Delhi District Court
State vs Ranjeet Singh on 22 September, 2023
IN THE COURT OF MS AKANKSHA GARG, MM03, SE,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
State Vs. Ranjeet Singh
FIR No.249/2012
Police Station : H.N.Din
Under Section : 288/304A IPC
Date of institution :29.10.2013
Date of pronouncement : 22.09.2023
JUDGEMENT
a) Serial number of the case 86454/2016
Date of commission of
b) 29.07.2012
offence
c) Name of the complainant ASI Subhash Chand
Ranjeet Singh
Name, parentage and S/o Sh. Lakhbir Singh
d)
address of the accused R/o H.No. R20 Masjid road
Jangpura, Bhogal, New Delhi
e) Offence complained of Section 288/304A IPC
f) Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
g) Final order Acquittal
h) Date of final order 22.09.2023
FIR NO.249/2012, PS H.N.Din State Vs. Ranjeet Page no.1/13
BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS AND REASONS FOR THE
DECISION
1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 29.07.2012 at about 7.22PM at H.NO. R20, Masjid road, Jangpura, Bhogal, New Delhi within jurisdiction of PS H.N.Din, accused knowingly or negligently omitted to take care in pulling down or repairing of the building as is sufficient to guard against any probable danger to human life from fall of that building or part there and due to such negligent act, Govind@Manglu fell from the first floor and succumbed to injuries and thereby committed offence punishable u/s 288/304A IPC.
ACCUSATION AGAINST THE ACCUSED
2. Vide order dated 21.01.2014, passed by the learned predecessor of this Court, notice of accusation for the offences punishable under Sections 288/304A IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION
3. The prosecution in all examined 3 witnesses.
1)PW1 Surender Mandal has deposed that he came to know from someone that his relative namely Manglu had fell while doing shuttering work for lentar in the area of the Bhogal. At the time of the incident, he was working at some other site and was not present at the spot. Manglu was his brother in law. He had identified the dead body of deceased Manglu FIR NO.249/2012, PS H.N.Din State Vs. Ranjeet Page no.2/13 after postmortem nad he had also received the dead body of deceased from hospital. Dead body identified memo and handing over memo of dead body ExPW1/A and ExPW1/B. (2)PW2 Jatin Mandal has deposed that he did not know how the incident took place. He was in his village. He was father of deceased Manglu. When his son had fell while doing shuttering, he was informed that he had fallen and admitted in hospital. He came to Delhi from Malda. His son died during treatment.
(3)PW3 HC Ashish Kumar has deposed that on 29.07.2012, he had joined the investigation of the present case along with ASI Subhash Chander. DD No.21 was marked to ASI Subhash Chander which was in respect of admission of Manglu in Holy Family Hospital. DD NO.21 is Ex PW3/A. Thereafter he along with ASI Subhash Chander reached in Holy Family Hospital where MLC of Manglu was collected. Eyewitness was traced but none could be found. Thereafter, rukka ExPW3/B was prepared and same was handed over to me for registration of FIR. He went to PS and got the FIR registered. Thereafter, he returned to the spot and handed over original rukka and copy of FIR to IO . His statement was recorded.
(4) PW4 Ct. Shakil Khan has deposed that on 05.08.2012 he was posted at PS H.N.Din as constable. On that day he was on duty along with ASI Subhash Chander. DD No.4 was marked to ASI Subhash Chander which was in respect of death of injured. Thereafter he along with IO reached at mortuary Holy Family Hospital. Dead body of deceased was got identified by the relatives of deceased vide identification memo Exhibit PW4/A& FIR NO.249/2012, PS H.N.Din State Vs. Ranjeet Page no.3/13 PW1/A. After postmortem examination of deceased dead body was handed over to the relative of deceased vide memo exhibit PW1/B. On 19.08.2012 He again joined the investigation of present case. Accused had handed over water and electricity bill and the same were seized vide seizure memo PW4/B. After interrogation accused was arrested and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW4/C and Ex.PW4/D. Accused was released on bail.
