Delhi District Court
State vs Vikram on 8 April, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. ABHINAV AHLAWAT
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-09 (SOUTH-WEST)
DWARKA COURTS: DELHI
State Vs. : Vikram
FIR No : 195/2020
U/s : 287/337/338 IPC
P.S. : Jafarpur Kalan
1. CNR No. of the Case : DLSW020467492021
2. Date of commission of offence : 18.09.2020
3. Date of institution of the case : 24.09.2021
4. Name of the complainant : Jagir Singh
5. Name of accused, parentage & : Vikram
address S/o Sharwan
R/o VPO Kharisad,
Delhi.
6. Offence complained of : 287/337/338 IPC
7. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
8. Final order : Acquitted
9. Date of final order : 08.04.2024
Argued by:- Mr. Pankaj Gulia, Ld. APP for the State
Mr. S. K. Vashisht, Ld. Counsel for accused.
Digitally signed
by Abhinav
FIR No.195/2020, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Vikram Page 1 of 22 Abhinav Ahlawat
Ahlawat Date:
2024.04.08
17:48:04 +0530
JUDGMENT
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
FACTUAL MATRIX-
1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 18.09.2020 at about 01:10 PM, at BSES Office, Main Rawta Road, J. P. Kalan, New Delhi, accused being the civil contractor upon whose instructions the work was carried out and that he knowingly or negligently omitted to take such action with the electric welding machine and the electric wires attached with the said machine as was sufficient guard against any probable danger to human life and resultantly causing simple injuries to Jaghir and Pawan and grievous to Amarjeet and thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 287/337/338 of IPC, for which FIR no.195/2020 was registered at the police station Jafarpur Kalan, New Delhi.
INVESTIGATION AND APPEARANCE OF ACCUSED PERSONS
2. After registration of the FIR, the Investigating Officer (hereinafter, "IO") undertook investigation and on culmination of the same, the chargesheet against the accused person was filed. The Ld. Predecessor of this court took the cognizance against the accused person and summons were issued to the accused. On his appearance, a copy of the chargesheet was supplied to the accused in terms of section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, "CrPC"). On finding a prima facie case against the accused person, notice under Sections 287/337/338 of IPC was served upon the accused on 22.03.2022. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Digitally signed by AbhinavAbhinav Ahlawat FIR No.195/2020, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Vikram Page 2 of 22 Ahlawat Date:
2024.04.08 17:48:13 +0530 PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
3. During the trial, prosecution led the following oral and documentary evidence against the accused to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt: -
ORAL EVIDENCE PW-1 Jagir Singh PW-2 Amarjeet PW-3 Pawan PW-4 SI Ram Bhaj Singh PW-5 Bijender PW-6 Retd. SI Ram Niwas PW-7 Nawal Kishore PW-8 HC Pawan Kumar PW-9 Ashwani Mahajan PW-10 Retd. SI Ram Niwas PW-11 Bivas Nayak DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Ex.PW1/A Statement of complaint Ex.PW1/B Site plan Ex.PW1/P1 Photographs Ex.PW1/P2 Discharge summary of Jagir Singh Ex.PW4/A Tehrir Ex.PW4/B Seizure memo qua electric wire and soket board Ex.PW4/C Seizure memo qua order copy of contract, PF account detailed form, establishment PF number Ex.PW4/D Letter to Manager AP Associates Ex.PW4/E Notice u/S 91 Cr. P. C. Ex.PW4/F Notice u/S 91 Cr. P. C. Ex.PW4/G Arrest memo Ex.PW4/H Personal search memo Ex.PW4/I Disclosure statement Ex.PW4/J Case property Ex.PW9/A Reply by M/s AP Associates Ex.PW11/A Reply to notice u/S 91A Cr. P. C. ADMITTED DOCUMENTS Ex.A1 MLC no.3505/21, 3506/21 and 3507/21 Ex.A2 FIR no.195/20 alongwith certificate u/S 65B Digitally signed by Abhinav Abhinav Ahlawat FIR No.195/2020, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Vikram Page 3 of 22 Ahlawat Date:
