Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Mohit Jain vs State on 1 September, 2023

     IN THE COURT OF PAWAN KUMAR MATTO,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (SPECIAL JUDGE NDPS),
  NORTH EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS,
                    DELHI

CNR No.DLNE01-000629-2023
Criminal Revision No.41/2023

Mohit Jain
S/o Sh. Praveen Kumar Jain
1/2994, Jaiswal Marg,
East Ram Nagar,
Delhi-110032
                                                       ...Petitioner

                           Vs.

State
                                                   ...Respondent

Date of Institution of Revision               : 21.02.2023
Date of Completion of Arguments               : 21.08.2023
Date of Order                                 : 01.09.2023

ORDER

1. This criminal revision is directed against the impugned order dated 12.01.2023, passed by the court of Sh. Vaibhav Kumar, learned Metropolitan Magistrate-04, North-East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, vide which, the applications under Section 165 of Indian Evidence Act read with 311 of Cr.P.C held to be not maintainable and dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- and held that prima facie case under Section 287/304-A of IPC is made out and framed the charge against the petitioner in the said sections.

2. Briefly stating, in the case in hand, the FIR has registered on the statement of one Sakinder Ram, who was one of co-employee of the deceased, namely Sh. Vimlesh Ram in the factory wherein he has stated that he is doing the work of DPC in the Deep Insulation at Khasra No.258, Kali Ghata Road, Karawal Nagar, Delhi and his colleague Vimlesh Ram also resided with him and he was also doing the job in Deep insulation. He has stated that on 18.10.2014 at 09:00 AM, they had come on their duties and started working on their machines, but the electric wire of the machine, where on Vimlesh Ram was working was un-insulated, regarding which Vimlesh Ram had told to the proprietor of the factory, namely Sh. Mohit Jain (accused) and he asked to the proprietor to get it rectified as some untoward incident could happen. He has also stated that even prior to that Vimlesh Ram had told to the proprietor of the factory about the same, but the proprietor of the said factory asked him to work and when Vimlesh Ram had told him that he would work only after rectification of the said wire then the proprietor had told him that nothing would happen with the said wire, then Vimlesh Ram started working on the said machine. He has also stated that at about 08:00 PM all of sudden Vimlesh Ram fell down and they saw that aluminum wire connected with machine was wrapped with his hand and in view of touching of electric wire deceased was electrocuted, so this complainant had switched off the said machine and Harender had removed the wire from the Vimlesh Ram and they had taken Vimlesh Ram to the SDN Hospital, where, the Doctor had declared him brought dead. He has alleged Crl. Rev. No.41/2023 Mohit Jain Vs. State Page No.2 of 11 that this incident had taken place in view of the negligence of the proprietor of the factory, namely, Sh. Mohit Jain and prayed for taking legal action against him.

3. On the statement of this complainant, the FIR was registered under Section 287/304-A of IPC. The investigation was carried out and postmortem of the body of the Vimlesh Ram was conducted on 20.10.2014. Viscera of the deceased was also preserved and the dead body was handed over to the brother of the deceased. Accused Mohit Jain was also arrested on 19.10.2014 and thereafter, he was released on bail. The scene of crime was inspected and photographed by the crime team. Mechanical inspection was also got conducted. The postmortem report was also obtained, wherein, the Doctor had opined that cause of death is "Shock as a result of antemortem electrocution and the viscera was preserved to rule out poisoning and intoxication and the statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC and on completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed under Section 287/304A of IPC. Copy of the charge-sheet was supplied to the accused and the accused had filed an application under Section 239 Cr.PC and also another application under Section 165 of Indian Evidence Act r/w 311 Cr.PC, vide which, the petitioner/accused has sought to examine the IO regarding the CCTV footage covering entire incident of the death of the deceased Vimlesh Ram on dated 18.10.2014.

4. The Ld. Trial Court vide its impugned order dated 12.01.2023 was pleased for order to frame the charge for the Crl. Rev. No.41/2023 Mohit Jain Vs. State Page No.3 of 11 offences punishable under Section 287/304-A of IPC and held that application under Section 311 Cr.PC is not maintainable and the same was dismiss with cost of Rs.10,000/-.

