Delhi District Court
State vs . G.P Singh, Fir No. 775 /06, ... on 3 November, 2016
State Vs. G.P Singh, FIR No. 775 /06, u/s:336/338/304A IPC, PS OIA. IN THE COURT OF SH. DHEERAJ MOR, METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE02, SOUTH EAST, SAKET COURTS, DELHI. STATE VS. G.P SINGH FIR NO. 775/06 PS. OIA U/S. 336/338/304A IPC JUDGMENT
A. SL. NO. OF THE CASE : 99/9/10
B. DATE OF OFFENCE : 30.08.2006
C. DATE OF INSTITUTION : 07.02.2008
D. NAME OF THE COMPLAINANT : HC Satbir Singh
E. NAME OF THE ACCUSED : G.P Singh s/o Sardar Ratan
Singh
F. OFFENCE COMPLAINED OF : U/s 336/338/304A IPC
G. PLEA OF ACCUSED : Pleaded not guilty
H. FINAL ORDER : Acquittal
I. DATE OF SUCH ORDER : 03.11.2016
Brief Statement of Reasons for Decision
1. Briefly stated the facts of the case, as alleged by the prosecution and as unfolded from the charge sheet are that on 30.08.2006, DD No.5A, timed 09:20 am regarding a fire mishap at B304, OIA PhaseI, New Delhi was reduced in writing and it was handed over to HC Satyavir Singh. He alongwith Ct. Heera Singh reached the said spot of fire. They found that fire brigade canters had already reached at the spot and they were extinguishing the fire. They also found that the complete building of said factory including basement and its upper three stories was engulfed in fire. They came to know that the clothes and foams were stored in the said factory and stitching work was being done in it. They found that the heaps of clothes stored in the said factory State Vs. G.P Singh, FIR No. 775 /06, u/s:336/338/304A IPC, PS OIA.
had caught fire for the unknown reasons. They further came to know that the safety measures were violated in the factory. They also came to know that employees of the said factory including Anil Kumar jumped into adjacent factory to save themselves. The said Anil Kumar sustained injuries while jumping out of the factory and the whole building was engulfed in fire. The entire building collapsed while fire brigade staff was extinguishing the said fire. Consequently, eight employees of fire brigade staff also sustained injuries and they were shifted to AIIMS hospital and Apollo hospital. IO collected the MLCs of injured persons namely A.K Sharma Deputy Chief Officer, Ramesh fireman, Suresh Fire Officer, Devender fireman, Bhoop Singh fireman, Rajan Vadhera Fire Officer, Aman and A.K Bhatnagar from both the said hospitals. On the assumption of the absence of deployment of appropriate safeguards to prevent breaking of fire by the owner of the said factory and on the ground of storing of combustible foam and clothes in the said factory by its owner, the IO endorsed the said DD no.5A and got the present FIR u/s 336/337/427 IPC lodged at PSOIA.
2. During investigation, IO got the spot of incident photographed. The spot was got inspected through the crime team. IO prepared the site plan. IO seized the burnt material and burnt clothes. The clothes of injured persons were also seized from Apollo hospital and deposited in malkahana. IO recorded the statement of witnesses. One worker of the factory namely Daulat Ram was reported to be missing. Therefore, one JCB was called for removing the burnt debris. On 31.08.2006, the burnt body parts of Daulat Ram were recovered from under debris, which were identified by his relatives. His postmortem was got conducted. Thereafter, the dead body was handed over to his relatives. Thereafter, section 304A was added. Accused G.P Singh was arrested. Postmortem report of the deceased Daulat was received and his body parts were sent to Kolkatta, W.B for its chemical examination. MLC of injured Anil was also collected, wherein the doctor had opined that he sustained grievous injuries.
State Vs. G.P Singh, FIR No. 775 /06, u/s:336/338/304A IPC, PS OIA.
Therefore, section 338 IPC was also added. After conclusion of investigation, the challan u/s 336/337/338/427/304A IPC against the accused was filed in the court.