2024.04.08 17:48:22 +0530 of IEA
4. To prove its case, prosecution examined the following witnesses, the same are as follows.
PW1 Jagir Singh deposed that he was working as Asst. Lineman in BSES but he did not remember the name of thekedar. He did not remember exact date and month, but it was 2020. On the day of incident, there were work at Jaffarpur BSES office. On that day, he was with Amarjeet, who was on stairs for joining the electric connection for the welding machine and he was holding the stairs. Suddenly, caught fire where Amarjeet was on the staircase. There were other persons holding the staircase with him after getting fire he ran away from there. Fire was continued for long time and Amarjeet grabbed in said fire badly and his clothes burnt in the said fire. He also received burnt injury in the said incident in his hand and on his back including both ears. The electric current was used for household purposes. In the said incident, he fallen down and became unconscious for some moment. He gained his conscious in hospital. Police came to his home and recorded his statement Ex.PW1/A. He further stated he had not worn the equipment for the protection from the electric shock i.e. gloves, shoes and helmet. The supervisor of the place of occurrence were Vijender and Naval Kishore and the accused were the proprietor of AP Associates. As PW1 did not support the case of prosecution on certain facts, the Ld. APP was granted permission to put him questions in the nature of cross- examination, wherein he denied the suggestion that he was not provided by accused and supervisor any gloves, helmet and Digitally signed by Abhinav Abhinav Ahlawat FIR No.195/2020, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Vikram Page 4 of 22 Ahlawat Date:
2024.04.08 17:48:30 +0530 shoes and due to said reason he could wear security equipment for the protection of electric shock. He had stated about the place of occurrence to the police officer and he prepared site plan Ex.PW1/B. He proved the photographs vide Ex.PW1/P1 and Ex.PW1/P2 of the place of occurrence. In the cross- examination, he stated that he used to wear gloves, shoes and helmet while working on high tension electric wire and not when working on domestic electric wire as it is very hard to work while in gloves, shoes and helmet. He had not called at no.100 and he had gone to made his complaint to PS. He had no grievances from the said incident. He stated that the present case had been instituted after MLC at RTRM hospital by police on its own. He stated that there was no active fault on the part of the accused.
5. PW2 Amarjeet deposed that he was working as Assistant Lineman in BSES. He was working in AP Associates and its proprietor was Vikram. On 18.09.2020, he was working at Jafarpur BSES office along with Jagir and Pawan. During his work, suddenly caught fire where he sustained burn injury. Thereafter, he was taken to RTRM Hospital where he got his treatment. He was working on domestic electric supply. As PW2 did not support the case of prosecution on certain facts, the Ld. APP was granted permission to put him questions in the nature of cross-examination, wherein he denied the suggestion that he was not provided by accused and supervisor any gloves, helmet and shoes and due to said reason, he could wear safety equipment for the protection of electric shock. In the cross-examination, he stated that he did not know whether Vikram was only sole proprietor of AP Associates. He used to wear gloves, shoes and Digitally signed FIR No.195/2020, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Vikram Page 5 of 22 by Abhinav Abhinav Ahlawat Ahlawat Date:
2024.04.08 17:48:39 +0530 helmet while working on high tension electric wire and not mostly in working on domestic electric wire as it is very hard to work while in gloves, shoes and helmet. He had not called at no.100. He stated that there was no a fault on the part of the accused.
