would be served by continuing with the conditions imposed in terms of the superdginama executed by the applicant. The Superdginama accordingly, stands cancelled. The applicant is at liberty to dispose of the vehicle. Application disposed off accordingly.
Copy of this order be given dasti to the applicant.
(Sudhanshu Kaushik) Metropolitan Magistrate Saket Courts, New Delhi 01.11.2011 FIR No. 847/05 7/6 IN THE COURT OF SH. SUDHANSHU KAUSHIK: METROPLITIAN MAGISTRATE:02/SE/SAKET : NEW DELHI State Vs : Kalawati FIR No : 720/00 U/s : 447 IPC & 19/30 of ASR Act PS : OIA Date of Institution: 16.08.2002 Date of Judgment reserved for: 31.03.2012 Date of Judgment: 31.03.2012 Brief Details of the Case A. Sl. no. of the case 1522/625/2/06 B. Offence complained of or proved U/s 454/511 IPC C. Date of Offence 29.03.2006 D. Name of the complainant Sh Rana s/o Sh Johari r/o Quarter no 61D, 3, Railway Colony, Tuglakabad, New Delhi E. Name of the accused Ateek Ahmed s/o Jali Ahmed r/o Village Kashba, Mandawar, Moh Plastoli, PS Mindawar, Distt Bijnour, UP F. Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty.
G. Final order Convicted
H. Date of Order 17.03.2012
Judgment
The case of the prosecution is that on 01.12.2000, at street FIR No. 847/05 8/6 number 17, TKD Extension, near the wall of TKD fort, the accused Kalawati committed criminal trespass by entering upon Govt Land of Tuglakabad Fort. The said fort had been awarded the status of a protected monument. The accused has been chargesheeted for committing an offence punishable under Section 447 IPC and under Section 19/30 of ASR Act, 1958.
Brief Facts/Reasons for the Decision:
2. In the year 2000, a large scale unauthorised construction was taking place at Tuglkabad Fort situated at TKD Extension, Okhla Industrial Area (OIA), New Delhi. On 01.12.2000, PW1 Bahadur Chand, who was working as a Conservation Assistant, Archaeological Survey of India, noticed that accused was razing unauthorised construction after demolishing an outer wall of the fort. She was directed to desist from razing unauthorised construction but she did not pay any heed. The matter was reported to the police and the present FIR no 720/00 under section 447 IPC read with section 19/30 of ASR Act, 1958 was registered at PSOIA.
3. The requisite documentation was done on the spot and the statement of witnesses were recorded. The photographs of the spot were taken and the accused was arrested. On completion of the investigation, chargesheet was put to the Court. The copies of the chargesheet were supplied to the accused and charges under Section 447 IPC read with FIR No. 847/05 9/6 Section 30/19 of ASR Act, 1958 were framed against him to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to establish the charges, the prosecution examined four witnesses. The gist of their testimony is as under: PW1 Bahadur Chand (Complainant) has mentioned that he was working as a Conservation Assistant, ASI and posted at Tuglakabad Fort. He has mentioned about the unauthorised construction carried out by the accused. He stated that accused was found razing unauthorised construction after breaking a wall of the fort. He mentioned that he tried to stop the accused but she did not listen and continue to carry the construction work. The report lodged by him with the police is Ex PW1/A. He has mentioned that Tuglakabad Fort has been recognised as a protected monument under the Ancient Monument Preservation Act and it was handed over to Archaeological Survey of India. The notification about the Govt Land and the declaration has been tendered by the witness. The photographs of the spot showing the unauthorised construction are mark A1 and A2. The witness has not been cross examined by the accused.
PW2 HC Shiv Ram (Duty Officer) has deposed about the registration of the FIR which is Ex PW2/A. PW3 HC Bhim Singh (Police Official, who accompanied the IO) has deposed about the arrest of the accused. He mentioned that he FIR No. 847/05 10/6 went alongwith the IO/SI Ishwar Singh to the house of accused Kalawati and arrested her. The arrest memo is Ex PW3/A and the personal search memo is Ex PW3/B. He admitted in his cross examination that there are other houses surrounding the house of the accused. He mentioned that he had not seen any building material lying at the spot.
PW4 SI Ishwar Singh (Investigating Officer) has deposed about the investigation part. The site plan prepared by him is Ex PW4/A. He mentioned that the photographs of the spot were taken and the site plan was made at the instance of the complainant. He has also not been cross examined by the accused.
5. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr. PC. She stated that she was not carrying out any fresh construction at the spot and her house had already been constructed much before the alleged date of construction. She mentioned that number of other persons were razing unauthorised construction at the spot but they were not apprehended by the police officials. No defence witness been examined by her.
