Delhi District Court
State vs . Vikram @ Vikrant Gupta on 7 May, 2012
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. NAVITA KUMARI BAGHA: MM, NEW DELHI
STATE VS. VIKRAM @ VIKRANT GUPTA
FIR NO. : 645/1997
P.S. : Tilak Marg
U/Sec. : 304A IPC
JUDGMENT :
a) Srl. No. of the case & Date of institution : 223/2 & 29.05.1999
b) Date of commission of offence : 15.10.1997
c) Name of the complainant : State through Sh. Jitender Kumar
d) Name of the accused : Vikram @ Vikrant Gupta S/o Sh. Ramesh Chand Gupta, R/o RW19, Street No.4A, Krishan Kunj Ext., Laxmi Nagar, Delhi
e) Nature of offence complained of : U/Sec.304A IPC
f) Plea of the accused person : Accused pleaded not guilty
g) Date reserved for order : 26.04.2012
h) Final Order : Acquitted
i) Date of order : 07.05.2012 BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE CASE:
1. In brief the accused Vikram @ Vikrant Gupta is facing trial for offence punishable U/Sec.304A IPC on the allegations that on 15.10.1997 at about 1.00 State Vs. Vikram @ Vikrant Gupta FIR No.645/97 P.S. Tilak Marg 2 p.m. at Mathura Road, he knowingly or negligently omitted to take safety measures and acted so rashly or negligently so as to endanger human life or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any person and as a result of which one Munna Kumar, when in the process of getting down the hoarding/board, was got electrocuted. The brief background of the case is that the deceased Munna alongwith other labourers were engaged by the M/s. Rashtriya Outdoor Advertising Agency for putting or removing advertising hoardings and when on 15.10.1997, they were performing the said task of removing the hoarding near Matka Peer, Pragati Maidan, the deceased Munna came in contact with live electric wire and got electrocuted. The chargesheet was filed against the accused by alleging that he was responsible for not providing the safety measures like helmets, belts, gloves, etc. to the labourers due to which the deceased Munna suffered electric shock and died subsequently.
2. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed. After supplying the copies to accused U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C, a notice U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C was served upon the accused on 05.06.2002 for the offence punishable U/Sec.304A IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. The prosecution had cited 15 witnesses, out of which 13 witnesses were examined.
4. Statement of accused was recorded U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. on 02.08.2010 wherein he denied the case of the prosecution and pleaded innocence. He said that he has been falsely implicated in this case as he had never gone for the removal of hoardings of M/s. Rashtriya Outdoor Advertising Agency at Matka Peer, State Vs. Vikram @ Vikrant Gupta FIR No.645/97 P.S. Tilak Marg 3 Mathura Road, New Delhi. He further said that he was working in M/s. Graphisads Pvt. Ltd. on the post of Account Executive at the relevant time and was not having the technical qualification for the removal of hoardings and for all the electrical works. In his defence evidence he examined himself as one and only witness i.e. DW1.
5. I have heard the final arguments from Ld. APP and Ld. defence counsel Sh.
Rajesh Saxena and gone through the record.
6. Let us first examine the evidence led by the prosecution. The first witness of the prosecution i.e. PW1 is S.I. Ram Kumar who had registered the FIR No. 645/97 U/Sec.304A IPC and proved the same as Ex.PW1/A.
7. PW2 is Ramesh Kumar who deposed that in the year 1997, he was working in Ramesh Nagar at 8/166, Sahni Coal Depot and at about 12.001.00 p.m., he alongwith Munna, Jitender, Rakesh and Pradeep had gone towards Tilak Bridge where they were putting a board on the chowk near Matka Peer on one hoarding and when Munna and Jitender climbed on the hoarding, Munna got touched with a live electric wire of 12000 watts and fell down on the ground. He further deposed that the police was called and Munna was taken to RML Hospital where he was declared dead. He further deposed that he was working for a company namely Rashtriya Outdoor Advertising Agency whose owner was Mukesh Gupta and that they were working at the abovesaid site at the directions of their manager Shiv Kumar and Vineet Kumar. He further deposed that they had not asked the manager or the owner of the company for providing them the safely measures. He was crossexamined by the Ld. APP on the ground that he State Vs. Vikram @ Vikrant Gupta FIR No.645/97 P.S. Tilak Marg 4 was resiling from his earlier statement and in his crossexamination by the Ld. APP, he admitted that he had stated in his statement to the police that they had requested the owner and manager of the abovesaid company to provide them with safety measures, helmets, safety belts, gloves, etc. on various occasions but the owner and the manager never bothered for the same. He also admitted the suggestion of the Ld. APP and that the incident had occurred due to the negligence of the manager of the company.