5. Feeling aggrieved with the said order, the petitioner/accused has filed the present revision.

6. The notice of the revision petition was received by the Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

7. The record of the Trial Court is also requisitioned and perused.

8. I have heard the counsels for the parties.

9. Sh. Nitin Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner/accused has submitted that the petitioner/accused had installed cameras in his factory and the occurrence was recorded therein and submitted that the deceased had sprinkled water and came into contact with the electric wires and suffered current, as a result of which the deceased had expired. He has also submitted that the petitioner/accused had provided CDs of the said video to the IO ASI Sh. Bhure Singh, but this ASI did not file the same with the chargesheet and in view of the same, the petitioner had filed an application in the Ld. Trial Court under Section 165 r/w Section 311 and sought to call the Investigating Officers to examine them regarding the said CDs of video recording given to him by the petitioner, but the Ld. Trial Court has arbitrarily ignored the said C.Ds & dismissed the said application and framed the charges Crl. Rev. No.41/2023 Mohit Jain Vs. State Page No.4 of 11 under Section 287/304-A of IPC and submitted that the C.Ds are the material documents, which are withheld by the IO, from which, the innocence of the petitioner/accused could be proved and submitted that the impugned order, vide which, the application under Section 165 of Indian Evidence Act r/w 311 of Cr.PC has been dismissed and charges under Section 287/304-A of IPC were framed against the petitioner/accused may be set aside and the accused may be discharged. He has relied upon the following judgments:

(i) Ved Prakash Kharbanda Vs. Vimal Bindal 2013(2) RLR 9

(ii) Nitya Dharmananda @ K. Lenin & Anr. Vs. Sri Gopal Sheelum Reddy also known as Nithya Bhaktananda and Anr. (2018) 2 Supreme Court Cases 93

(iii) Sidharth Vashist @ Manu Sharma Vs. State NCT of Delhi JT 2010 (4) SC 107

(iv) Dinesh Puri Vs. State of NCT of Delhi Crl. Rev. P351/2016

10. On the other hand, the Ld. Addl. PP for the State has vehemently opposed this Revision and submitted that at the time of framing of charge, only the report under Section 173 of Cr.PC and the documents enclosed therewith are required to be looked into, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi (2005) 1 SCC 568 and submitted that in order to decide the present revision this Court has called both the Investigating officers in this Court and the statements of both the IOs, namely Crl. Rev. No.41/2023 Mohit Jain Vs. State Page No.5 of 11 ASI Bhure Singh and SI Inderveer Singh are recorded on oath who have deposed that the petitioner/accused never provided them any CD of CCTV footage of his factory and submitted that at the stage of framing of charge, the application under Section 311 of Cr.PC and 165 of Indian Evidence Act was not maintainable, so the Ld. Trial Court after considering the statements of complainant, other witnesses and report of the postmortem had correctly dismissed the application of the petitioner/accused under Section 165 of Evidence Act r/w Section 311 of Cr.PC and framed the charges against the petitioner/accused under Section 287/304-A of IPC, as this petitioner/accused was running a factory and the deceased was admittedly working therein, but this petitioner/accused failed to do the needful in the factory despite of making of request by the deceased (during his life time) and in view of the negligence of the petitioner/accused, the deceased had come into contact with the naked wire of electricity, as a result of which, the deceased had suffered the electric current and expired from the electric current and submitted that this occurrence had taken place in view of the negligent conduct of this petitioner/accused in his factory and submitted that from the statements of both the IOs recorded by this Court, it is clear that this petitioner/accused has concocted a false story of providing CDs of CCTV footage to the IO to delay the trial and submitted that as per the law laid down by the Ld. Apex Court in case titled State of Orissa Vs. Debender Nath Padhi (2005) 1 SCC 568 the present revision is liable to be dismissed.

11. I have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the parties and perused the record.

12. The perusal of the record reveals that in the case in hand, the FIR has been registered under Section 287/304-A of the IPC on the statement of Sakinder Ram who was colleague of the deceased, who has categorically mentioned in his statement that the wire of the machine whereon deceased Vimlesh Ram was working was in an un-insulated condition and Vimlesh Ram (during his lifetime) had repeatedly requested to the petitioner/accused (who is proprietor of the factory) to get it rectified, but despite of repeated request, the petitioner/accused who is proprietor of the factory did not accept the request of the deceased and on dated 18.10.2014, in view of such negligent conduct of this accused/petitioner, the deceased is alleged to have come into contact with the same un-insulated wire, as a result of which he got electrocuted and expired and since the postmortem was also conducted of the body of the deceased, which reveals the cause of death as "Shock as a result of antemortem electrocution and viscera of the deceased was also preserved to rule out poisoning/intoxication. From the report of postmortem, it is crystal clear that the cause of death of the deceased was Shock as a result of antemortem electrocution.

13. It is an admitted fact that deceased was working in the factory of this petitioner/accused and he was electrocuted in view of un-insulated wire in the factory of the petitioner/accused. When the matter was running at the stage of framing of charge, Crl. Rev. No.41/2023 Mohit Jain Vs. State Page No.7 of 11 this accused had filed an application under Section 165 of Indian Evidence Act r/w Section 311 of Cr.PC and sought to call and examine IOs. The Ld. Trial Court was pleased to dismiss the said application and also pleased to hold that prima facie case under Section 287/304-A of IPC is made out and framed charges. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the CDs of CCTV footage were provided to the IO and the IO did not file the same in the Ld. Trial Court alongwith the charge-sheet, so he has sought to call and examine the IOs. He has relied upon catena of judgments as mentioned hereinabove. But in my considered opinion, the same judgments are of no help for the petitioner/accused.

