Delhi District Court
State vs . Netrapal on 27 June, 2018
IN THE COURT OF MS. GURMOHINA KAUR
ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-01,
NEW DELHI
Case No. 42236/16
FIR No.95/12
PS IGI Airport
State Vs. Netrapal
JUDGMENT
a. ID No. of the case 42236/16
b. Date of commission of offence 02.03.12
c. Date of institution of the case 07.08.15
d. Name of the complainant Pradeep Kumar
e. Name & Address of the accused Netrapal S/o. Sh. Vedpal
R/o. Vill & PO Karola, Teh
Farrukhnagar, Distt. Gurgaon,
Haryana.
f. Offence complained off Under section 288/304A IPC
g. Notice framed Under section 288/304A IPC
h. Plea of accused Accused Netrapal pleaded not guilty
and claimed trial.
i. Arguments heard on 07.06.2018
j. Final order Accused Netrapal is acquitted
k Date of Judgment 27.06.2018
Brief statement of reasons for such decisions
1. Briefly stated the fact as mentioned in the chargesheet are that on 2/3/2012, a PCR call was received vide DD no. 12-A from Indian Spinal Injury regarding Ramroop Singh who was State vs. Netrapal Page No. 1 of 9 bought in an unconscious condition after getting injured from height of 8 meters at IGI Cargo Terminal. On reaching the Indian Spinal Injury hospital, it was known that the Ramroop had expired. Further, as per the chargesheet on inspection of the site, where the accident had taken place, one eyewitness Pradeep Kumar was found who revealed that he was a labourer and had been working for the last one and half month with Interarch Building Products Ltd at Cargo Terminal 1-B and the deceased Ramroop was his co-worker and that both of them along with other labourers used to work at the under- construction building at Terminal 1-B where on the terrace/ ceiling steel sheets were being fixed. It was further disclosed by Pradeep Kumar, as per the chargesheet that steel sheet fell from one side and along with it deceased Ramroop fell from a height of 25 meters and hit the ground on his head and was taken to the Hospital in an ambulance. It was further mentioned in the chargesheet that no safety measures or equipments were provided by the company and despite repeated requests to the officials of the company, safety equipments were never provided to the workers and that the accident in question had occurred due to the negligence of the company officials.
2. Further, as per the chargesheet, the accused Netrapal who is the owner of M/s Aman Roofing Systems was arrested and his disclosure statement was recorded. Postmortem report State vs. Netrapal Page No. 2 of 9 was received where it was opined that " Death is due to Cranio- Cerebral damage as a result of blunt force impact to the head. All the injuries antimotum in nature, possible in fall from height." It has also been mentioned in the chargesheet that accident occurred during the sheeting of cargo building because of the negligence of accused Netrapal and lack of safety equipments provided to the labourers/ workers.
3. Thereafter, on completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed in the present case u/s 288/304 A IPC against accused Netrapal. Cognizance of the offences were taken and the accused was summoned.
4. On appearance of the accused Netrapal, he was admitted to bail and copy of chargesheet and documents were supplied to him, in compliance of section 207 CrPC. Notice u/s 251 for the offence of S. 288/304 A IPC was framed against the accused Netrapal on 16/12/2015. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for prosecution evidence.
5. During the stage of prosecution evidence, the prosecution examined 5 witnesses to prove its case.
6. PW1 is the complainant Pradeep Kumar who deposed that about 4 years back, he was working as labour with State vs. Netrapal Page No. 3 of 9 Interarach Company and Ramroop, his cousin who was the deceased was also working in the same company. He added that he along with the deceased were fixing the steel sheet at that place. Due to wind blow, sheet fell down on the ground and his cousin/ deceased Ramroop also fell due to the impact as his legs also slipped . He further stated he had not given any statement to the police and he had merely signed at some places which were obtained by the Police officials. He was cross-examined by Ld. APP for the state as he has resiled from his previous statements recorded u/s 161 CrP.C.
7. PW2 is Bijender Singh who deposed that he used to work in Aman Roofing system on 02.03.2012 at IGI Airport as the site supervisor and on the day of incident, the work of fixing aluminum sheet was going on at about 25 feet height from the ground which was being executed by Pradeep and deceased Ramroop. He further deposed that PW1- Pradeep and deceased Ramroop were shifting the sheets at that time due to heavy wind blow the sheet was to be held by PW1- Pradeep and the deceased Ramroop turned over and deceased Ramroop lost his balance and fell. He further added that in the hospital, deceased Ramroop was declared dead. During his cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel he stated that all the workers were having safety equipments and safety equipments like belt, helmet, shoes, gloves, jacket etc. has State vs. Netrapal Page No. 4 of 9 been issued to all the workers. He added that all these equipments were provided by accused Netrapal to all the workers and that the hospital expenses were born by Netrapal. He was also cross-examined by Ld. APP for the state as he resiled from his statement u/s Cr.P.C wherein he denied the suggestions that no belts and safety equipments were provided to deceased Ramroop and other workers and that is why he had fallen from site.