3. Accused was summoned by the court for facing trial under the aforesaid sections. In compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C., the copy of the challan and the documents annexed therewith were supplied to the accused. Prima facie charge U/s.336/338/427/304A IPC was made out against him. Accordingly, on 19.10.2010, the charge was framed against G.P Singh by the Ld. Predecessor of this court. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial to the said charge. Thereafter, the case proceeded for prosecution evidence.
4. In the instant case, the prosecution has examined fifteen witnesses to substantiate its case.
5. ASI Satish Chand (PW1) had registered the present FIR and he has proved its copy as Ex.PW1/A.
6. Rajnath (PW2) has deposed that he was working as a store keeper and at the time of breaking of fire, he was present in the store at 1 st floor. He has deposed that on hearing a noise of "aag lag gyi, aag lag gyi", he came outside the factory. The said witness was cross examined by Ld. APP for State as he was resiling from his previous statement. But despite that nothing incriminating against the accused could be extracted from his testimony. He has denied to have given any statement to the police. He categorically denied that the fire broke out due to short circuit in the factory where, huge quantity of clothes were stored. He even denied that no proper and sufficient fire fighting instruments and material was available in the factory to avoid such incident of fire.
7. HC Samar Pal (PW3) has deposed that on 26.11.2006, on the directions of the IO, he deposited the four sealed pullandas in CFSL, Kolkata, West Bengal vide RC no.359/21 and the receipt was deposited in malkhana PSOIA.
State Vs. G.P Singh, FIR No. 775 /06, u/s:336/338/304A IPC, PS OIA.
8. Ct. Manmohan Singh (PW4) has deposed that on 31.08.2006, he accompanied the IO/HC Satyavir Singh to AIIMS hospital and got conducted the postmortem of deceased Daulat Ram. He has further deposed that IO obtained 9 sealed and one unsealed pullanda from AIIMS mortuary which contained the clothes of the deceased and he deposited the same in malkhana.
9. Sh. Suresh Singh (PW5), Station Officer at Laxmi Nagar is one of the injured. He has deposed that on 30.08.2006, on receipt of information regarding breaking of fire in company no. B304, OIA, PhaseI, New Delhi, he alongwith his staff members reached the spot and tried to extinguish the fire. He has deposed that the said building collapsed and he sustained injuries.
10. Ct. Hira Singh (PW6) was with IO/HC Satyavir Singh and he reached the spot alongwith IO on receipt of DD no.5A. He remained with IO on the said date and participated in the proceedings conducted by the IO.
11. Sh. Ajay Kumar Sharma (PW7), Deputy Chief Fire Officer Sh. Ranjan Wadehra (PW11), Sh. Devender Singh (PW12) and Sh. A.K Bhatnagar (PW15) are the injured persons and they are the officials of fire brigade, who had received information of breaking of fire in the said factory and they visited the spot and found that the building was fully blazed. They have testified that during the fire fighting operation, the building suddenly collapsed and they sustained injuries. Thereafter, they were shifted to AIIMS and Apollo hospital.
12. HC Girdhar (PW8) has deposed that on 30.08.2006, he was posted as a photographer in mobile crime team. He has further deposed on the directions of IO he took sixteen photographs of the spot. He has proved the said photographs as Ex.P1(colly) and their negatives as Ex.P2 (colly).
13. Inspector M.S Dahiya (PW9) has deposed that on 30.08.2006, on receipt of an information regarding breaking of fire at company no. B304, OIA PhaseI, New Delhi, State Vs. G.P Singh, FIR No. 775 /06, u/s:336/338/304A IPC, PS OIA.
he alongwith his staff members reached the spot and found that the said building was fully blazed. He has testified that the fire brigade officers were trying to extinguish the fire. He has deposed that in the meanwhile, the said building collapsed and some of the fire brigade personnels sustained injuries and they were shifted to AIIMS and Apollo hospitals by PCR. He has further deposed that he obtained the MLCs of injured persons and recorded their statements. He has deposed that the concerned doctor had handed over an unsealed pullanda containing the clothes of injured persons and he handed over the same to IO. He has further deposed that IO seized the said pullanda and his statement was recorded.