14. Since the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nitya Dharmananda @ K. Lenin & Anr. Vs. Sri Gopal Sheelum Reddy and even in the said judgment, their lordship of Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to refer the judgment passed by lordship in case titled State of Orissa Vs. Debender Nath Padhi (2005) 1 SCC 568 and as per the law laid down by their lordship that at the time of framing of charge, only the report under Section 173 of Cr.PC and all the documents enclosed therewith by the prosecution are required to be looked into. In the case in hand this petitioner/accused has sought to summon and examine the IOs at the stage of framing of the charge and the Ld. Trial Court was pleased to dismiss the said application. Since the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Orissa Vs. Debender Nath Padhi makes it clear that only the report under Crl. Rev. No.41/2023 Mohit Jain Vs. State Page No.8 of 11 Section 173 of Cr.PC is required to be looked into at the stage of framing of the charge and since in the case in hand, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner/accused had handed over the CDs of CCTV footage of the occurrence to the IO, so in order to clarify the same, this Court had choosen to call both the IOs of the present case and this Court had asked them about the CDs of the CCTV footage of the factory, on which, the first IO ASI Sh. Bhure Singh (retired) and SI Inderveer Singh have deposed before this Court that this accused never provided them any CD of the CCTV footage and this Court has choosen to record the statements of both the IOs to this effect. I have no ground to disbelieved the statements of both the IOs recorded by this Court, as the petitioner has failed to show any receipt regarding handed over the alleged CDs to any of the IO of the present case.

15. This Court has gone through all the judgments relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and even in one of the judgment relied upon by the Ld. Counsel of this petitioner/accused (which was passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court) in the case titled Nitya Dharmananda @ K. Lenin & Anr. their the Lordship had quoted the said judgment of State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi. Since the statements of both the IOs make it clear that no CDs of any CCTV footage was ever provided by this petitioner/accused to any of the IOs and the similar view was expressed by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in case titled Mukesh P. Meeena Vs. CBI (Crl. Appeal 544 of 2021) that at the time of framing of charge such Crl. Rev. No.41/2023 Mohit Jain Vs. State Page No.9 of 11 application is not maintainable as filed by the petitioner/accused in the Ld. Trial Court at the stage of framing of charge. It is worthwhile to mention here that the petitioner/accused is aware that such CDs of CCTV footage are not there on the record of the Ld. Trial Court, but despite of it, he has written in this revision petition that the Ld. Trial Court has overlooked the CCTV footage. Since there was no CD of such CCTV footage, so the question of overlooking the same by the Ld. Trial Court does not arise.

16. Since in the case in hand, this fact is not disputed that the deceased was working in the factory of this petitioner/accused who has suffered electric current in the factory of this petitioner/accused in view of the un-insulated wire in the factory of this accused.

17. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner had argued that deceased had suffered the current in view of his own negligence, as he was sprinkling the water and came into contact with the electric wire, but this is the matter of defence and since the statements of the complainant and other witnesses recorded during the investigation, postmortem report, photographs and other documents placed on record, make it prima facie clear that cause of death of the deceased was due to shock as a result of antemortem electrocution. Since statement of complainant prima facie makes it clear that this accused remained negligent to rectify the un-insulated wire, due to which the deceased got electrocuted and expired and if this accused is having any CCTV Crl. Rev. No.41/2023 Mohit Jain Vs. State Page No.10 of 11 footage of this occurrence, he can produce and prove the same by way of leading evidence in his defence, but since the statements of both the IOs recorded in this Court make it clear that no such CDs were given by this petitioner/accused to the IO, so it appears to the Court that the present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused with malafide intention and to delay the proceedings of the Ld. Trial Court.

18. Cumulative effect of this discussions is that this court does not find any force in the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner/accused. This court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order under revision, which requires any interference therein. Therefore, the impugned order under revision is upheld and the revision petition filed by the petitioners/accused is hereby dismissed, being devoid of merit.

19. It is clarified that nothing expressed hereinabove shall affect the merit of the case.

20. File be consigned to Record Room. Record of Trial Court is also ordered to be returned with attested copy of this order.

Announced in the open court on 1 st Day of September, 2023 PAWAN Digitally by PAWAN signed KUMAR MATTO KUMAR Location: Delhi MATTO Date: 2023.09.01 15:26:33 +0530 (PAWAN KUMAR MATTO) Addl. Sessions Judge (Special Judge NDPS) North East/KKD Courts/Delhi/01.09.2023 Crl. Rev. No.41/2023 Mohit Jain Vs. State Page No.11 of 11