8. PW3 is Rakesh Kumar who deposed that on 15.10.97, he was working with Rashtriya Outdoor Advertising Agency and on the same day at around 1.00 p.m. he alongwith Jitender, Munna, Pradeep and Ramesh reached at Pragati Maidan near Matka Peer as they had gone there for removing board at the direction of Manager Shiv Kumar and Vineet Kumar. He further deposed that he alogwith Munna climbed on the board and when they were pulling the rope, the hand of Munna touched the live electricity wire due to which he fell down and died. He further deposed that they were not provided with the safety measures despite their request to the manager and the owner.
9. PW4 is Electrical Inspector Mr. K. L. Grover who deposed that on 20.10.1997 he had received the information from S.I. Ram Niwas about the accident of Munna Kumar occurred on 15.10.97 and he inspected the site on 03.11.97 in the presence of S.I. Ram Niwas. He further deposed that a metallic structure and a hoarding was found installed near the 11 KV overhead electric lines opposite Matka Peer near Pragati Maidan, New Delhi and that the hoarding was touching the lowest earth conductor of the lines. He further deposed that it was reported State Vs. Vikram @ Vikrant Gupta FIR No.645/97 P.S. Tilak Marg 5 that Munna Kumar while removing the hoarding from the metallic structure came in contact with the electric lines and got electric shock and died subsequently. He proved his inspection report as Ex.PW4/A. In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel he stated that he had no personal knowledge regarding the accident occurred on 15.10.97. However, he stated that I.O. had informed him that the hoarding was belonging to Rashtriya Outdoor Advertising Agency.
10. PW5 is Kanchan who deposed that on 18.10.97, he had identified the dead body of his cousin namely Munna vide identification statement Ex.PW5/A.
11. PW6 is Ram Sanjeevan who deposed that on 17.10.97, he had visited the mortuary of RML hospital and identified the dead body of his son Munna Kumar vide identification statement Ex.PW6/A and received his dead body vide dead body handing over memo Ex.PW6/B.
12. PW7A is Ct. Kulbir, Photographer, who deposed that on 10.10.97, he had photographed the spot of occurrence on Ring Road, Matka Peer and took 7 photographs, negatives of which are Ex.P1 to Ex.P7.
13. PW7 is complainant Jitender Kumar who proved his complaint as Ex.PW7/A deposed that he was working with Rashtriya Outdoor Advertising Agency and was doing the business of fixing the advertisement boards and on 15.10.97 at about 1.30 p.m. he alongwith Rakesh, Ramesh, Pradeep and Munna Kumar was removing the board near Pragati Maidan, Matka Peer on instructions of Manager Vineet Kumar and Shiv Kumar and when his colleague Munna Kumar State Vs. Vikram @ Vikrant Gupta FIR No.645/97 P.S. Tilak Marg 6 climbed over the girder to remove the board, all of a sudden he received current from the electric wire affixed with the board and he fell down who was removed to RML hospital where he was declared brought dead. He further deposed that they were not given safety measures helmets, belts, etc. despite their repeated requests made to company officials due to which the accident occurred and Munna sustained electric shock. He further deposed that the accused Vikrant Gupta was employee in the company. In his crossexamination by Ld. Defence counsel he admitted it correct that accused Vikrant Gupta was not present at the spot at the time of accident. He deposed that Mukesh Gupta was the Proprietor of Rashtriya Outdoor Advertising Agency whereas accused was an employee of Graphisads company which is a sister concern of Rashtriya Outdoor Advertising Agency.
14. PW8 is Ct. Chhote Lal who deposed that on 15.10.97, he was posted as Constable, Delhi Home Guard at P.S. Tilak Marg and joined the investigation of the present case with the I.O. He further deposed that I.O. had handed over a rukka Mark X to him which he took to the police station and got the FIR registered.