6. PW3 Pawan deposed that he was working as Helper in BSES. He was working in AP Associates and proprietor was Vikram. On 18.09.2020, he was working at Jafarpur BSES office along with Jagir and Amarjeet. During their work, suddenly caught fire where Amarjeet sustained burn injury. However, he had also sustained minor injury. Thereafter, he along with Amarjeet and others were taken to RTRM Hospital where he got his treatment. They were working on domestic electric supply. As PW3 did not support the case of prosecution on certain facts, the Ld. APP was granted permission to put him questions in the nature of cross- examination, wherein he denied the suggestion that he was not provided by accused and supervisor any gloves, helmet and shoes and due to said reason, he could wear security equipment for the protection of electric shock. In the cross-examination, he stated that he did not know whether Vikram was only sole proprietor of AP Associates and he used to wear gloves, shoes and helmet while working on high tension electric wire and not mostly in working on domestic electric wire as it is very hard to work while in gloves, shoes and helmet. He had gone to made his complaint to PS. He stated that if police had not filed the case would not have filed the present case in the court. He stated that there way no a fault on the part of the accused.
Digitally signed by AbhinavAbhinav Ahlawat FIR No.195/2020, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Vikram Page 6 of 22 Ahlawat Date:
2024.04.08 17:48:48 +0530
7. PW4 SI Ram Bhaj Singh deposed that on 18.09.2020, he was on emergency duty and upon receiving DD no.34A, he along with Ct. Ravinder went to RTRM Hospital where injured Pawan was under treatment while MLC no.3505/2020, injured Amarjeet was under treatment vide MLC no.3506/2020 and injured Jahagir was under treatment vide MLC no.3507/2020. He received the copy of the MLC and thereafter went to the spot of incident where no eye witness of the incident was found. Later, two of the injured namely Amarjeet and Jahagir were referred to RML Hospital and injured Pawan had left the hospital after his treatment.
Thereafter, he along with Ct. Ravinder went to the spot of the incident where he called the crime team and got the photographs of the spot of incident clicked and the spot of incident was inspected by the crime team. Thereafter, he along with Ct. Ravinder left the spot for RML Hospital where injured Amarjeet was found declared unfit for statement by the doctors while injured Jahagir had already left the hospital after his treatment. Thereafter, he along with Ct. Ravinder went to village Daulatpur where they met injured Jahagir and recorded his statement. Thereafter, he along with Ct. Ravinder came back to the spot of the incident and he prepared tehrir upon the statement of Jahagir Singh Ex.PW4/A and got the FIR registered through Ct. Ravinder. During investigation, he prepared the site plan upon the instance of Jahagir Singh and he took on record the exhibits and recorded the statement of eye witnesses Vijender and Naval Kishore. Thereafter, on 24.09.2020, he applied for getting the spot of incident inspected by the office of Chief Electrical Inspector, Shamnath Marg and on 28.09.2020 the said spot of Digitally signed by Abhinav FIR No.195/2020, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Vikram Page 7 of 22 Abhinav Ahlawat Ahlawat Date:
2024.04.08 17:48:56 +0530 incident was inspected by the Assistant Electrical Inspector and his report was thereafter submitted to the SHO which was on record. During investigation, he seized the case property i.e. electric wire and socket board vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/B and seized the documents regarding the order copy of the contract, PF account detailed form, establishment PF number vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/C. During investigation, he had also requested the Manager AP Associates to provide the requisite documents and information vide letter Ex.PW4/D. During investigation, he had also served notice U/s 91 Cr.PC upon the BSES office Ex.PW4/E and Ex.PW4/F. During investigation, he received the reply of the said notices along with the requisite documents which were put on record. On 14.10.2020, he served upon the accused Vikram notice to join the investigation. Thereafter, on 20.10.2020 the reply to the notices was received on behalf of BSES office which was put on record. Thereafter, on 08.11.2020, he recorded the statement of injured Amarjeet and put the same on record. On 05.03.2021, he interrogated the accused Vikram and thereafter, arrested him vide arrest memo Ex.PW4/G and personally searched vide personal search memo Ex.PW4/H. Accused was interrogated and his disclosure statement was recorded Ex.PW4/I. During investigation, he had received the medical documents regarding the injured persons and put the same on record. After concluding the investigation, he prepared the chargesheet and presented the same before the Court for adjudication. He proved the case property as Ex.PW4/J. In the crossexamination, he stated that injured Jagir and Amarjeet were employees of AP Associates. He stated that the accused had Digitally signed by Abhinav Abhinav Ahlawat FIR No.195/2020, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Vikram Page 8 of 22 Ahlawat Date:
2024.04.08 17:49:05 +0530 no connection or dealing with AP Associates. The incident in question occurred as the accused had asked the injured persons to connect the welding machine wires to the main high voltage supply line and even after the refusal of the injured persons to do the same as they were not having requisite safety equipment at that time, the accused Vikram still insisted and the injured persons under pressure went for the work and the incident occurred. He further stated that it was the duty of the accused to provide the safety equipment to the injured persons as it was he who asked the injured persons to do the aforesaid work. He stated that the sparking and the blast occurred due to the high voltage in the main supply line.
