Delhi District Court
State vs . on 26 September, 2019
Page 1 of 47
IN THE COURT OF SH VIRENDER KUMAR GOYAL,
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE04, WEST DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No.DLWT010008552012
SC No. 57820/16
FIR No. 153/2011
P.S. Nihal Vihar
U/Sec.304/323 IPC
State
Vs.
Manjeet Singh @ Lucky
S/o Sh. Harjinder Pal Singh
R/o H. No. A22, Avchal Nagar, Chander Vihar,
Nilothi Extension, Delhi
Date of committal to Court of Sessions : 11.03.2011
Final Arguments concluded on : 20.08.2019
Date of Judgment : 26.09.2019
JUDGMENT
1. The present case has been registered against the accused in P.S. Nihal Vihar for the offence u/s 304/323 IPC with the allegations that on 17/05/2011 at about 4.15 pm, accused was found constructing the building at B72, Guru Nanak Enclave, Chander State Vs. Manjeet FIR No. 153/11 P.S. - Nihal Vihar Page 2 of 47 Vihar, Delhi by using substandard material i.e., the cement and sand in the ratio of 1:12, whereas the standard ratio of cement and sand should be 1:6, caused death of Nirmal Singh, Shiv Mohan and Harbhajan and also caused injury on the person of Daya Ram.
2. Thereafter on completion of investigation, chargesheet under Sections 304A/288 IPC was filed on 15.02.2012 before the Court of Ld. MM, West District, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi and on 16/12/2013 supplementary charge sheet u/s 288/337/304 IPC was filed before the court of ld. MM, West District, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi and vide order dated 05.03.2014, Ld. MM committed the case to the Court of Sessions.
3. Vide order dated 26.10.2015, charge u/s 304/323 IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. During the trial, the prosecution has examined 22 witnesses. State Vs. Manjeet FIR No. 153/11 P.S. - Nihal Vihar Page 3 of 47
5. PW1 Sh. Ramesh Kumar, SDM Patel Nagar has stated that on 06.05.2013, he was posted as SDM Rajouri Garden. He had verified from the record about the non judicial stamp paper no.857939 for Rs.50/ dated 07.09.2010 on the asking of the Inspector Parvinder Singh P.S, Nihal Vihar and found that the said non judicial stamp paper was issued to one Nirmal Singh S/o Sh. Surjeet Singh, R/o 14A, Chander Vihar, Delhi and after the verification from the record maintained in stamp vendor register no.664, he wrote the letter Ex.PW1/A.
6. PW2 ASI Yogesh Dutt has stated that he has brought the summoned record i.e. PCR form CRDD No. 17 May 111220447 as the same has been destroyed vide order dt. 19.11.2014 passed by DCP (HQ) PCR Delhi. Copy of the said order is Ex.PW2/A. In pursuance of the said order, the relevant record has been destroyed on 11.12.2014. In this regard, a certificate was issued by the ACP (HQ/PCR), copy of the said certificate is Ex.PW2/B. State Vs. Manjeet FIR No. 153/11 P.S. - Nihal Vihar Page 4 of 47
7. PW3, Sh. Daya Ram has stated that he was working as a labour in Delhi in year 2011. On 17.06.2011, he was working in a building situated in the area of Nihal Vihar. On that day, he was on the 3rd floor of the said constructed house and was assisting mason (mistri). At around 4:15 p.m., someone raised alarm that "bhago building gir rahi hai". While he was trying to escape, the said building collapsed and he got trapped in the debris. He received injuries on his head and right side parts of the body. Blood started oozing out from his head. However, he came out from the debris and he was taken to SGM hospital by the ambulance. In the SGM hospital, he was treated and discharged. Thereafter, he went to his native village. He cannot tell the reason of the collapsing of the said building, where he was working as a labourer.
8. PW3 has further stated during his cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP for State that the date of the incident was 17.05.2011 and he was working in the above said constructed building for State Vs. Manjeet FIR No. 153/11 P.S. - Nihal Vihar Page 5 of 47 two months prior to this incident. On the day of the incident, construction of the said building was almost completed and work of the POP and painting was going on. The said building was constructed up to 4th floor and there was a basement of 10 X 10 feet. In the said basement, there was water logging. Accused Manjeet Singh @ Lucky was contractor of the said building. He asked accused Manjeet several times to remove the water from the basement otherwise it may damage the said building but he did not adhere their request. He cannot lift the weight after receiving the injuries in the said incident. If the accused got removed the water from the basement, the incident would not have happened.
9. PW4 ASI Mahabir Singh has stated that on 17.05.2011, he was posted at PS Nihal Vihar He received a rukka brought by Ct. Ravinder sent by ASI Bijender, on the basis of the same, he got registered the FIR no.153/2011. He has brought the register of the computerize copy of the FIR. Copy of the FIR is Ex PW 4/A. State Vs. Manjeet FIR No. 153/11 P.S. - Nihal Vihar Page 6 of 47 He made an endorsement at point X on rukka Ex.PW4/B. After registration of the FIR, he handed over the copy of the FIR and original rukka to Ct. Ravinder for handing over the same to ASI Bijender for the purpose of the further investigation.