14. Sh. Rajender Prasad, retired Assistant Commissioner Excise (PW10) has deposed that on 30.08.2006, he reached the spot on receipt of information regarding breaking of fire at 304, OIA, PhaseI, New Delhi. He found that the fire brigade was trying to extinguish the fire. He has further deposed that on 31.08.2003 he came to know that one worker namely Daulat Ram was missing. He met two persons namely Ram Kumar and Sh. Ashok Kumar, who identified the body of Daulat Ram on the basis of his clothes.
15. Retired ASI Satyavir Singh (PW13) is the IO of this case. He has deposed on the lines of the case of the prosecution. He has correctly identified the accused. He has testified that he can not tell how the fire broke.
16. Dr. Narottam Sharma (PW14), Junior Resident, Department of Emergency Medicine at AIIMS hospital has proved the MLC report dated 30.08.2006 of injured A.K Sharma as Ex.PW14/A.
17. The allegations against the accused are that he culpably omitted to take requisite precautions for preventing the breaking of fire and also failed to take requisite safeguards for controlling of fire in the eventuality of its breaking in the said building which was used for the purpose of storing of clothes and foams and for stitching of State Vs. G.P Singh, FIR No. 775 /06, u/s:336/338/304A IPC, PS OIA.
clothes and on the account of the said culpable omission and negligence, the said building caught fire with so devastating ramifications. Due to said fire, his employee namely Anil Kumar Jha sustained simple injuries and other employee namely Daulat Ram sustained fatal burn injuries after they were engulfed in fire. Further, eight officials of fire brigade also sustained simple injuries while they were extinguishing the fire and on account of the collapse of the said building. During investigation, the cause of breaking of fire could not be ascertained. Further, the prosecution witnesses including eye witness PW2 Rajnath did not utter even a single word against the accused for indicting him for any culpable act. On the contrary, he has turned hostile and he has failed to support the case of the prosecution. The other eye witness namely Anil Kumar Jha remained untraceable. The remaining witnesses are either police official or formal witnesses, who are admittedly not the eyewitnesses to the accident/incident and thus, their testimonies were not likely to substantiate the culpability of the accused. Therefore, no fruitful purpose would have been served by examining the said remaining witnesses. Hence, PE was closed.
18. Statement of the accused U/s. 313/281 Cr.P.C. was recorded. All the incriminating evidence were put to the accused for seeking his explanation. In the said statement, the accused has submitted that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He preferred not to lead evidence in defence. Accordingly, the matter was listed for final arguments.
19. I have heard Ld. APP for the State and Ld. counsel for the accused. I have carefully perused the case file.
20. The cardinal principle of the criminal law is that the accused is presumed to be innocent till he is proved guilty, beyond any reasonable doubt. The burden of proving guilt of the accused, exclusively lies on the prosecution and the prosecution is required to stand on its own legs. The benefit of doubt, if any, must go in favour of the accused.
State Vs. G.P Singh, FIR No. 775 /06, u/s:336/338/304A IPC, PS OIA.
21. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution is required to prove the following ingredients as mentioned U/s 304A/336/338/427 IPC:
(i) The accused did some act rashly or negligently which might endanger human life or personal safety of others;
(ii) The fatal injuries and grievous hurt was caused to some person in consequence of such act;
(iii) The accused caused destruction of some property or some change in it or in its situation; and
(iv) The said destruction or change in the property must have been done with the intention of causing or with the knowledge that it is likely to cause wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person.