(5) PW5 SI Subhash Chander has deposed that on 29.07.2012, at about 08:25PM DD No.21 was marked to him which was in respect of MLC of injured. He along with Ct. Ashish Kumar reached to Holy Family Hospital and found injured Manglu was admitted there. He collected his MLC and doctor had opined that injured was unfit for statement. After that he reached at the spot and found that construction/alteration work was being carried out by accused on 3rd floor. Thereafter, he clicked photographs of the spot vide Ex.P1 (colly). Thereafter, he made endorsement over the DD no. 21 and prepared rukka vide Ex.PW3/B. He handed over rukka to Ct.
Ashish for registration of FIR. He had prepared site plan at the instance of Lav Kumar vide Ex.PW5/A. After that, he again visited the hospital. In his statement eyewitness Lav Kumar had informed that the alleged incident took place due to the negligent act of accused Ranjit @ Happy as he had not provided sufficient measures to protect the workers from any mis happening. On 05.08.2012 DD no. 4, PP Jangpura was marked to him which was in respect of death of injured. After that postmortem examination of deceased was got conducted vide report Ex.P/A/4. After PM examination, dead body of deceased was handed over to the relative of FIR NO.249/2012, PS H.N.Din State Vs. Ranjeet Page no.4/13 deceased vide document already Ex.PW1/B. Accused was interrogated and thereafter he was arrested and his personal search was conducted vide memos Ex.PW4/C and Ex.PW4/D. Accused was released on bail as the offence was bailable. During investigation, he recorded statement of witnesses under Section 161 CrPC. After completion of investigation, he had prepared chargesheet and filed the same before the court for judicial verdict After examination of abovesaid witnesses, PE was closed.
STATEMENT / DEFENCE OF THE ACCUSED
4. In his examination under Section 313 CrPC., the accused denied the entire evidence put to him. In defence the accused has stated that he had entered into an agreement for renovation of his house with the Contractor Chetan Mandal and asked for the said agreement, all the liabilities during construction had to be borne by him. The accused placed on record the copy of the said agreement which is marked DX1 as the original construction agreement were given to the IO at the time of the investigation. Accused opted not to lead DE. DE stands closed.
ARGUMENTS
5. Learned APP for the State has argued that the testimonies of all prosecution witnesses have established negligence on the part of accused and there is sufficient material to convict the accused u/s 288/304A IPC.
FIR NO.249/2012, PS H.N.Din State Vs. Ranjeet Page no.5/13 ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
6. Before adverting further, it would be apposite to understand the law that holds the field for offences u/s 288 and 304A IPC. Section 288 IPC is reproduced below: "whoever a person, in pulling down or repairing any building, knowingly or negligently omits to take such order with that building as is sufficient to guard against any probable danger to human life from the fall of that building, or any part thereof shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both"
7. In order to constitute an offence u/s 288 IPC, the following ingredients shall be established:
i) the accused must be pulling down or repairing any building.
ii) The accused, knowingly or negligently omits to take such care as is sufficient to guard against probable danger to human life from the fall of that building or any part thereof.
8. Hence, for the offence u/s 288 IPC, the care that is required from the accused is with respect to the fall of any building or any part thereof. However, in the facts of the present case, it is not the case of the prosecution that the accused omitted to take care in pulling down or repairing the building in question, neither this is a case pertaining to a fall of the building or any part thereof. Rather, the case of the prosecution is that the deceased labourer fell while doing shuttering work.
FIR NO.249/2012, PS H.N.Din State Vs. Ranjeet Page no.6/13
9. Reliance is hereby placed on the authority of Abdul Kalam vs State (Government Of Nct Of Delhi) on 3 May, 2006:
"It has to be seen whether any offence is made out under Section 288 the context of the allegations against the petitioner. In the present case, I find that even if the entire statement of the said Mohd Shamshad is taken to be correct, there is no mention of any fall of any building or any part thereof. What has happened is that the scaffolding that was put up by the contractor and / or the labourers themselves had given way and the said Mohd Shamshad fell down and sustained injuries. Section 288concerns itself with a situation where a person, in pulling down or repairing any building, knowingly or negligently omits to take such order with that building as is sufficient to guard against any probable danger to human life from the fall of that building, or any part thereof. The scaffolding put up by the contractor and / or the labourers themselves cannot fall within the sweep of this section inasmuch as the petitioner, who was the owner of the building, had assigned the job of plastering to the contractor and / or the labourers and there was nothing else left for him to do. Therefore, it cannot be construed that he knowingly or negligently omitted to take such order as is required under Section 288 IPC.