8. PW5 Bijender deposed that he was not the eye-witness to the incident. As PW5 did not support the case of prosecution on certain facts, the Ld. APP was granted permission to put him questions in the nature of cross-examination, wherein he denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely as he had been won over by the accused. In the crossexamination, he stated that injured Amarjeet and Jagir used to work at AP Associates Company at the time of incident. The proprietor /Director of the AP Associates is Mr. A.P Mahajan.
9. PW6 Retd. SI Ram Niwas deposed that on 18.09.2020, he received a call from the IO and 23 persons were injured at BSES Office Jafarpur due to electrocution. Thereafter, he reached at the spot and the photographer Ct. Pawan took photographs of the spot which are already on record as Ex.PW1/P1. In the cross Digitally signed by Abhinav Abhinav Ahlawat FIR No.195/2020, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Vikram Page 9 of 22 Ahlawat Date:
2024.04.08 17:49:11 +0530 examination, he stated that he could not tell the reasons of incident of electricity sparking.
10. PW7 Nawal Kishore deposed that in the year 2020, he did not remember the exact date and month. At about 1011 AM, he was working as Supervisor at BSES Jafarpur Kalan. He was sitting in his office and heard screams from outside. Thereafter, he went outside and saw that three persons had received burns. There was one electricity meter in which they were fixing wires and due to sparking, they received burns. He did not remember the names of injured persons. Thereafter, an ambulance was called and injured persons were taken to hospital and he also followed them to hospital. As PW7 did not support the case of prosecution on certain facts, the Ld. APP was granted permission to put him questions in the nature of cross-examination, wherein he stated that lineman Amarjeet alongwith his helper Jagir had come to BSES Office after resorting to one tubewell line complaint and tin shed work was being done by the labourers of contractor Vikram. He stated that Vikram had asked Amarjeet to make arrangements for supplying electricity for welding machine for their welding work, when Amarjeet told him that it was not safe, accused Vikram pressurized Amarjeet to fix the wire of main supply board outgoing with the welding machine and Jagir was holding the ladder. He stated that labour Pawan was standing beside and as soon as the wire was fixed in main supply switch, there was a loud noise of sparking due to which the injured persons received injuries. In the crossexamination, he stated that on that day, he had gone to attend a complaint in village Dhansa. There was a distance of about 67 kilometers from Digitally signed by Abhinav FIR No.195/2020, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Vikram Page 10 of 22 Abhinav Ahlawat Ahlawat Date:
2024.04.08 17:49:19 +0530 village Dhansa site and the site at which the incident occurred. He reached the site of occurrence after the occurrence had taken place. He was not an eyewitness to the occurrence and he did not know who asked whom and to do what. His knowledge about occurrence was based on the knowledge gathered by him from the boys working at the site.
11. PW8 HC Pawan Kumar deposed about taking photographs of the spot.
12. PW9 Ashwani Mahajan deposed that in the year 2020, he was running a company AP Associates of electric contractor ship business and in the year 2019, he obtained contract work for the period of 01.12.2019 to 31.03.2022 for men power supply for AMC in the BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd, Nehru Place, New Delhi.