8. PW-2 is Suman Kumar Thakur who deposed that he was working as Vice President in Interarch Building Products Ltd. and in the year 2012, their was granted the work of pre- engineering building (PEB) of terminal cargo 1-B. The certified copy of the agreement was Mark- 2A(Colly) and the certified copy of work order along with annexures were Mark 2B(colly) and certified copy of letter in respect of appointment of sub- contractor was mark- 2C and accused Netrapal was the proprietor/ owner of Aman Roofing System and as per the work order, Mark- 2B the responsibility of any incident/ accident on the site was of Aman Roofing System.
9. PW3 is Sh. Nawab Singh deposed that in the year 2012, his son/ deceased Ramroop used to work in a company at Airport, Delhi and on 03.03.2012, he received a phone call that his son/ deceased Ramroop had expired. He identified the State vs. Netrapal Page No. 5 of 9 dead body of his son/ deceased vide identification memo Ex PW3/A and the postmortem report was ExPW3/B.
10. PW4 is Dilip Kumar who deposed that in 2012, he was working as labourer in Aman Roofing and the owner of Aman Roofing was Netrapal Chauhan, who he also identified in the court. He further deposed that in 2012, the work of roofing was going on and the aluminum sheet was to be fixed at the height of above 20 to 25 feet. He deposed the after placing the sheet at height of 20-25 feet on his head, at about 12:50 pm, all the labourers were coming down after removing their belt and helmets for lunch and at that time, suddenly wind started blowing as the sheet was not fixed completely it lost its grip from the place where it was placed. He further added that one labourer namely Pradeep and deceased Ramroop were already present at a height but they had removed their safety belts and helmets and they decided to place something on the sheet so that sheets could be prevented from flying due to heavy wind. He also added that PW Pradeep held one corner of the sheet and deceased Ramroop held that another corner but due to pressure of the wind, deceased Ramroop lost his balance and fell down from a height of 20-25 feet on his head and deceased Ramroop was badly injured. This witness was also cross-examined by Ld. APP for the state as he to resiled from his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C.
State vs. Netrapal Page No. 6 of 911. PW5 is Anoop Kumar Kaushik who deposed that Dr. Sachin K. Shivinitwar had examined one patient namely Ramroop and his MLC was ExPW5/B. The accused Netrapal admitted u/s 294 Cr.P.C, the MLC, ExPW5/B, post-mortem report Ex.C-1, arrest memo Ex.C-2, copy of FIR Ex.C-3, site plan Ex C-4, seizure memo dated 02.03.2012 and 06.03.2012 as ExC-5 and C-6 respectively.
12. Thereafter prosecution evidence was closed. Statement of accused Netrapal was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C wherein he stated that there were sufficient safety equipments available at the time of incident. He further stated that there was no negligence on his part and that he had been falsely implicated.
13. The accused did not wish to lead any defence evidence. Accordingly, defence evidence was closed.
14. Final arguments were heard on behalf of both the sides.
15 I have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. Considered.
16. It is seen from the perusal of the file that PW1 Pradeep Chauhan has deposed that there was no negligence on the State vs. Netrapal Page No. 7 of 9 part of the accused and that all the safety equipments and safety measures had been provided by the accused to the labourers/employees. Even PW2- Bijender and PW4 Dilip Kumar's testimony corroborates the deposition of PW1- Pradeep which also goes on to show that there was no negligence on the part of the accused. It has also admittedly come on record that safety equipments were provided by accused Netrapal and there were adequate safety measures taken. Even other witness examined also did not support the case of the prosecution and there is nothing incriminating against the accused on record. Other prosecution witnesses reveals that all the other witnesses are merely police officials and doctors, who are not the eye witness of the case and their testimony is only hear-say. It is also come on record during the deposition of the witnesses that the deceased Ramroop had slipped due to heavy winds blowing at the time when he fixing the sheets on the ceiling of Cargo Terminal 1-B. None of the witnesses examined have deposed anything to the effect to show that the incident occurred due to negligence of accused Netrapal in the present case.
17. In view of the above said discussion, it is apparently clear that there is nothing on record nor any incriminating evidences on record to prove the case against accused for the offences punishable u/s 288/304-A IPC. In view of the same, as the State vs. Netrapal Page No. 8 of 9 prosecution has failed to establish its case, the accused Netrapal is acquitted of the offence u/s 288/ 304-A IPC.
18. Ordered accordingly.
Announced in the open (Gurmohina Kaur)
Court on 27.06.2018 ACMM-01/New Delhi District
Patiala House Courts, New Delhi
This judgment contains 09 pages and each page is signed by me.
(Gurmohina Kaur) ACMM-01/New Delhi District Patiala House Courts, New Delhi Code: DL-0427 State vs. Netrapal Page No. 9 of 9