10. PW5 Insp. Pramendra Singh has stated that on 15.04.2013, he was posted at P.S. Nihal Vihar as Inspector (Investigation). On that day further investigation in the present case was marked to him. He issued notice to stamp vendor Praveen Kumar, Dholi Piyau, Krishana Park regarding sale of stamp paper value Rs.50/ serial No.1725 dated 07.09.2010. The aforesaid notice is Ex.PW5/A. Reply to aforesaid notice was given by Praveen Kumar. Same is Ex.PW5/B. He had also written applications to D.C. MCD for clarification regarding building and building materials and to Stamp Collector for verification of stamp. Correspondence to D.C. MCD was also done through Addl. C.P. West District Delhi. Reply to his application was given by the Stamp Collector. Same is already Ex.PW1/A. State Vs. Manjeet FIR No. 153/11 P.S. - Nihal Vihar Page 7 of 47
11. PW5 has further stated that during the investigation, he also recorded statement of one labour Daya Ram, who was working during the construction of the building in question. He has stated that the contractor of that building was accused Manjeet Singh and the owner was Nirmal Singh (since deceased). He has further stated that there was a pit measuring 10x10 sq. feet dug by accused Manjeet Singh in the basement of said building and the same was filled with water and pillars of the ground floor of the building were also got peeled by the accused despite suggestion of Daya Ram for not doing so, as it could be dangerous to the building.
12. PW5 has further stated that on 30.06.2013, further investigation of the present case was transferred to the SHO Inspector Sunil Kumar. On 27.10.2013, he joined investigation of the present case with the I.O./Insp. Sunil Kumar and as per his direction, he took specimen handwriting of the accused in the police station. Same were marked as Mark S1 to Mark S5 State Vs. Manjeet FIR No. 153/11 P.S. - Nihal Vihar Page 8 of 47 running upto 5 pages. Same are Ex.PW5/C, Ex.PW5/D, Ex.PW 5/E, Ex.PW5/F and Ex.PW5/G.
13. PW5 has further stated that during the investigation of the present case, he had appeared before the Ld. MM and report was submitted by the official of MCD and one copy was provided to him. After obtaining the report submitted by officials of MCD, he came to know that the ratio of cement and sand used for the construction of building was 1:11 and 1:12 in place of 1:6 (prescribed/standard). Aforesaid report is Mark PW5/1 (running into 3 pages). During investigation, he collected PCR Form and certificate U/Sec.65B Evidence Act. As per material placed on record, Sec.304A IPC was replaced by Sec.304 IPC. Thereafter, further investigation was assigned to Insp. Sunil Kumar.
14. PW6 Ms. Mamta has stated that she has been authorized by Sh.
S.R. Lakhan, Executive Engineer, EEM1, Keshavpuram Zone and by Sh. Anil Kumar Passi, A.A.O., to depose in the present State Vs. Manjeet FIR No. 153/11 P.S. - Nihal Vihar Page 9 of 47 matter. She has also brought the dispatch register for the year 201314. At the relevant time period, Keshavpuram Zone, NDMC was known as Rohini Zone, NDMC. She has seen document already marked as MarkPW5/1, which is status report with reference to D.O. letter no.11699 dated 04.07.2013 from Addition C.P. West District (running into three pages) filed by Executive Engineer (M)1, Rohini Zone, NDMC. At the relevant period of time, Sh. S.K. Vashisth was Executive Engineer (M)1, Rohini Zone, NDMC and he got retired on 31.12.2016. The third page of MarkPW5/1 is the copy of report of Executive Engineer M1, Narela Zone, but he was unable to identify the signatures on document marked as Mark PW5/1.
15. PW7 Mr. Satish Kumar Vashisth has stated that he retired on 31.12.2016 from Division MI, Rohini Zone from the post of Executive Engineer (Civil). On 24.09.2013, status report with reference to D.O. letter No.11699 dated 04.07.2013 from Addl. State Vs. Manjeet FIR No. 153/11 P.S. - Nihal Vihar Page 10 of 47 Commissioner of Police, West District was filed in the Court of Sh. Samar Vishal, Ld. MM, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi. He had filed the said status report alongwith Annexure 'A'. The said report is now exhibited as Ex.PW7/A. He had forwarded the desired report after obtaining the same from the concerned Superintendent Engineer of Narela Zone. Same had been forwarded by Addl. Commissioner of police vide letter No. EE(MRZ)1/1314/1815 dated 24.09.2013 and copy of the same had been annexed as Annexure 'A'.
16. PW8 Sarita Sharma has stated that on 14.11.2013, documents for examination of the questioned signatures were received by FSL. Same were assigned to her for examination. After examining the questioned and specimen signatures, she gave her report on 30.04.2015. Same alongwith annexures is Ex.PW 8/A (colly). In her report, she had opined that though some similarities were observed between the red enclosed questioned signatures marked Q1 to Q3 and the red enclosed signatures State Vs. Manjeet FIR No. 153/11 P.S. - Nihal Vihar Page 11 of 47 marked S1 to S58 in execution of various characters and their combinations, but all the features as occurring in the red enclosed reproduction copies of signatures marked Q1 to Q3 were not similarly accounted for from the available standard signatures and therefore, it was not possible to express a definite opinion on the signatures Q1 to Q3 on the basis of materials available. She had further opined that further attempt could have been made if corresponding original documents of the questioned signatures were supplied to study the line quality and other characteristics alongwith some admitted genuine signatures of contemporary period of the concerned person. The documents sent to the laboratory for examination and case report were sealed with the seal of "A.S F.S.L DELHI" in the presence of Authorized Messenger at the time of handing over the same.
17. PW9 Inspector Sunil Kumar has stated that on 29/6/2013, he was posted at PS Nihal Vihar as SHO. On that day, as per order State Vs. Manjeet FIR No. 153/11 P.S. - Nihal Vihar Page 12 of 47 of Addl. CP, West District, investigation of present case was marked to him. After inspection of case file, he had submitted his status report before the aforesaid Addl. CP. He also apprised him that expert opinion regarding ratio of cement and sand in building construction was still pending. In turn, one priority letter was sent to MCD, Rohini Zone and MCD Narela Zone by the worthy Addl. CP, West.