15. PW9 is Dr. Shailender Raghuvanshi, who deposed that on 18.10.97, he had conducted the postmortem on the dead body of deceased Munna vide postmortem report Ex.PW9/A. He further deposed that the cause of death was cranio cerebral damage consequent upon blunt trauma and that all the injuries were ante mortem in nature and were fresh in duration.
16. PW10 is Mukesh Gupta who deposed that he was the proprietor of M/s. State Vs. Vikram @ Vikrant Gupta FIR No.645/97 P.S. Tilak Marg 7 Rashtriya Outdoor Advertising Agency since 1991 and he had deputed his labour for advertisement hoarding at Pragati Maidan around October, 1997 where by chance one labourer got electrocuted while performing job. He further deposed that the said work was being done in the supervision of Vikrant Gupta i.e. the accused. He further deposed that the responsibility of any happening or mishappening was of the managers/supervisors deputed at the site. In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence counsel he stated that at the time of incident the Manager was Vikrant Gupta and the Supervisors were Vineet Trehan, Tarun and Shiv Kumar. But later on he admitted that accused Vikrant Gupta was working as Account Executive in the M/s Graphisads Pvt. Ltd. and was working as Manager in Graphisads Pvt. Ltd. at the time of incident. He stated that he could not show any record which would suggest that accused Vikrant Gupta was the Manager/Supervisor of the Rashtriya Outdoor Advertising Agency. However, he admitted that Manager Vineet and Shiv Kumar were the other persons who were involved for the supervision.
17. PW11 is Vineet Trehan who deposed that in December, 1997 he was working in the area of Ramesh Nagar as Field Supervisor in Rashtriya Outdoor Advertising Agency and on that day he was called by the police and he handed over the copies of documents Mark X1 to Mark X8 pertaining to deceased Munna Kumar vide memo Ex.PW11/A. In his crossexamination by Ld. defence counsel he deposed that he had joined the firm in 1986 as Supervisor and throughout his tenure he worked as Supervisor. He further deposed that there were 23 other supervisors namely Shiv Kumar and Prakash Kumar. He admitted that all the record pertaining to labours regarding safety measures, attendance and other State Vs. Vikram @ Vikrant Gupta FIR No.645/97 P.S. Tilak Marg 8 record was in his custody.
18. PW12 is Record Clerk Deen Dayal who deposed that MLC Ex.PW12/A of Munna Kumar was prepared by Dr. S. Sudhir Basu, who had left the hospital but he could identify his signatures at point A on the said MLC as he had dealt with him during the course of his duty.
19. PW13 is S.I. Ram Niwas who deposed that on 15.10.97 he was posted at P.S. Tilak Marg and on that day he received DD No.11A i.e. Ex.PW13/X regarding incident at Mathura Road near Matka Peer and after receipt of the DD Entry he alongwith Ct. Chhotey Lal reached at RML Hospital and obtained MLC of Munna Lal on which doctor declared him brought dead. He further deposed that he met one Jitender Kumar, colleague of the deceased, in the hospital and recorded his statement and prepared rukka Ex.PW13/A and handed over the same to Ct. Chhotey Lal for registration of FIR. He further deposed that the dead body was preserved in the mortuary and that he came back to the spot alongwith complainant at whose instance he prepared the site plan Ex.PW13/B. He further deposed that on 18.10.97, the postmortem of deceased Munna Lal was got conducted and after recording identification statements of his relatives i.e. Ex.PW5/A and Ex.PW6/A, the dead body was handed over to them vide delivery memo Ex.PW6/B. He further deposed that he had made request to electrical department, GNCT Delhi for inspection of the spot and on his request the inspection was conducted. He further deposed that he also obtained documents regarding employment of deceased and seized the same from Vineet Trehan vide seizure memo Ex.PW11/A. He further deposed that the spot State Vs. Vikram @ Vikrant Gupta FIR No.645/97 P.S. Tilak Marg 9 was got photographed and the photographs in this regard are Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. He further deposed that accused Vikrant Gupta was arrested and his personal search was conducted vide personal search memo Ex.PW13/D. In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel he admitted that witnesses Jitender, Ramesh, Pradeep and Rakesh had told him that Vineet Kumar and Shiv Kumar are the officials of Rashtriya Outdoor Advertising Agency. However he further deposed that he could not exactly tell when he came to know that Mukesh Gupta was the Proprietor of Rashtriya Outdoor Advertising Agency. However, he stated that he recorded his statement on 25.12.97. He denied the suggestion that he had intentionally recorded the statement of Mukesh Gupta after delay of two months and that he had falsely implicated Vikrant Gupta in order to save Mukesh Gupta from the offence. He also denied the suggestion that Mukesh Gupta being Proprietor of M/s. Rashtriya Outdoor Advertising Agency was the person responsible for the death of Munna. However, he stated that he had arrested Vikrant Gupta at the statement of Mukesh Gupta. He further deposed that he had inspected the service record of M/s. Rashtriya Outdoor Advertising Agency and found that Vikrant Gupta was working as Manager but stated that he could not tell on what position accused was working. But it is pertinent to mention here that no such service record has been place on the judicial record. He denied the suggestion that Vikrant Gupta was working as Account Executive in M/s. Graphisads. However, he admitted that the name of accused Vikrant Gupta was not mentioned in the FIR.