He supplied 125 laboures skilled and unskilled to BSES Division Jaffarpur. His company provided security equipment to each labour. On 18.09.2020, he came know that his laboures Amarjeet and Jagir who were working at BSES Jafarpur Division injured due to electric shocked. His supervisor shifted both the injured to RTRM hospital. One injured namely Amarjeet shifted to Ram Manohar Lohiya Hospital. He also reached at Ram Manohar Lohiya Hospital. He called him for joining the investigation and after that he reached at PS J. P. Kalan. IO also seized some documents from him i.e. order of copy of contract along with term and condition, establishment PF number of AP Associates detail form. He also gave reply to the IO on his company letter pad AP Associates Ex.PW9/A. In the crossexamination, he stated that he was not eye witness of the incident. He could not Digitally signed FIR No.195/2020, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Vikram Page 11 of 22 by Abhinav Abhinav Ahlawat Ahlawat Date:
2024.04.08 17:49:28 +0530 tell the reason of incident. He stated that injured namely Jagir and Amarjeet were his employees at the time of incident and it was his duty to provide security equipments to employees while doing company work.
13. PW10 Retd. SI Ram Niwas deposed that on 18.09.2020, he received a call from IO regarding the present incident and thereafter, he alongwith photographer Ct. Pawan reached at the spot i.e. BSES Office, Main Rawta Road, J. P. Kalan. He inspected the spot and after taking instructions from him Ct.
Pawan clicked the photographs of the spot and thereafter they both left the spot. The abovesaid photographs were handed over to IO during investigation. He identified photographs of the spot Ex.PW1/P1 and Ex.PW1/P2. In the crossexamination, he stated that he was not present at the spot at the time of incident.
14. PW11 Bivas Nayak deposed that in the year 2020, he was working as a Senior Manager at BSES Rajdhani Power Limited, J. P. Kalan, Delhi. During the investigation of the present case, IO served a notice to their office regarding providing certain documents and information and thereafter, on 26.11.2020, he gave reply Ex.PW11/A of the abovesaid notice u/S 91A Cr. P. C. dated 02.11.2020 and provide the documents which were mentioned in the abovesaid notice. In the crossexamination, he stated that he was not present at the spot when the present incident was happened. He had no personal knowledge about the incident dated 18.09.2020. He came to know about the incident through telephone operator, whose name he did not remember.
Digitally signed by AbhinavFIR No.195/2020, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Vikram Page 12 of 22 Abhinav Ahlawat Ahlawat Date:
2024.04.08 17:49:35 +0530
15. On account of admission of accused u/s 294 Cr.P.C, remaining witnesses in the prosecution list were dropped and the formal proof of the documents sought to be proved by them was dispensed with. No other PW was left to be examined; hence, PE was closed.
STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED AND DEFENCE EVIDENCE
16. Thereafter, before the start of defence evidence in order to allow the accused to personally explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him, the statement of the accused was recorded on 25.09.2023 without oath under section 281 r/w 313 CrPC, wherein he has stated that he was innocent and had falsely been implicated in the present case. He further stated that he wants to lead defence evidence but he had not examined any witness in his defence and defence evidence was closed.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
17. I have heard the Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused at length. I have also given my thoughtful consideration to the material appearing on record.
18. It is argued by the Ld. APP for the State that all the ingredients of the offence are fulfilled in the present case. He has argued that prosecution witnesses have categorically deposed about the commission of offence and there is no ground to disbelieve their testimony. He further contends that the documentary evidence has proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt. As such, it is prayed that the accused be punished for the said offences.
Digitally signed by AbhinavFIR No.195/2020, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Vikram Page 13 of 22 Abhinav Ahlawat Ahlawat Date:
2024.04.08 17:49:43 +0530
19. Per contra, the Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that the State has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Ld. Counsel further argued that the entire case of the prosecution is false and fabricated and the same is evident from the material inconsistencies and contradictions borne out from the material on record. It is argued that the identity of the accused is not established and prosecution has failed to discharge the burden cast upon it . As such, it is prayed that the accused be acquitted for the said offences.
