Delhi District Court
State vs Ramjeet And Others on 29 May, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY NARWAL, MM-02, NORTH DISTRICT, ROHINI
COURTS, DELHI
State Vs. Ramjeet & Anr
Case No. 5289341/2016
FIR No. 513/2007
PS: SP Badli
U/S : 285/304-A IPC
JUDGMENT
ID number of the case : 5289341/2016 Date of commission of offence : 01.07.2007 Date of institution of the case : 07.0.2009 Name of the complainant : SI Pawan
Name of accused and address : 1. Ramjeet s/o Sh. Sita Rram Yadav, r/o M/s Tayal Oil Solvent & Chemical Behind Shivalaya, Badli Village, Delhi.
2. Om Prakash Dubey s/o Late Sh. Hari Prasd Dubey, r/o H. No. C-47 Badli Extension, Delhi-42 Offence complained of or proved : U/s 285/304-A IPC Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty Final order : Acquittal Date of judgment : 29.05.2024 BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR THE DECISION:-
1. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 01.07.2007 at unknown time, at M/s Tayal Oil Solvent & Chemicals Behind Shivalaya, Badli Village, near Primary School, accused persons in furtherance of their common intention being the supervisor of the above said factory acted in rash and negligent manner by omitting to provide safety FIR No. 513/2007 State Vs. Ramjeet & Anr Page No. 1 of 13 guards to deceased who was doing the welding work in their supervision and accused persons insisted him to use the oil drum as platform for such work and omitted to take such order which was sufficient to guard against the probable danger to human life from such combustible material and by that accused accused persons caused caused death of Om Prakash s/o Sh. Bijender by their above said rash and negligent act not amounting culpable homicide and thereby accused persons have committed an offence punishable under section 285/304A IPC.
2. After registration of the case, necessary investigation was carried out by the IO concerned. Site plan was prepared. Statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 [hereinafter to be referred as Cr.PC. for brevity]. The accused persons were arrested. Relevant record was collected. The final report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C., was prepared against the above named accused persons and challan was presented in the Court.
3. Copy of challan and relevant documents were supplied to the accused persons free of costs as envisaged under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.
4. A prima facie case under Section 285/304-A of IPC was found to be made out against the accused persons. Notice was framed upon the accused persons accordingly on 24.07.2019. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
FIR No. 513/2007 State Vs. Ramjeet & Anr Page No. 2 of 13
5. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined five witnesses in all.
6. PW1 deposed that on 01.07.2007 at about 3.30-4.00 p.m, he was roaming behind Shivalya Mandir, then suddenly he saw 8-10 persons standing on the gate of factory and when he asked them what was the matter, they told him that one person sustained burn injuries and the injured was already taken to hospital. He was cross examined by Ld. APP for the State. He denied the suggestion that he had seen one drum burning in the factory and that accused persons namely Om Prakash Dubey and Supervisor of the factory Ramjeet Singh were present at the spot. He also denied the suggestion that he had taken the injured and Prakash to the hospital with the help of persons gathered at the spot in a private car. He also denied the suggestion that he is deliberately and intentionally not identifying the accused persons as the person who were present at the spot and he is deliberately not disclosing the true and correct facts just to save the accused persons.
7. PW2/Ct. Mahender Singh deposed that on 02.07.07, he was posted at SP Badli as Munshi to duty officer. On that day on an information was received from JPN hospital at around 11:55 pm regarding the death of the injured Om Prakash S/o Vijender. The said information was recorded in the Roznamcha vide entry no. 49 A. The true copy of the same is placed on record i.e Ex. PW2/A. The said witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel.
FIR No. 513/2007 State Vs. Ramjeet & Anr Page No. 3 of 13
8. PW3 ASI Kaptan Singh deposed that on 01.07.07, he was posted at PS SP Badli as constable. On that day IO received DD no. 76 and thereafter he along with him went to the spot of incident i.e. Tayal Oils Solvent and Chemicals situated behind Shivala Mandir, Badli Village. After reaching there they saw fire brigade at the spot of incident and they came to know that fire had taken place in a tank at the spot of incident. They came to know that injured had been taken to BJRM hospital. IO instructed him to remain at the spot and he went to the hospital. After some time IO returned to the spot and handed over a rukka to him for registration of FIR. He accordingly went to the PS and got the FIR registered. He returned to the spot and handed over original rukka and copy of FIR to IO. IO seized the welding machine, welding rod and drum/tank vide seizure memo Ex. PW 3/ A and Ex. PW3/B. On 05.07.2007, he again joined the investigation of the present case. On that day accused Ram Jeet came to the PS. IO arrested accused Ram Jeet vide arrest memo Ex. PW3/C. Accused was personally searched vide personal search memo Ex. PW3/D. On 08.07.2007, he again joined the investigation in present case. On that day accused Om Prakash Dubey came to the PS. IO arrested him vide arrest memo PW3/E. Accused was personally searched vide personal search memo Ex. PW3/F. Witness correctly identified the accused as well as the photographs of the case property. The said witness was duly cross examined by Ld. Defence counsels.