18. PW9 has further stated that on 24/09/2013, the said report was sent by Executive Engineer (M)1, Rohini Zone, NDMC to Addl. CP, West alongwith the forwarding letter. Later on, the aforesaid status report alongwith expert opinion was filed by the concerned officer before the ld. MM concerned and the same (including annexure A) is Ex PW7/A. During the investigation, he had also recorded statement of Sarabjeet Kaur (wife of deceased Nirmal Singh) u/s 161 Cr.P.C. He had also sent copy of agreement between the deceased and the accused for expert opinion on handwriting through Ct Rajesh vide No.252/12/13 State Vs. Manjeet FIR No. 153/11 P.S. - Nihal Vihar Page 13 of 47 on 14/11/2013. He had filed supplementary charge sheet in this regard before the Hon'ble Court on 19/11/2013.
19. PW10 Sh. Parveen Kumar has stated that around five years back, IO of the present case from PS Nihal Vihar had served a notice (Ex PW5/A) upon him for providing required documents i.e., sale of stamp paper value Rs 50/ serial no.7725 dated 07/09/2010. He had given reply to the said notice, which is already Ex PW5/B. He had replied that stamp paper of Rs 50/ was issued vide serial no.7725 dated 07/09/2010 in favour of Sh. Nirmal Singh. He had also informed that at the time of giving reply, his licence was already been submitted to Deputy CommissionerRampura Delhi. Copy of the said stamp paper is already part of Ex PW8/A.
20. PW11 Sh. S.S Badwal has stated that on 02/09/2011, two duly sealed parcels were received at office of FSL Rohini sealed with the seal of BS pertaining to case FIR No.153/11 PS Nihal Vihar and the same were marked to him through proper channel. On State Vs. Manjeet FIR No. 153/11 P.S. - Nihal Vihar Page 14 of 47 opening one parcel, it was found containing Exhibit1 i.e., dry pieces mortar material and bricks and on opening second parcel, it was found containing Exhibit 2 i.e., dry pieces of mortar material. The mortar sample from the Exhibit1 was taken and analyzed with respect to proportion of soluble silica using Gravimetric analysis. On examination, the ratio of cement and sand was found 1:11(approx) by weight. The mortar samples from the Exhibit2 was taken and analyzed with respect to proportion of soluble Silica using Gravimetric analysis. On examination, the ratio of cement and sand was found 1:12 (approx) by weight. After examination, he prepared his detailed report and the same is now Ex PW35/A. After examination, the parcels containing the case exhibits / remnants were sealed with the seal of FSL S.S.B DELHI.
21. PW12 Sh. Gurvinder Singh has stated that on the date of incident, he was on his duty and saw the news on television that one building had collapsed in Chander Vihar. Thereafter, he State Vs. Manjeet FIR No. 153/11 P.S. - Nihal Vihar Page 15 of 47 received a call from his home that the place where his father was working had collapsed.
22. PW12 has further stated that he reached at the spot at about 4.30 pm. His father had to take contract of furniture work in the said building from Nirmaljeet Singh and he had gone there to inspect the site. After sometime, JCB machine came to the spot and the dead body of his father was recovered from the debris of collapsed building at about 66.30 pm. The body was taken to Sanjay Gandhi hospital and was deposited in the mortuary. On the next day in the mortuary, he identified the dead body of his father vide memo Ex PW12/A and after postmortem, the dead body was handed over to him. IO recorded his statement.
23. PW12 has further stated during his cross examination by Ld Addl. PP for State that he had stated in his statement given to IO that his father had taken contract of furniture of the said building B72, Gurunanak Garden, Chander Vihar, Delhi. State Vs. Manjeet FIR No. 153/11 P.S. - Nihal Vihar Page 16 of 47
24. PW13 Sh. Ravi has stated that on 18/5/2011, he identified the dead body of his father, who had expired on 17/05/2011 after getting buried under the derbies of collapsed building. After postmortem, the dead body of his father was handed over to him.
25. PW14 SI Bhanwar Singh has stated that on 18/05/2011, while he was posted at PS Nihal Vihar as Sub Inspector, further investigation of this case was assigned to him by the SHO. On that day, he made request to the Incharge, Department of Forensic Medicine, SGMH, Mangol Puri, Delhi for the postmortem on the dead bodies of Harbhajan Singh and Shiv Mohan vide letters Ex PW14/A and Ex PW14/B, both bearing his signatures.
26. PW14 has further stated that he had prepared the death report pertaining to Harbhajan Singh and Shiv Mohan Ex PW14/C and Ex PW14/C1. Prior to postmortem, he had recorded statements of his son namely Gurvinder Singh and his relative namely State Vs. Manjeet FIR No. 153/11 P.S. - Nihal Vihar Page 17 of 47 Palvinder Singh Ex PW14/D and Ex PW14/E, bearing his signature. He recorded statements of the aforesaid persons regarding the dead body identification. Same are Ex PW12/A and Ex PW14/F respectively, bearing his signatures.
27. PW14 has further stated that he had also recorded statements of relatives of deceased Shiv Mohan i.e., Kishan, Prakash and Devrati (wife of deceased Shiv Mohan), Ex PW14/G, Ex PW14/H and Ex PW14/I respectively, bearing his signatures. He had also recorded statement of Smt Devrati regarding the identification of dead body of Shiv Mohan Ex PW14/J, bearing his signatures. After postmortem of dead bodies of Harbhajan and Shiv Mohan, same were handed over to their relatives.