Accordingly, the ingredients of Section 288, to my mind, are not made out in the present case."
10. Hence, the facts of the abovementioned case when compared and contrasted with the facts of the present case shall give benefit to the accused as nothing whatsoever has been brought on record by the prosecution to substantiate that there was probable danger from the fall of the building and therefore, accused stands acquitted u/s 288 IPC.
FIR NO.249/2012, PS H.N.Din State Vs. Ranjeet Page no.7/13 Charge u/s 304A IPC
11. Section 304A IPC is reproduced below: "304A Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."
12. The basic ingredients of Section 304A are: (a) that death of a person must have been caused; (b) it must have been caused by a rash or negligent act; and (c) such an act must not amount to culpable homicide. This section would apply to a case where there is no intention to cause death and no knowledge that the fact done will in all probability cause death. It only applies to cases which are rash or negiligent act directly cause death of another person. In order to hold a person guilty under this section, rash or negligent act must be direct or proximate cause of death. The offence cannot be presumed merely because of an unfortunate incident. Question whether the conduct of an accused amounts to culpable rashness or negligence depends upon, as to what amount of care and circumspection which a prudent and reasonable man would consider it sufficient in the circumstances of the case. In order to establish criminal liability, facts must be such that the negligence of the accused prima facie show utter disregard to life and safety of others so as to amount to crime. The words 'rashly or negligently' are distinguishable, sometimes overlapping. The Supreme Court in Bhalchandra and Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra, observed that criminal negligence is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to FIR NO.249/2012, PS H.N.Din State Vs. Ranjeet Page no.8/13 exercise that reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard against injury either to the public generally or to an individual in particular, which having regard to all the circumstances out of which the charge has arisen, it was imperative duty of the accused to have adopted. It was held that criminal negligence can be found on varying sets of circumstances.
13. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled S. N. Hussain Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1972 SC 685 has held as under: "The criminality lies in such a case in running the risk of doing such an act with recklessness or indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negligence on the other hand, is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise that reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard against injury either to the public generally or to an individual in particular, which, having regard to all the circumstances out of which the charge has arisen, it was the imperative duty of the accused person to have adopted.......".
14. It has been further observed in S. N. Hussain (Supra) as under:
"Culpable negligence lies in the failure to exercise reasonable and proper care and the extent of its reasonableness will always depend upon the circumstances of each case....."
15. Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in paragraph 9 of Mohammed Aynuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2000) 7 SCC 72 held:
"A rash act is primarily an overhasty act. It is opposed to a deliberate act. Still, a rash act can be a FIR NO.249/2012, PS H.N.Din State Vs. Ranjeet Page no.9/13 deliberate act in the sense that it was done without due care and caution. Culpable rashness lies in running the risk of doing an act with recklessness and with indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negligence is the failure to exercise duty with reasonable and proper care and precaution guarding against injury to the public generally or to any individual in particular".
16. Therefore, some rash and negligent act by the accused must be proved in order to indicting for offence u/s 304A IPC. Further, there must be a direct nexus between the act of the accused and the death of the victim. Coming to the facts of the present case, the prosecution has failed to secure the presence of the only eyewitness Lav Kumar Mandal who was allegedly present at the accident site. Rest of the two witnesses i.e Surender Mandal and Jatin Mandal have not supported the case of the prosecution and did not depose anything about the negligence of the accused in not providing the safety guards and equipments to the deceased. He has only deposed that he was working at some other site and he came to know later that his brother in law namely Manglu had slipped while doing shuttering work.