20. The accused had also examined himself as DW1 in his defence evidence. He deposed that his name is Vikrant Gupta and not Vikram Gupta and that in the State Vs. Vikram @ Vikrant Gupta FIR No.645/97 P.S. Tilak Marg 10 year 1997 he was working as Account Executive in M/s. Graphisads and in 1998 he was working as Senior Business Executive at M/s. Graphisads. He deposed that he had never worked with M/s. Rashtriya Outdoor Advertising Agency and that he had no technical qualification to do the job of electricity. In his cross examination by the Ld. APP he stated that M/s. Graphisads Pvt. Ltd. and Rashtriya Outdoor Advertising Agency are two different agencies owned by Mukesh Gupta. He further deposed that Mukesh Gupta is liable for causing death of labourer Munna due to negligence on his part.
21. The counsel for the accused has vehemently argued that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the case against the accused as neither the accused was manager or supervisor, responsible for the safety of the workers nor he was employed with the concerned agency i.e. Rashtriya Outdoor Advertising Agency nor any prosecution witness has deposed against him. He has further argued that if at all there could be any liability then that could be either of the owner of M/s. Rashtriya Outdoor Advertising Agency i.e. Mukesh Gupta or of the managers Shiv Kumar or Vineet Kumar.
22. The accused has been booked in this case U/Sec.304A IPC. Rash or negligent act referred to in Sec.304A means an act which is immediate cause of death and not an act or omission which can at best be said to be a remote cause of death. The requirements of Sec.304A are that there must be a direct nexus between death of a person and rash or negligent act of the accused. A remote nexus is not enough. For the purpose of criminal liability there are degrees of negligence and a very high degree of negligence is required to be proved before State Vs. Vikram @ Vikrant Gupta FIR No.645/97 P.S. Tilak Marg 11 a charge can be sustained under this section. In the present case the prosecution was required to prove that the accused was responsible for the safety of the workers i.e. the deceased and his colleagues and he breached his duty by not providing them with safety measures like helmets, jackets, gloves, etc. due to which the deceased suffered electric shock and consequently died. But the same has not been proved in this case. None of the prosecution witnesses except PW10 Mukesh Gupta has deposed against the accused. All the material witnesses i.e. the complainant/PW7 Jitender Kumar, PW2 Ramesh Kumar and PW3 Rakesh Kumar have deposed that they were doing the job of putting or removing hoardings at the incidental site at the directions of managers Shiv Kumar and Vineet Kumar. None of them have stated that they were doing the said job under the supervision or direction of the accused. It is also not their case that the accused was the manager or the supervisor who did not supply them the safety measures like helmets, belts, jackets, gloves, etc. Rather they have categorically stated that they had requested a number of times the owner and manager of the company to provide them with safety measures but they never bothered for the same. The deceased was engaged as labour by the M/s. Rashtriya Outdoor Advertising Agency at the relevant time but there is no material no record to show that the accused was working with the M/s. Rashtriya Outdoor Advertising Agency in the capacity of manager or supervisor. Even the owner of this company i.e. PW10 Mukesh Gupta has admitted in his crossexamination that the accused was working as Accounts Executive in the M/s. Graphisads Pvt. Ltd. in the beginning and then at the time of incident he was working as manager with Graphisads Pvt. Ltd. He has stated that he could not show any record which could suggest that the accused was the State Vs. Vikram @ Vikrant Gupta FIR No.645/97 P.S. Tilak Marg 12 manager/supervisor of the Rashtriya Outdoor Advertising Agency. Thus virtually there is no evidence on record on the basis of which the accused could be associated with the responsibility for the occurrence of the incident