INGREDIENTS OF THE OFFENCE
20. Section 287 IPC proscribes whoever does, with any machinery, any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, or knowingly or negligently omits to take such order with any machinery in his possession or under his care as is sufficient to guard against any probable danger to human life from such machinery, 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. Section 337/338 IPC prescribes punishment for causing grievous hurt to any person by such rash or negligent act.
Essential Ingredients. -An offence under section 287 IPC has got following essential elements:
(i) That the accused did some act using a machinery;
(ii) That he did so rashly or negligently; and
(iii) That the act complained of was to endanger human life or likely to cause hurt or injury to another.
or Digitally signed FIR No.195/2020, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Vikram Page 14 of 22 by Abhinav Abhinav Ahlawat Ahlawat Date:
2024.04.08 17:49:51 +0530
(i) The accused was in possession of some machinery;
(ii) That he omitted to take such order in possessing the machinery as was sufficient to guard against any probable danger to human life from such machinery;
(iii) That the accused acted (omitted) negligently or with knowledge of a probable danger.
It is trite law that the burden always lies upon the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence and that the law does not permit the court to punish the accused on the basis of moral conviction or on account of suspicion alone. Also, it is well settled that accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and such doubt entitles him to acquittal.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
21. It is to be mentioned here that matter was compounded between the parties qua offence u/s 337/338 IPC vide order dated 23.08.2022 and thereafter matter proceeded on trial regarding offence punishable under section 287 IPC.
The allegation against the accused is pertaining to the offence under section 287 IPC which is that on 18.09.2020 accused being the civil contractor under whose supervision and instructions the work was being carried by the injured persons and accused knowingly or negligently omitted to take such steps with regard to the welding machine and electric wires attached to it in order to safeguard the probable danger to human life which resulted into injuries to PW1, PW2 and PW3.
22. At the outset, the fact that the injured persons had received burn injuries by way of electric shock in the alleged incident due to Digitally signed FIR No.195/2020, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Vikram Page 15 of 22 by Abhinav Abhinav Ahlawat Ahlawat Date:
2024.04.08 17:50:00 +0530 fire which occurred while operating the machine in question is not disputed by the accused person. The MLCs Ex.A1MLC no.3505/21, 3506/21 and 3507/21 stands duly proved in that regard. The cause of injuries has been opined in the MLCs as burn by electric shock due to the incident as alleged by prosecution.
23. Having said that, the entire prosecution case now hinges on the testimonies of PW1 Jagbir Singh, PW2 Amarjeet and PW3 Pawan, who are the not only the witnesses of incident but also the person who had sustained burn injury. While PW1 testified regarding the occurrence of incident, the same is barely sufficient to prove the indictment against the accused person as he has merely stated that he alongwith PW2 Amarjeet were working at BSES Jafarpur Office for joining the electric connection for the welding machine when Amarjeet was standing on the staircase and he was holding the stairs and suddenly fire was caught and he alongwith Amarjeet got burn injuries and he had fallen down and became unconscious. PW1 further stated that he was not wearing the equipment for the protection from the electrical shock i.e. gloves, shoes and helmet. PW1 further stated that the supervisor of the place of occurrence was Vijender and Naval Kishore and accused is the proprietor of AP Associates. In his crossexamination, PW1 stated that he had not called the police 100 number and he had no grievances from the incident and that accused person had no active fault in the said incident. Similarly, PW2 Amarjeet and PW3 Pawan deposed regarding the incident as stated by PW1 and they both stated that accused had no fault in the present case.