6. I have heard Ld. APP for State and Ld. Defence Counsel and carefully gone through the entire material available on record.
7. Ld APP has contended that prosecution has proved its case beyond shadow of doubt. He has argued that all the material witnesses have entered into witness box and they have fully supported the FIR No. 847/05 11/6 prosecution's case. He has argued that minor contradictions are bound to appear in any criminal matter and in the case at hand, there is no material contradiction which may create any doubt about the authenticity and veracity of the prosecution case and all the documents have been duly proved.
8. On the other hand, Ld. Defence Counsel has assailed the prosecution's case. He has argued that there is no justification as to why independent witnesses were not joined in the investigation. He has argued that there are material contradictions and discrepancies in the version of witnesses. Ld. Counsel has contended that there are lacunas in the prosecution's story. He has contended that there is nothing on record to suggest that accused was razing unauthorised construction. He has argued that the sole testimony of the complainant, in the absence of any corroboration, is not sufficient to prove the charges.
9. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and carefully perused the entire material available on record.
10. Admittedly, PW1 Bahadur Chand is the only eye witness of the incident and no public witness has been joined in the investigation. The question which is to be asked whether, the testimony of the eye witness should be discarded merely because of the said reason. The answer to my mind is negative. The record shows that complainant has FIR No. 847/05 12/6 categorically stated that accused was rasing unauthorised construction after breaking the wall of Tuglakabad Fort. He has stated that he directed the accused to stop unauthorised construction but she did not listen and continued to carry the construction work. He has mentioned that the fort is a protected monument under the Ancient Monument Preservation Act and the custody of the fort was handed over to Archaeological Survey of India. He has produced the notification and other documents to support his submissions. The record shows that the witness has not been cross examined by the accused and his testimony has gone unrebutted. His unchallenged testimony establishes that accused was rasing unauthorised construction at Tuglakabad Fort after breaking the wall of the fort.
11. The photographs of the spot are mark A1 and A2. IO/SI Ishwar Singh (PW4) has mentioned that after reaching the spot, the spot was photographed and a site plan was prepared by him. Bahadur Chand (PW1) has also mentioned that the photographs of the unauthorised construction were taken. The authenticity of the photographs has not been challenged by the accused. The said photographs provide support and corroboration to the version of Bahadur Chand that fresh construction was carried out by the accused. It has been shown in the photographs that the walls of the rooms have not been plastered and the construction is fresh.
FIR No. 847/05 13/6
12. The accused in her statement recorded under section 313 Cr PC admitted that she was rasing construction at the spot. She has mentioned that number of other persons were also rasing constructions but they were not apprehended by the police. The said admission of the accused fortifies the conclusion that she was carrying out an illegal construction on a Govt Land. Ld defence counsel has argued that the sole testimony of Bahadur Chand cannot form the basis of conviction. I do not find any force in the said argument. There is no rule of evidence that the sole testimony of a witness can not be relied on. The unrebutted testimony of the complainant Bahadur Chand (PW1) is more than sufficient to bring home the charges against the accused. He has specifically deposed about the aspect of criminal trespass by the accused. It is the quality of the evidence and not the quantity which is to be seen. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in judgement titled as Ramesh Krishna Madhusudan Nayar vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2008 Crl. LJ 1023 upheld a conviction under Section 302 IPC based on the sole testimony of the a witness. The Court held that "on the basis of a solitary evidence conviction can be maintained. It made a reference to Section 134 and held that no particular number of witnesses are required to establish the case. Conviction can be based on the testimony of a single witness if he is wholly reliable. Corroboration may be necessary when he is only partially reliable. If the evidence is unblemished and beyond all possible criticism and FIR No. 847/05 14/6 the Court is satisfied that the witness was speaking the truth then on his evidence alone conviction can be maintained." Bahadur Chand is working with Archaeological Survey of India which has been assigned the task of preserving the fort. There is no reason to doubt his testimony.
17. In view of the above said discussion, I have reached a conclusion that prosecution has established the charges beyond reasonable doubt. It is proved that on 01.12.2000, at street no 17, Tuglakabad Extension, New Delhi, accused Kalawati committed criminal trespass by entering upon a Govt Land and constructing a house after demolishing a wall of Tuglakabad Fort which is a protected monument. It is proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused Kalawati committed the offences punishes under section 447 IPC and Section 19/30 of ASR Act, 1958. The accused Kalawati stands convicted for the said offences.
Announced in open Court (Sudhanshu Kaushik)
on this day of 31.03.2012 Metropolitan Magistrate
Saket Courts, Delhi
FIR No. 847/05 15/6
FIR No. 847/05 16/6