28. PW14 has further stated that on 19/05/2011, he went to SGMH, where he made request to the Incharge, Department of Forensic Medicine, SGMH, Mangol Puri, Delhi for the postmortem on the dead body of NIrmal vide letter Ex PW14/K, bearing his signatures. Prior to postmortem, he had recorded statements of State Vs. Manjeet FIR No. 153/11 P.S. - Nihal Vihar Page 18 of 47 his wife namely Saravjeet Kaur and his relative namely Satnam Singh, which are Ex PW14/L and Ex PW14/M, bearing his signature. He recorded statements of the aforesaid persons regarding the dead body identification and same are Ex PW14/N and Ex PW14/O respectively, bearing his signatures. After postmortem of dead body of Nirmal, it was handed over to his relatives.
29. PW14 has further stated that later on, he had collected postmortem reports of the aforesaid deceased persons.
30. PW14 has further stated that during the investigation, he had made efforts for the search of accused persons but in vain. Thereafter, on 11/07/2011, he had obtained NBWs of the accused from the concerned court.
31. PW14 has stated that on 19/07/2011, accused had moved an application for cancellation of NBWs and the accused appeared before the court on that day. With the permission of court, he State Vs. Manjeet FIR No. 153/11 P.S. - Nihal Vihar Page 19 of 47 interrogated the accused and accused was arrested with the permission of the court vide memo Ex PW14/P, bearing his signatures. Disclosure statement of the accused was recorded vide memo Ex PW14/Q, bearing his signatures. Thereafter, he moved an application for one day PC remand of accused before court concerned, which was rejected by the court concerned.
32. PW14 has further stated that Ld. MM had directed the accused to join the investigation at 6.00 p.m. on 19.07.2011 and true copy of the said order is Ex.PW14/R.
33. PW14 has further stated that on that day, accused had joined the investigation in the present case and got recovered photocopy of the agreement dated 07.09.2010 between Nirmal Singh (since deceased), owner of the collapsed building and himself. The said document was seized vide memo Ex.PW14/S bearing his signature and that of Ct. Diwan. The said document running into four pages is MarkPW14/1. State Vs. Manjeet FIR No. 153/11 P.S. - Nihal Vihar Page 20 of 47
34. PW14 has further stated that on 02.08.2011, he handed over the case filed to MHC(R) as he was transferred.
35. PW15 Dr Shalini Girdhar has stated that on 18/05/2011, she was posted as Junior Specialist at SGMH Hospital in department of Forensic Medicine. On that day, at about 11.30 am, she conducted postmortem vide PM no. 450/11 on the dead body of Shiv Mohan aged 30 years male s/o Chetri Lal. The body was sent by SI Bhanwar Singh of PS Nihal Vihar with alleged history of collapsed of building (four storied) on 17/05/2011 at about 4.15 pm, he was found dead at the spot under the debris of building. After external and internal examination, she opined that cause of death was hemorrhagic shock due to injuries mentioned in the postmortem report Ex PW15/A, bearing her signatures. All the injuries were antemortem in nature and time since death was about one day.
36. PW16 HC Ravinder Dabas has stated that on 17.05.2011, while he was posted at P.S. Nihal Vihar as Constable, he was having State Vs. Manjeet FIR No. 153/11 P.S. - Nihal Vihar Page 21 of 47 emergency duty alongwith ASI Bijender Singh from 8.00 a.m. to 8.00 p.m. On that day at about 4.15 p.m., ASI Bijender received DD No.26A and he alongwith I.O./ASI Bijender reached at the place of information. There they saw an under construction building collapsed and few people were buried in the debris of that building. SHO and other staff were also present at the spot.
37. PW16 has further stated that injured were taken out from the debris with the help of fire brigade and other staff and sent to SGM hospital by ambulance and PCR van. Thereafter, he alongwith ASI Bijender went to the said hospital, where three persons were declared brought dead and one injured namely Daya Ram had left the hospital by that time. No eyewitness was found at the spot as well as in the hospital.
38. PW16 has further stated that I.O./ASI Bijender prepared rukka and handed over the same to him for registration of the FIR. After registration of the FIR, he returned to the spot and handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to I.O./ASI Bijender. State Vs. Manjeet FIR No. 153/11 P.S. - Nihal Vihar Page 22 of 47 Thereafter, I.O. lifted mortar (mixture of sand and cement) from all around the collapsed building and placed the same in plastic katta and sealed the same with the seal of B.S. He also lifted few bricks having mortar from the spot and placed the same in plastic katta and sealed the same with the seal of B.S. Thereafter, I.O. had deposited the case property in the malkhana.
39. PW16 has further stated that he has identified brick pieces and mortar as the same, which were seized by the I.O. in his presence and the same are collectively Ex.P1; mortar (masala) as the same, which was seized by the IO in his presence and same is collectively Ex.P2.
40. PW17 SI Vijender Singh has stated that on 17/05/2011, while he was posted at PS Nihal Vihar as ASI, at about 4.15 pm, an information with regard to collapse of building received in the PS, which was reduced into writing vide DD No. 26 A Ex PW17/A and the said DD was marked to him. After that, he State Vs. Manjeet FIR No. 153/11 P.S. - Nihal Vihar Page 23 of 47 alongwith Ct Ravinder reached at the spot i.e., B72, Gurunanak Enclave, Chander Vihar, Delhi, where they noticed that four storied under construction building was collapsed and they also came to know that the labourer came under the collapsed building. SHO alongwith other police staff reached there. Fire brigade also reached at the spot. Four labourer / masons were rescued from the collapsed building and sent to SGM Hospital by ambulance and PCR van and thereafter he alongwith Ct Ravinder reached to the hospital and collected the MLC of injured i.e., Daya Ram, Mohan, Nirmal and Harbhajan Singh. Harbhajan, Mohan and Nirmal were declared brought dead by the doctor and Daya Ram was medically treated in the hospital but he could not be found there. He came to know that he had left the hospital. He had collected the MLC of Daya Ram, Mohan and Nirmal and same are Ex PW17/B, C and D. He had also collected MLC of Harbhajan, which is Ex PW17/E. Thereafter, he again visited the spot but no eye witness was found there. Accordingly, he made endorsement on DD No. 26A and State Vs. Manjeet FIR No. 153/11 P.S. - Nihal Vihar Page 24 of 47 prepared rukka and handed over the same to Ct Ravinder. His endorsement on DD No. 26A is Ex PW17/F, bearing his signatures.