17. Hence, in the absence of any concrete evidence with respect to the negligence of the accused, the same can not be presumed. Also, the possibility of the deceased/victim being negligent while working can not be ruled out. Moreover, there is no direct nexus between the accused hiring a contractor for the renovation work and the death of the deceased as the prosecution has failed to establish that accused/owner of the property was directly supervising the construction/ repair work. In Abdul Kalam vs FIR NO.249/2012, PS H.N.Din State Vs. Ranjeet Page no.10/13 State (Government Of Nct Of Delhi)(supra) where the accused was being tried for offence u/s 338/ 288 IPC Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held as under: "A reading of the said section would clearly indicate that there must be some act done by the accused and that act must be done so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or the personal safety of others. The petitioner had merely engaged the services of the said Mohd Shamshad for carrying out plastering work in residential premises. Apart from this, he did not do any act which could be regarded as rash or negligent so as to endanger human life. Therefore, in my opinion, the ingredients of Section 338 are not made out even if the statement of the said Mohd Shamshad is taking to be entirely true and correct. There is no nexus between the petitioner engaging the services of the injured and the injury being caused to him. The petitioner had no hand in setting up the scaffolding. In these circumstances, I feel that the ingredients of Sections 288 and 388 are not at all satisfied even if what is stated by the complainant is taking to be entirely true and correct. Accordingly, the order which is impugned herein is set aside and the petitioner is discharged".
18. Moreover, the accused in his defence has produced the copy of the purported agreement entered between him and the contractor Chetan Mandal with respect to the renovation of the premises and as per his version the original agreement was given to the IO, however, the IO has not placed the same on record. The said fact of receipt of the original agreement has not been denied by the IO in his cross examination. As per the terms of the agreement which is marked DX1 and DX2, the contractor Chetan Mandal FIR NO.249/2012, PS H.N.Din State Vs. Ranjeet Page no.11/13 had undertaken to carry out the construction and the bear all the troubles and arranging materials, labourers, all other incidental and connected jobs.
19. Hence, perusal of the said agreement reveals that the present accused who was the owner of the property had outsourced the construction/renovation work and therefore, the building was not under the direct supervision of the accused. Reliance is hereby placed upon Gulijeet Singh Kochar And Anr. vs State on 5 July, 2005 where Hon'ble Delhi High Court held as under:_ "Applying the above principles to the facts at hand, admittedly the petitioners are the owner of the house in question where the basement was being constructed. There is no material to suggest that construction of the basement was being done under their direct supervision. They were required to supply only the material and the construction was being supervised by the contractor as per investigations. The observation made by the learned Magistrate to the effect that on 1.5.2004, when further investigations were ordered, the agreement in question was not signed by the owner, is immaterial, as the contractor and the owner have not denied the agreement, copy of which is on record; and what is the value of the agreement cannot, be judged at this stage. Further there is no requirement of law that the construction agreement must be in writing indicating as to who would be responsible for the offence, if any. In a criminal trial the burden is on the prosecution to prove its case; question at the trial would be as to who was supervising the construction. To repeat investigation revealed that building was being constructed by the contractor. The concept of 'negligence' in civil law is different from the culpable negligence punishable as an offence. There can be no FIR NO.249/2012, PS H.N.Din State Vs. Ranjeet Page no.12/13 presumption in this regard against the owner in criminal law. The observations made by the learned Trial Court, while directing further investigation on 1.5.2004, that apparently even the owners of the house in question would be equally liable as the contractor for the alleged offence, and the similar observation made in the impugned order, are not sustainable in law".
20. In view of the abovementioned discussion, it can not be presumed that accused was rash and negligent in the construction as the prosecution has failed to establish that the building was under his direct supervision and therefore, there is no direct proximate link between the death of the victim and the act of the accused. Hence, accused Ranjeet Singh stands acquitted for offence u/s 304A IPC.
CONCLUSION
21. Accordingly, the accused Ranjeet Singh is acquitted for the offences punishable under Section 288/304A IPC.
Copy of the judgment be given free of cost to the convict. Let copy of this judgment be placed on the district court website.
Digitally signed by
Announced in open Court on 22.09.2023. AKANKSHA AKANKSHA GARG
GARG Date: 2023.09.22
15:18:21 +0530
(AKANKSHA GARG)
MM03 (SouthEast),
Saket Courts, New Delhi
22.09.2023
FIR NO.249/2012, PS H.N.Din State Vs. Ranjeet Page no.13/13