Delhi District Court
State vs . Sheetal Singh on 11 April, 2019
IN THE COURT OF NISHANT GARG, METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-
06 (SE), SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
FIR No. 544/01
PS: Kalkaji
State Vs. Sheetal Singh
a. Sl. No. of the case : 1209/2
b. Date of Institution : 07.10.2002
c. Date of Commission of Offence : 09.09.2001
d. Name of the complainant : Sh. Jafrul Hassan,
S/o Sh. Amir Khan,
R/o Village Bachorva Narayani,
Anchal, Nepal.
e. Name of the accused and : 1) Sheetal Singh
S/o Sh.Watan Singh,
R/o H. No.1485/13, Govindpuri,
Kalkaji, New Delhi.
2) Rahman Khan
S/o Sh. Jenul Khan,
R/o H. No.56, Gali No.16, Block-
H, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi.
f. Offence complained of : 304A/201/34 IPC
g. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
h. Final Order : Acquitted
j. Date of such order : 11.04.2019.
JUDGMENT
1. Accused Sheetal Singh has been sent by the police of PS Kalkaji to face trial for commission of offences punishable under Section 304A /201 /34 IPC.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 10.09.2001, DD no.50B came to be recorded. It was assigned to SI Rajbir Singh who alongwith Ct. Biju J. reached AIIMS hospital where he inspected the dead body lying in mortuary. It was informed that the deceased sustained a hand injury and there were burn injuries on his forehead and thumb. No eye witness was found at the hospital. Thereafter, IO reached the Sangam Vihar, residence of FIR NO.544/01 State V/s. Sheetal Singh & Anr. Page no 1 of 4 the deceased, where again no eye witness was found. Thereafter, the IO reached the spot i.e. house no.14/1868, Govindpuri Extension where after search, one person namely Jafrul Hassan was found who got his statement recorded to the effect that he was working at an under construction building no.14/1868, Govindpuri Extension, New Delhi under the contractor Baldev Singh and Sheetal Singh. Several other persons were working with him. Ram Baitha was also working as labour for the last two and a half months. On 09.09.2001, at about 9.00 a.m. he and other labours had gone for work. At the site, Sheetal Singh and Rehman were present. Sheetal and Rehman asked Ram Baitha to turn on the motor. When Ram Baitha was fixing the wire of the motor in the plug, he was caught by electricity current and after sometime, he fell down on the ground. On raising alarm, several persons gathered. He, Sheetal and Rahman took Ram Baitha to the hospital but he scummed to the injuries. At this, Rahman suggested that he be taken to his residence at Gali no.16, Sangam Vihar. Accordingly, he was taken to Sangam Vihar and after that, both the contractors took him to the cremation ground for last rites. However, somebody informed the police at which police arrived and prevented the cremation. The accident took place due to the negligence of contractor Sheetal and Rahman.
3. On this information, the present FIR was registered and investigation was carried out. During investigation, site plan was prepared; statements of relevant witnesses were recorded; postmortem of the dead body was conducted; accused were arrested; postmortem result was obtained; it was found that there was no plastic plug in the motor and deceased had attempted to turn on the motor at the instance of the accused persons due to which accident took place. The accident had taken place due negligence of accused persons; after completion of the FIR NO.544/01 State V/s. Sheetal Singh & Anr. Page no 2 of 4 investigation, challan under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. was prepared and filed in the Court.
4. Accused Rahman never appeared before the court and was declared an absconder vide order dated 23.11.2004.
5. Copy of the challan alongwith accompanying documents was supplied to the accused Sheetal Singh free of cost under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Finding a prima-facie case, notice for commission of offences punishable u/s 304A, 201/34 IPC was served upon the accused vide order dated 09.12.2004 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. To prove its case the prosecution examined the following witnesses:
1. PW1 HC Mahender Singh - Duty officer
2. PW2 Dr. D. N. Bhardwaj - proved postmortem report of deceased Ex.PW-2/A
3. PW3 Rajesh - sold firewoods at Shamshanghat
7. No other witness was examined. Summons issued to the remaining prosecution witness remained unserved. Accordingly, the prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 10.04.2019. Statement of the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C was recorded wherein he denied the allegations and claimed to have been falsely implicated. No defence evidence was led.
8. I have heard the ld. APP and the accused and have gone through the case file.
9. This is a case of no evidence. The prime prosecution witness complainant Jafrul Hassan has not been examined in this case. The present FIR was registered on his complaint which has FIR NO.544/01 State V/s. Sheetal Singh & Anr. Page no 3 of 4 remained unexhibited and unproved. There is also unexplained delay in lodging the FIR. The presence of the witness at the spot is also doubtful as he did not make any call to the police at 100 number, did not lodge any FIR after the offence and was not found either at the spot or at the hospital. The MLC of the deceased is not on record and presence of this witness at the hospital cannot be inferred.
10. The other alleged eye witnesses to the incident have also remained unserved in this case. Repeated process to the witness were received back unexecuted. Adverse inference is to be drawn against prosecution for withholding the witnesses. In the absence of examination of the material prosecution witnesses, absolutely no evidence has come on record against accused Sheetal Singh.
11. In view of the above discussion, accused Sheetal Singh deserves benefit of doubt and is accordingly acquitted.
Announced in the (Nishant Garg)
Open Court on Metropolitan Magistrate-06 (SE)
11.04.2019 Saket Courts / New Delhi
FIR NO.544/01 State V/s. Sheetal Singh & Anr. Page no 4 of 4