41. PW17 has further stated that he prepared site plan at the spot.
Same is Ex.PW17/G bearing his signature. In the meanwhile, Ct. Ravinder reached at the spot alongwith original rukka and copy of FIR Ex.PW4/A and handed over the same to him. He had seized debris/mortar (masala; mixture of sand and cement) from the spot and kept the same in a plastic sack and the same was sealed with the seal of B.S., vide seizure memo Ex.PW17/H bearing his signature. He had also seized brick with mortar (masala) from the spot and kept the same in plastic sack and sealed with the seal of B.S. and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW17/I bearing his signature. The case property was deposited into malkhana. Thereafter, further investigation of the case was handed over to SI Bhawar Singh on the direction of SHO.
State Vs. Manjeet FIR No. 153/11 P.S. - Nihal Vihar Page 25 of 47
42. PW17 has identified brick pieces alongwith mortar as the same, which were seized by him from the spot as Ex.P1; mortar (masala) as the same, which were seized by him from the spot as Ex.P2.
43. PW18 Dr. Manoj Dhingra has stated that on 19.05.2011, he alongwith Dr. Deepak Sharma conducted postmortem on the body of Nirmal Singh and the body was sent by S.I. Vijender Singh from P.S. Nihal Vihar with alleged history of fall from building on 17.05.2011. His detailed PM report is Ex.PW18/A bearing his signature and Dr. Deepak Sharma on each pages of PM report. In this case, cause of death was shock and consequently blunt force impact to head and abdomen. All injuries were antimortem. During internal examination, there was a head injury with extravasation of blood present over right Temporalparietal region on reflection of the scalp and there was Subdural hemorrhage present over both cerebral hemispheres. During internal examination of abdomen, a State Vs. Manjeet FIR No. 153/11 P.S. - Nihal Vihar Page 26 of 47 laceration of right lobe of liver was present of size 5.0x3.0 cm.
44. PW19 Sh. Satnam Singh has stated that deceased Nirmal Singh was his sister's son, who had expired on 17.05.2011, due to collapse of building in Chander Vihar, Delhi. The information was received by him. He came to Delhi and on 19.05.2011, he had identified the dead body of his bhanja Nirmal Singh in the mortuary, vide identification memo Ex.PW14/O bearing his signature. After postmortem, the dead body was handed over to them for last rites.
45. PW20 Dr. Rajesh Dalal has stated that on 17.05.2011, while he was posted at SGM hospital, Mangolpuri, Delhi as CMO, at about 6.40 p.m., one person namely Nirmal S/o Surjit Singh aged about 40 years, male was brought to casualty by CATS Ambulance. Aforesaid patient was examined by him vide MLC No.7654 dated 17.05.2011. It was a case of get buried beneath under construction building at about 4.00 p.m. at Chander Vihar and was brought in unconscious state. After examination, State Vs. Manjeet FIR No. 153/11 P.S. - Nihal Vihar Page 27 of 47 patient was declared brought dead and the body was shifted to mortuary for PM. The aforesaid MLC is Ex.PW17/D bearing his signature.
46. PW20 has further stated that on the aforesaid date, at about 6.15 p.m., one person namely Mohan Mistri S/o Chirani Lal, aged about 30 years, male was brought to casualty by CATS Ambulance. Aforesaid patient was examined by him vide MLC No.7653 dated 17.05.2011. It was a case of get buried beneath under construction building at about 4.00 p.m. at Chander Vihar and was brought in unconscious state. After examination, patient was declared brought dead and the body was shifted to mortuary for PM. The aforesaid MLC is Ex.PW17/C bearing his signature.
47. PW20 has further stated that on the aforesaid date, at about 7.35 p.m., one person namely Harbhajan Singh S/o Teja Singh, aged about 55 years, male was brought to casualty by CATS Ambulance. Aforesaid patient was examined by him vide MLC State Vs. Manjeet FIR No. 153/11 P.S. - Nihal Vihar Page 28 of 47 No.7746 dated 17.05.2011. It was a case of get buried beneath under construction building at Chander Vihar and was brought in unconscious state. After examination, patient was declared brought dead and the body was shifted to mortuary for PM. The aforesaid MLC is Ex.PW17/E bearing his signature.
48. PW21 Smt. Sarabjeet Kaur has stated that on 17/05/2011, her nephew (bhanja) namely Sunny came to her house and informed her that building B72, Gurunank Vihar, Delhi, which was under construction collapsed and her husband Sh. Nirmal Singh was buried under the debris of the said building. She rushed to the spot and saw that whole building had collapsed. Dead body of her husband was taken out by the JCB machine. The contract of construction of the aforesaid building was given to Lucky @ Manjeet Singh by her husband.