22. In the present case, the prosecution could not ascertain the exact cause of breaking of fire. None of the prosecution witnesses have revealed the cause of fire. PW13, IO/ASI Satyavir has conceded that he can not tell the cause of fire. Moreover, the injured/eye witness PW2 Rajnath has turned hostile and he has failed to attribute any culpable negligence to the accused in breaking of fire. The prosecution has failed to disclose the cause of fire and therefore, in its absence, there exists no ground to indict the accused for failing to take the safeguards to avoid breaking of fire. Unless the cause is known, the accused cannot be held guilty for not averting the said cause. Even the death of a person and injuries to another is not sufficient to assume that they sustained injuries due to culpable negligence on the part of the accused. The prosecution is required to prove that the fire broke out due to culpable rash or negligent act/omission of the accused. None of the prosecution witnesses has testified that the accused ought to have taken any specific safety measures for preventing the breaking of fire. The IO had unreasonably concluded that fire broke out due to culpable omission on the part of the accused for not providing sufficient safeguards and conducted the investigation with the said preconceived notion. He has failed to collect the evidence to rule out the breaking of fire due to electricity short circuit or mischief by some third person or due to negligence on the part of the labourers or due State Vs. G.P Singh, FIR No. 775 /06, u/s:336/338/304A IPC, PS OIA.
to some accident. Therefore, it can not be convincingly held that fire in the said building broke out due to culpable omission on the part of the accused.
23. Moreover, the prosecution has failed to disclose the kind of fire safety equipments, the accused ought to have kept in his building for controlling of fire, whether accidental or due to mischief. Further, there is no evidence on record that the such equipments were not kept by the accused in the said building. Besides, there is no evidence on record that the accused intentionally did any act or committed any act with knowledge to cause mischief of damaging adjacent building. Rather, there is no evidence on record to show that the adjacent buildings were damaged in the said fire and to what extent. Moreover, prosecution can not blow hot and cold simultaneously. It can not allege that the fire broke on account of rash and negligent act of the accused and also that it broke out on account of his intentional act. The said allegations are diametrically opposite to each other and they can not sustain simultaneously. The allegations of criminal mischief are not substantiated as there is not an iota of evidence to support the same.
24. Only because fire broke out in a building resulting in devastating ramifications, it cannot be inferred that the accused negligently failed/omitted to take appropriate precaution, unless the said mens rea i.e. guilty intention is proved by the prosecution beyond any reasonable doubt. The accused cannot be convicted on presumptions or surmises, rather, all the ingredients including rash or negligent act as mentioned U/s 336/338/304A IPC are required to be established. The prosecution has also failed to lead any evidence to suggest the precaution, which the accused ought to have taken to prevent the breaking of fire in the alleged dangerous manner.
The findings given by Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as B.C. Ramachandra Vs. State of Karanataka, 2007 Cri. L.J 475. are relevant and reproduced as under:
"In criminal proceedings, the burden of proving negligence as an essential State Vs. G.P Singh, FIR No. 775 /06, u/s:336/338/304A IPC, PS OIA.
ingredient of the offence lies on the prosecution. The said ingredient cannot be said to have been proved or made out by resorting to the rule of principle of res ipsa loquitur"
25. The prosecution has failed to prove its case by leading convincing and cogent evidence and thus, it has failed to discharge the onus placed upon it. Hence, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. In the light of the above discussion, the accused namely G.P Singh is acquitted for the offences punishable U/s 336/338/427/304A IPC. He is directed to furnish fresh personal bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/ with one surety in the like amount, in accordance with Section 437A Cr.P.C. He has furnished the same and they are accepted for next six months.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT i.e 03.11.2016 (DHEERAJ MOR) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE02 DISTRICT SOUTH EAST, SAKET COURT, DELHI State Vs. G.P Singh, FIR No. 775 /06, u/s:336/338/304A IPC, PS OIA.
State Vs. G.P Singh
FIR No.775/06
PS. OIA
U/S. 336/338/304A IPC
03.11.2016
Present: Ld. Substitute APP for the state.
Accused on bail with his counsel.
Final arguments are heard. Case file is perused.
Vide separate judgment of even date announced in the open Court the accused G.P Singh is acquitted for the offence punishable U/s 336/338/427/304A IPC. He is directed to furnish fresh personal bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/ with one surety in the like amount, in accordance with Section 437A Cr.P.C. He has furnished the same and they are accepted for the next six months.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
(Dheeraj Mor) MM02/SE/SC/ND 03.11.2016