Digitally signed by AbhinavFIR No.195/2020, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Vikram Page 16 of 22 Abhinav Ahlawat Ahlawat Date:
2024.04.08 17:50:12 +0530 Furthermore, upon careful examination of testimony of all the injured PWs, it is clear that they had categorically denied that incident had occurred due to lack of adequate safety and precautionary measures at the site. They even failed to tell as to who was the owner/ supervisor of the work they were doing. In this manner, all the injured that is PW1, PW2 and PW3 did not make even a slight implication against accused person. Notably, the testimony of the other public witness, i.e. PW5 Bijender who was working at BSES J. P. Kalan through AP Associates Company at the post of Maintenance Supervisor failed to state anything regarding the incident. Furthermore, PW7 Naval Kishore, Supervisor BSES J. P. Kalan went to the spot after hearing screams, saw the injured persons with burn injuries, who stated in his crossexamination that he is an employee of M/s AP Associates and he had reached at the site after the occurrence had taken place. Therefore, it is clear that apart from injured persons there are no direct eyewitness to the incident.
24. Interestingly, contrary to the prosecution version PW5 Bijender stated in his cross-examination that injured Amarjeet and Jagbir used to work with AP Associates at the time of incident.
Prosecution further examined, PW9 Ashwani Mahajan, Proprietor of M/s AP Associates who stated that he had obtained the work contract for AMC from BSES Rajdhani Power Limited for the period of 01.12.2019 till 31.03.2022 for supply of manpower and that injured Amarjeet and Jagbir were working under his proprietorship.
25. Now, the important thing to be decided is whether accused Vikram was the Civil Contractor of the work which the injured Digitally signed FIR No.195/2020, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Vikram Page 17 of 22 by Abhinav Abhinav Ahlawat Ahlawat Date:
2024.04.08 17:50:22 +0530 persons were underdoing when they had received the electrical burn injuries.
In the present case, prosecution further examined PW11 Bivas Nayak who was working as a Senior Manager at BSES who deposed that during the investigation of the present case, IO served a notice to their office regarding providing certain documents and information and thereafter, on 26.11.2020, he gave reply Ex.PW11/A of the abovesaid notice u/S 91A Cr. P. C. dated 02.11.2020 and provided the documents which were mentioned in the abovesaid notice. Perusal of Ex.PW11/A reveals that PW11 stated that on the date of incident i.e. 18.09.2020 work of renovation/ civil work was going on at O&M Office Division Jafarpur which was being carried out by M/s Sindhu Construction Company as per the contract work order Annexure A no.SER/DSC/23563440 dated 05.02.2020.
Perusal of the said work order reveals that the period of said work was from 07.06.2020 to 06.06.2020. There is no other work order/ contract or any other document which shows that the contract work order dated 05.02.2020 as undertaken by M/s Sindhu Construction Company was completed on the date of incident or whether the said contractor work order was extended by BSES. Therefore, there is no documentary evidence to show that M/s Sindhu construction company was underdoing any civil work at the spot of incident.
26. Further, during the course of investigation, IO PW4 SI Rambhaj issued notice to both M/s AP Associates Ex.PW4/D and to accused Vikram, whereby reply was received from M/s Associate that injured Amarjeet and Jagbir were their employee and injured Digitally signed FIR No.195/2020, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Vikram Page 18 of 22 by Abhinav Abhinav Ahlawat Ahlawat Date:
2024.04.08 17:50:30 +0530 Pawan was not their employee. Further, accused Pawan also gave his reply on the letter head of his company i.e. M/s Sindhu Construction Company stating that only injured Pawan was working with their company that to for only September 2020. Therefore, it is not clear as to why only accused Vikram has been implicated in the present as an accused when he was not employing other injured namely Amarjeet and Jagbir. Investigation on the said point is completely silent and the role of the employees of M/S A P Associates being present at the spot is not being investigated upon as to why and for what purpose they were present at the spot of incident and under whose supervision they were underdoing the electrical work.
27. Needless to mention, the remaining witnesses are of formal nature as they had merely participated during the course of investigation. There is no other evidence, ocular or documentary, to show that accused person had a legal duty to make such order with which the injured who were operating the welding machine and the work at the site had caught fire, as is sufficient to guard against any probable danger. Likewise, there is nothing on record to show as to how the accused person was negligent in not taking order with the work at the site as all PW1, PW2 and PW3 averred that accused person was not negligent and further that there was no active fault on the part of the accused. Hence, the deposition of all PW1, PW2 and PW3 accords no support to the prosecution case.