49. PW21 has further stated that later on, in the mortuary, she identified dead body of her husband and her statement was recorded by the police in this regard vide memos Ex PW14/L State Vs. Manjeet FIR No. 153/11 P.S. - Nihal Vihar Page 29 of 47 and N, bearing her signatures. After postmortem, dead body of her husband was handed over to them by the police. IO recorded her statement.
50. PW21 has further stated when she was recalled on an application u/s 311 Cr.P.C that Contract Agreement, which was executed between accused Manjeet and her husband (since deceased) Sh. Nirmal Singh for construction of the property in question and the document vide which accused has received payments from her husband from time to time for the construction of the building in question is in the handwriting of her husband. The said contract agreement running into four pages is Ex PW21/A, bearing signatures of her husband at point A on each page and the document vide which accused received payments from 07/09/2010 to 27/04/2011 from her husband is Ex PW21/B. She is well acquainted with the handwriting and signatures of her husband (since deceased), as she had seen him writing and signing.
State Vs. Manjeet FIR No. 153/11 P.S. - Nihal Vihar Page 30 of 47
51. PW22 Inspector Radhey Shyam has stated that he was the second IO of the present case. On 15/02/2012, while he was posted at PS Nihal Vihar as SI, he had filed the main charge sheet in the court of the present case.
52. PW22 against has further stated that on 07/11/2012, he had also filed the supplementary chargesheet alongwith the FSL result Ex PW35/A.
53. Statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C recorded separately, wherein he opted to lead defence evidence.
54. I have heard Ms. Suchitra Singh Chauhan, Ld. Addl. PP for State and Sh. Gurmeet Singh Hans, Ld. Counsel for accused and gone through the record of this case.
55. This case was registered on receiving of information, which was recorded vide DD No. 26A dated 17/05/2011 by ASI Binjender Singh. It was reported that contractor of the building was State Vs. Manjeet FIR No. 153/11 P.S. - Nihal Vihar Page 31 of 47 Manjeet Singh, who made a contract agreement with owner of the building Sh Nirmal Singh. Photocopy of the said agreement was recovered from the house of accused Manjeet Singh. The exhibits were sent to FSL. According to FSL report, on examination the mortal samples of building, the ratio of cement and sand were found as 1:11 and 1:12. Thereafter, offence u/s 304 A of IPC was converted into 304 of IPC. The original agreement could not be traced out. The opinion was also obtained from North Delhi Municipal Corporation (MRZ)I Delhi. According to which, the ratio of cement and sand in building should be 1:6. The copy of the agreement was also sent to FSL and till the filing of the charge sheet, the opinion was not received.
56. Later on FSL result was received. According to the same, it was opined that the it was not possible to express a definite opinion in respect of signatures stamped and marked Q1 to Q3.
57. Charge was framed against the accused u/s 304/323 of IPC to State Vs. Manjeet FIR No. 153/11 P.S. - Nihal Vihar Page 32 of 47 which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
58. To prove its case, prosecution has examined 22 witnesses.
59. During the examination of wife of owner Nirmal Singh, examined as PW21, she has produced handwritten statement of account vide which payment was given to accused and original contract agreement bearing the signatures of accused and her husband.
60. According to PW1 Sh. Ramesh Kumar, the then SDM Rajouri Garden, the non judicial stamp paper no.857939 was issued in the name of Sh. Nirmal Singh of Rs.50/ dated 07.09.2010. 60(a) Ld. Counsel for accused has contended that stamp paper produced before the court Ex PW21/A is having number 857940, so this not the stamp paper which was issued to the owner Nirmal Singh.
60(b) On the other hand, ld. Addl. PP for State has stated State Vs. Manjeet FIR No. 153/11 P.S. - Nihal Vihar Page 33 of 47 that it seems to be typographical error because the amount, date of issuance with the name of owner Nirmal Singh are correct.
61. PW3 Sh. Daya Ram has not supported the case of prosecution .
He has stated that he cannot tell the reason of the collapse of building in question, where he was working as a labour. 61(a). In the cross examination conducted by ld. Addl. PP for State, he has denied the suggestion that he has stated to the police in his statement that accused Manjeet Singh got installed the door and due to that reason, he reduced the size of two pillars and due to that reason building had become week. 61(b) In the cross examination conducted by ld. Defence counsel for the accused, he has stated that the name of owner of building was Nirmal Singh. He has further stated that police had not recorded his statement, however his name and address were noted by police. He has also stated that work of the said State Vs. Manjeet FIR No. 153/11 P.S. - Nihal Vihar Page 34 of 47 building was being done by the owner Sh. Nirmal Singh. Voluntarily he has stated that Nirmal Singh and accused Manjeet Singh were getting the work done. PW3 has denied the suggestion that accused Manjeet Singh was not involved in any manner with the construction work of the concerned building at the time of incident or that he was not responsible of the incident in any manner.
62. PW6 Ms. Mamta has brought the record for the year 2013 of Rohini Zone, NDMC. She has stated that according to document Mark PW5/1, at the relevant period of time, Sh. S.K Vashisth was Executive Engineer (M)1, Rohini Zone, NMC and he got retired on 31/12/2016. She was unable to identify the signatures on document Mark PW5/1.
62(a). In the cross examination conducted by ld. Defence counsel, she has stated that last two pages of Mark PW5/1 are the photocopies. She was asked to bring the original of the same.
State Vs. Manjeet FIR No. 153/11 P.S. - Nihal Vihar Page 35 of 47
63. PW7 is Sh. Satish Kumar Vashisth. He has stated that on 24/09/2013, status report with reference to D.O letter no. 11699 dated 04/07/2013 from Addl. Commissioner of Police, West District was filed in the court of Ld. MM, THC, Delhi. He had filed the said status report alongwith Annexure A. The said report is Ex PW7/A. 63(a) In the cross examination of this witness, nothing came out to disbelieve his testimony.