taken place in this case. On the other hand, there is oral evidence against the managers Shiv Kumar and Vineet Kumar as well as owner Mukesh Gupta. All the material witnesses in their statements U/Sec.161 Cr.P.C. as well as in their testimonies recorded in the Court, have stated that the deceased and his colleagues were doing the job at the relevant time at the directions of managers Shiv Kumar and Vineet Kumar and that they had requested on a number of occasions to the owner as well as officers of the company to provide safety measures but they did not pay any heed. Even as per the report of Electrical Inspector i.e. Ex.PW4/A the owner had violated the provisions of Indian Electricity Rules 1956 by not giving a notice in writing of his intention of erecting the metallic structure/fixing the hoarding on the structure to the Electricity Office and by not furnishing therewith a scale drawing showing the proposed structure. The I.O./PW13 S.I. Ram Niwas has admitted in his crossexamination that the witnesses Jitender, Ramesh and Rakesh had told him that Vineet Kumar and Shiv Kumar were the officials of Rashtriya Outdoor Advertising Agency. There are categorical statements U/Sec.161 Cr.P.C. of witnesses Jitender, Ramesh, and Pradeep Kumar wherein they had stated that they were working at the accidental site at the directions of managers Vineet Kumar and Shiv Kumar. They had also stated that they had requested a number of times to officers of the company to provide them with safety measures but they never supplied them the same. But despite having clear allegations against these persons, the I.O. did not carry out any investigation against them and did not make them State Vs. Vikram @ Vikrant Gupta FIR No.645/97 P.S. Tilak Marg 13 accused; rather he made Vikrant Gupta accused merely on the statement of owner Mukesh Gupta who said that the deceased was working under the supervision of Vikrant Gupta. The I.O. did not collect any documentary evidence to verify if Vikrant Gupta was really employed as supervisor/manager in the Rashtriya Outdoor Advertising Agency but arrested him merely on the statement of Mukesh Gupta as he himself has admitted in his crossexamination that he arrested Vikrant Gupta on the statement of Mukesh Gupta. Since there is no incriminating evidence against the accused, so he is acquitted of the offence U/Sec.304A IPC.
23. It is clear from the abovesaid observations and analysis that it is a case where the investigation has been conducted in a most callous and shoddy manner. This case is a glaring example which shows that how an insensitive and tainted investigation can play havoc with both sides. On the one hand, the family of deceased could not get justice as the real culprit got scotfree and on the other hand, the accused had to suffer the ignominy of facing trial in this case for 11 long years. The I.O. should not be let go scotfree for the same. Therefore copy of this order be sent to DCP for bringing the conduct of the I.O. to his notice and for taking suitable action against him as per law and for further necessary action for the prosecution of guilty person(s), under intimation to this Court.
24. File be consigned to Record Room.
(Announced in open
Court on 07.05.2012) (Navita Kumari)
MM, New Delhi.
State Vs. Vikram @ Vikrant Gupta
FIR No.645/97
P.S. Tilak Marg
14
FIR No. 645/97
U/Sec. 304A IPC
P.S. Tilak Marg
07.05.2012
Present : APP for state.
Accused with counsel Sh. Rajesh Saxena.
Vide separate judgment the accused is acquitted for the offence punishable U/Sec.304A IPC. His bail bond is cancelled. His surety is discharged. Endorsement on the documents of the surety, if any, be cancelled. Fresh Bail bond is furnished by accused U/Sec.437A Cr.P.C. which shall be valid for six months from today.
Copy of the judgment be sent to DCP for bringing the conduct of the I.O. to his notice and for taking suitable action against him as per law and for further necessary action for the prosecution of guilty person(s), under intimation to this Court.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Navita Kumari) MM/ND/07.05.12 State Vs. Vikram @ Vikrant Gupta FIR No.645/97 P.S. Tilak Marg