28. Further, it is a settled law that owner of a machinery who employs a competent man to work it and leaves him unfettered, the owner Digitally signed by Abhinav FIR No.195/2020, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Vikram Page 19 of 22 Abhinav Ahlawat Ahlawat Date:
2024.04.08 17:50:38 +0530 cannot be held criminally responsible for any accident due to the errors of his employees. Further, there should be direct evidence on record to prove that the accused knowingly or negligently failed to take precautions against probable danger.
In the present case, all the injured categorically stated in their deposition that there was no fault on the part of the accused and the they had not called at the police 100 number and that they were being provided with the working apparatus like gloves, shoes and helmets. Also, all injured persons stated that they had the requisite gloves, helmets and shoes for working but they had not worn the same and they cited the reason for not wearing the same in domestic electric wiring work as it became difficult for them to work while wearing them. Furthermore, there is nothing on record which remotely shows that all the three injured persons were directly under the supervision/ command of accused. Even the presence of accused at the site is not proven to show that he was directing the manner in which the welding machine and electric wires to be operated.
29. The IO has also failed to ascertain the exact role of the employees of M/S AP Associates being present at the site. Work order of the accused company had expired qua date of incident and either it was extended or the work was done without any contract is the point on which the IO failed to gather substantive evidence. The laxity shown on the part of IO to gather substantive evidence by conducting fair and proper investigation speaks volume about the partiality in inquiry undertaken by him, the benefit of which must accrue to the accused. It is not clear from the entire prosecution case as to what purpose for the said welding machine was used, Digitally signed by Abhinav FIR No.195/2020, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Vikram Page 20 of 22 Abhinav Ahlawat Ahlawat Date:
2024.04.08 17:50:46 +0530 either for the above-mentioned work order for or any other ancillary purpose. As the work order is dated 5.02.2020 and date of incident is18.09.2020 and exact location of work as per said order is not highlighted either in the site plan nor any such document is procured to clearly state that the alleged act was part of said work order. Neither the kind of safety equipment being supplied by the company to their workmen is properly ascertained nor details or photographs of the same were taken.
Criminal liability cannot be fixed on accused person on the basis of conjectures and surmises. The laxity shown on the part of IO to gather substantive evidence by conducting fair and proper investigation speaks volume about the partiality in inquiry undertaken by him, the benefit of which must accrue to the accused person.
30. The upshot of the foregoing discussion is that prosecution has not adduced evidence, both oral and documentary, of such formidable nature as to deduce that the accused person was liable to take order with the building as is sufficient to guard against any probable danger to human life from the fall of that building, and that by failing to do so, they conducted themselves in such rash or negligent manner as to imperil human life and personal safety of others. The prosecution has the bounden duty to discharge the initial onus before it can shift on to the other party. As the basic ingredient of rashness or negligence has not been proved by prosecution so as to attract the offences of Sections 287/337/338 IPC, the inescapable conclusion is that the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt.
Resultantly, since the prosecution has failed in proving its case Digitally signed by Abhinav Abhinav Ahlawat FIR No.195/2020, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Vikram Page 21 of 22 Ahlawat Date:
2024.04.08 17:50:54 +0530 beyond reasonable doubts against the accused, the accused Vikram is hereby acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 287/337/338 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Announced in the open court Digitally signed on 08.04.2024 in the presence Abhinav by Abhinav Ahlawat Ahlawat 17:51:02 Date: 2024.04.08 of the accused. +0530 (Abhinav Ahlawat) Metropolitan Magistrate-09, Dwarka, Delhi/08.04.2024 Note:- This judgment contains 22 pages and each page has been signed by me. Digitally signed Abhinav by Abhinav Ahlawat Ahlawat 17:51:08 Date: 2024.04.08 +0530 (Abhinav Ahlawat) Metropolitan Magistrate-09, Dwarka, Delhi/08.04.2024 FIR No.195/2020, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Vikram Page 22 of 22