64. PW8 is Smt Sarita Sharma, Senior Scientific Assistant (Document), FSL. According to her deposition, Mark Q1 to Q3 were not similarly accounted for from the available standard signatures and therefore, it was not possible to express a definite opinion on the signatures Q1 to Q3 on the basis of material available.
64(a) In the cross examination conducted by ld. Defence counsel, she has voluntarily stated that signatures Q1 to Q3 and State Vs. Manjeet FIR No. 153/11 P.S. - Nihal Vihar Page 36 of 47 the specimen signatures S1 to S58 are of the same person but she has not stated so categorically in her report Ex PW8/A.
65. PW12 is Sh. Gurvinder Singh. He has stated that on the day of incident, when he was on duty, he saw the news on television that one building had collapsed in Chander Vihar. He received a call from his home that the place where his father was working had collapsed. He reached at the spot at about 4.30 pm. His father had to take contract of furniture work in the said building from Nirmaljeet Singh and he had gone there to inspect the site. After sometime, JCB machine came to the spot and the dead body of his father was recovered from the debris of collapsed building at about 66.30 pm. The body was taken to Sanjay Gandhi hospital and was deposited in the mortuary. He identified the dead body of his father vide memo Ex PW12/A and after postmortem the dead body was handed over to him. 65(a). In the cross examination conducted by ld. Addl. PP for State, he has stated that he cannot say if the contract was State Vs. Manjeet FIR No. 153/11 P.S. - Nihal Vihar Page 37 of 47 between his father and Nirmaljeet Singh or between his father and accused. He has voluntary stated that he was told that his father had gone to the said building after having talks with Nirmaljeet Singh.
66. PW14 is SI Bhanwar Singh, who has conducted the investigation of present case. He has further stated that after arrest of accused, he joined the investigation in the present case and got recovered photocopy of the agreement dated 07/09/2010 between him and Nirmal Singh. The said document Mark PW14/1 was seized vide memo Ex PW14/S. 66(a). During his cross examination conducted by ld.
Defence counsel, he has denied the suggestion that Mark PW14/1 was not recovered on the instance of accused.
67. PW15 is Dr Shalini Girdhar, Associate Professor from RML Hospital, Delhi. She has conducted the postmortem on the dead body of Shiv Mohan with alleged history of collapsed of State Vs. Manjeet FIR No. 153/11 P.S. - Nihal Vihar Page 38 of 47 building. She opined that cause of death was hemorrhagic shock due to injuries mentioned in the postmortem report Ex PW15/A. She has also conducted the postmortem on the dead body of Harbhajan Singh with alleged history collapsed of building. She has opined that cause of death was due to head injury caused by blunt force, which could be possible in the mentioned circumstances.
68. PW16 is HC Ravinder Dabas. He has also joined the investigation with IO/ASI Bijender Singh. He has identified the case property i.e., P1 containing brick pieces and mortar and Ex P2 containing mortar (masala).
68(a). During his cross examination by ld. Defence counsel, he has denied the suggestion that Ex P1 and Ex P2 were not lifted from the spot or they have been planted upon the accused.
69. PW18 Dr. Manoj Dhingra has proved the postmortem report Ex State Vs. Manjeet FIR No. 153/11 P.S. - Nihal Vihar Page 39 of 47 PW18/A conducted by him alongwith Dr Deepak Sharma on the dead body of Nirmal Singh. He has identified the signatures of him as well as of Dr Deepak Sharma on the PM report. He has stated that the cause of death was shock and consequently blunt force impact to head and abdomen. This witness has not been cross examined in any manner.
70. PW20 Dr Rajesh Dalal, CMO BSA Hospital has stated that one person namely Nirmal was brought to casualty of SGM Hospital by CATS Ambulance on 17/05/2011 in an unconscious state. After examination, the patient was declared brought dead and the body was sent for postmotem. One person namely Mohan Mistri was also brought to casualty by CATS Ambulance in an unconscious state. He was also examined by him. After examination, the patient was declared brought dead and the body was sent for postmotem. One Harbhajan Singh was also brought to casualty by CATS Ambulance in an unconscious state. He was also examined by him. After examination, the State Vs. Manjeet FIR No. 153/11 P.S. - Nihal Vihar Page 40 of 47 patient was declared brought dead and the body was sent for postmotem.
71. PW21 Smt Sarabjeet Kaur , wife of Late Sh. Nirmal Singh has stated that her nephew Sunny informed her that building B72, Gurunanak Vihar, Delhi, which was under construction was collapsed and her husband Nirmal Singhw was buried under the debris of the said building. She reached at the spot and saw that whole building had collapsed. Dead body of her husband was taken out by the JCB machine. The contract of construction of the said building was given to Lucky @ Manjeet Singh, who is accused and present in court, by her husband. 71(a) In the cross examination conducted by ld. Defence counsel, she has stated that at the time of incident, her husband had started the business of building construction and the said construction was his first assignment. She has further stated that she had not seen any document in respect of giving the contract of construction of the said building to accused Manjeet. State Vs. Manjeet FIR No. 153/11 P.S. - Nihal Vihar Page 41 of 47 Voluntarily she has stated that she may search for the same, if the documents is lying in her house. Thereafter, she was called u/s 311 Cr.P.C and she had produced the original contract agreement executed between accused Manjeet and her husband for construction of the property. She has also identified the writing and signatures of her husband on the same. She has also produced the statement of account vide which accused has received the payments from 07/09/2010 to 27/04/2011 from her husband vide Ex PW21/B. 71(b) In the cross examination of this witness nothing came out to disbelieve his testimony.
72. PW11 is Sh. S.S Badwal, Assistant Director (Physics), CFSL, Guwahati, Assam. He has stated that on 02/09/2011, he received two sealed parcels containing Exhibit 1 I.e., dry pieces of mortar material and bricks and Exhibit 2 containing dry pieces of mortar material for examination. After examination Exhibit 1, the ratio of cement and sand was found 1:11 State Vs. Manjeet FIR No. 153/11 P.S. - Nihal Vihar Page 42 of 47 (approx) and on examination Exhibit 2, the ratio of cement and sand was found 1:12 (approx). He prepared his report in this respect.
72(a) This witness has not been cross examined by the ld.
Counsel for the accused in any manner.
73. In his defence, accused has examined DW1 Sh. Ramjeet. He has stated that on the day of incident, he was working in the third floor of said building and other people were working therein. He was working as baildar in the said building. When he had gone to have lunch about 45 streets away from the said building, the owner and the other workers were present there. He heard that the said building got collapsed. He does not remember whether owner was Rinku, who was having shop of electric goods in the same area. Accused was not the owner. He had seen the accused 23 times on the entire time of construction of said building. The building was being constructed under the instructions of said Rinku only.
State Vs. Manjeet FIR No. 153/11 P.S. - Nihal Vihar Page 43 of 47 73(a) In the cross examination conducted by ld. Addl. PP for State, he has stated that he came to the court to depose in the present manner on the asking of accused. He does not have any document to show that he was working in the said building which was collapsed. He has denied the suggestion that accused was contractor of the said building.
74. Ld. Defence counsel has contended that nephew Sunny has not been examined in this case, who has informed PW21 about the incident.
75. According to PW21 Smt Sarabjeet Kaur, an agreement of contract was executed between Nirmal Singh and accused for construction of the building and accused had also received payments from time to time from late Sh. Nirmal Singh. The statement of account has also been placed on record bearing the signatures of accused. The same was not sent to FSL as at that time, both were not available for obtaining opinion regarding signatures of accused Manjeet Singh. However, court has power State Vs. Manjeet FIR No. 153/11 P.S. - Nihal Vihar Page 44 of 47 to compare the signatures of accused under Indian Evidence Act and this court is of the opinion that agreement Ex PW21/A and Ex PW21/B bearing the signatures of accused.
76. Exhibits P1 and P2 were lifted from the spot and the testimony of witnesses in this respect remained unrebutted and unshaken. According to FSL report, Ex P1 and Ex P2 were having ratio of cement and sand as 1:11 and 1:12. According to Annexure A produced before the court, as per CPWD specification, the ratio of 1:11 and 1:12 of cement and sand used for construction of building was not standard one and it can be used for any building construction work not for more than 1:6 i.e., 1 part of cement:6 part of sand.
77. In view of above, from the deposition of PW3, prosecution has been able to prove that accused Manjeet Singh was getting done the construction work of the said building as a contractor. 77(a) From the deposition of PW7, who has proved a letter State Vs. Manjeet FIR No. 153/11 P.S. - Nihal Vihar Page 45 of 47 Ex PW7/A along with Annexure A, the standard ratio of cement and sand while constructing a building should not be more than 1:6 i.e., 1 part of cement:6 part of sand.
77(b) From the deposition of PW11 and his report Ex PW11/A, Ex P1 and Ex P2, which were lifted from the spot have been examined and both found ratio of cement and sand as 1:11 and 1:12.
77(c) From the deposition of 17, prosecution has been able to prove the fact that Ex P1 and Ex P2 were lifted from the spot and were sealed and seized there, which were later on sent to FSL.
77(d) From the deposition of PW14, prosecution has been able to prove the fact that photocopy of contract agreement was recovered from the house of accused. Original of which was furnished during the evidence by PW21 i.e., wife of deceased Late Nirmal Singh, owner of the house.
State Vs. Manjeet FIR No. 153/11 P.S. - Nihal Vihar Page 46 of 47 77(e) From the deposition of PW21, prosecution has been able to prove the contract agreement Ex PW21/A and statement of account Ex PW21/B, which the court has found having signatures of accused and accused had received Rs 7,55,000/ in all, as per statement of account for construction of the said building.
78. The contention of ld. Defence counsel for accused that serial number of the contract agreement is not tallying with the deposition of the witnesses seems to be typographical error. 78(a) From the deposition of PW21, prosecution has been able to prove the fact that accused was contractor of the building, which was being constructed and instead of using the ratio of one part of cement and six part of sand, he used ratio of cement and sand to the extend of 1:11 and 1:12, which did not give any strength to the building and the building was likely to be collapsed in all circumstances, which caused death of the workers or occupiers of the building.
State Vs. Manjeet FIR No. 153/11 P.S. - Nihal Vihar Page 47 of 47 78(b). From the depositions of doctors, prosecution has been able to prove that due to collapse of building, Harbhajan Singh, Nirmal Singh and Shiv Mohan have died. Their bodies were found under the debris of the building, which were recovered through JCB machine. One Mohan Mistri sustained simple injuries.
79. One Daya Ram, who has been examined as PW3 had also received injuries and was also removed to SGM Hospital. IO has not obtained the nature of injuries of Mohan Mistri and Daya Ram, so they are being taken as sustaing simple injuries.
80. So, the prosecution has been able to prove the offences u/s 304/323 of IPC against the accused, hence, accused is held guilty and convicted for the same.
(Announced in open Court on 26.09.2019) (Virender Kumar Goyal) ASJ04, West District, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi State Vs. Manjeet FIR No. 153/11 P.S. - Nihal Vihar