9. PW4 Dr. Neeraj Chaudhary, SMO, BJRM Hospital deposed that he has been deputed by MS, BJRM Hospital to depose the MLC no 26721 i.e. is Ex. PW4/A. The said MLC was prepared by Dr. Riaz and D Chandar Bhan. Both the doctor had left the hospital and FIR No. 513/2007 State Vs. Ramjeet & Anr Page No. 4 of 13 there where about are not known to hime. He correctly their hand writing and signature as they have worked with me. On 01.07.2007, patient Om Prakash brought in casualty with allege history of burn. The patient was initially examined by Dr. Riaz who referred the patient to surgery department. The patient was seen by Dr. Chandar Bha and he referred the patient to his center for further management. The MLC i.e. Ex. PW4/A bearing the signature of Dr. Riaz at point A, Dr. Chanda Bhan at point B and the name of Dr. Sanjay written at point C.
10. PW5 Ex. SI Pawan Kumar Thakur deposed that On 01.07.2007. He was posted as PS SP Badli as SI. On that day, on receipt of DD No. "6-B. He alongwith Ct. Kaptan Singh went to the spot of incident ie. Tayal Oils Solvent and Chemicals situated behind Shivala Mandir, Badli Village. After reaching there, they saw fire brigade at the spot and they came to know that fire had taken place in a drum at the spot of incident. They came to know that the injured has been shifted to BJRM Hospital Thereafter, he went to the BJRM hospital after leaving Ct. Kaptan on the spot. In BJRM Hospital, injured Om Prakash was found admitted vide MLC No. 26721/07 with the alleged history of Burn approximately 80% and doctor declared the injured unfit for statement. No eye witness found in the hospital. Thereafter, he came back at the spot and there also no eye witness was found. Thereafter he prepared the tehrir on the basis of DD Entry i.e. exhibit Ex. PW5/A. He handed over the same to Ct. Kaptan Singh for registration of FIR, who went to the PS, got the FIR registered, came back on the spot and handed over copy of FIR and original Tehrir to him for further investigation, Thereafter, he prepared the site plan FIR No. 513/2007 State Vs. Ramjeet & Anr Page No. 5 of 13 i.e Ex. PW-5/B. Thereafter, he inspected the spot and there he found the welding machine and welding rod which was lying near the main gate of the godown, the said gate was being repaired by the injured Om Prakash by standing on the drum when fire took place. Thereafter, he seized the said welding machine and welding rod vide seizure memo i.e Ex. PW-3/A. He also seized the empty drum i.e. Ex. PW3/B. Thereafter they came back to the PS, the case property was deposited with MHСМ and then he recorded the statement of Ct. Kaptan Singh. On 02 07.2007, intimation vide DD NO. 49A dated 02.07.07, was received from JPN hospital that injured Om Prakash has succumbed to the burn injuries who was shifted after referral from BJRM hospital to JPN Hospital on the same day i.e. 02.07.2007. On that day. He again went to the spot where two witnesses namely Mam Chand S/o Chander Singh and Narayan S/o Dalbir met him there. He recorded the statement of both the above witnesses. Thereafter, he came back to the PS. On 03.07.2007, he got the PM conducted on the dead body of the deceased after the dead body was identified by the relatives of the deceased namely Ramji Pandit and Virender Pandit vide Dead body identification memo i.e. Ex. PW-5/C and PW-5/D. Thereafter, he handed over the dead body to the relatives of the deceased vide dead body handing over Memo Ex. PW-5/E. He also recorded their statements u/s 161 Cr.PC. On 05.07.07, the partner of the Tayal Oils/Solvents & Chemicals namely Ravi Agarwal came to the PS and met him. There he gave up written letter on the letter head of the firm wherein he apprised that Ramjit Yadav was the supervisor for day to day affairs. He took the said letter on record i.e. Ex. PW-5/F. Thereafter, he arrested and personally searched the accused Ramjit and prepared arrest memo and personal search memo vide FIR No. 513/2007 State Vs. Ramjeet & Anr Page No. 6 of 13 memos already Ex. PW-3/C & D respectively in the PS itself. Thereafter, on 08.07.2007, he arrested and personally searched the accused Om Prakash Dubey as his role was explained by witnesses Mam Chand and Narayan Singh vide memos exhibited PW-3/E and PW-3/F. During investigation, he collected the PM report of the deceased. He also recorded the supplementary statement of Ct. Kaptan Singh. After completion of all the investigation, he filed the chargesheet before the concerned court. He correctly identified the accused as well as the photographs of the case property. The said witness was duly cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel.
11. After completion of prosecution evidence, separate statement of accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded on 24.01.2024. All incriminating material brought on record were put to the accused persons, to which they denied the allegations made against them and pleaded that they have been falsely implicated in this case. Accused persons did not opt to lead any evidence in their defence and the same was closed. Thereafter, final arguments were heard.
12. Arguments heard. Record perused.
13. I have heard the Ld. APP and carefully perused the record in extenso. Ld. APP has canvassed that the prosecution has been successful in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt as testimony of all the witnesses were not impeached by the FIR No. 513/2007 State Vs. Ramjeet & Anr Page No. 7 of 13 accused. It is submitted by the learned defence counsel that the accused persons have been charged for the offences punishable under section 285/304-A of IPC but the prosecution has failed to prove the case to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.
14. Before, discussing the testimonies of PWs, it would be prudent to discuss the legal position involved in the present case.
LAW INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT CASE
15. Section 285 of IPC provides negligent conduct with respect to fire or com- bustible matter.--
Whoever does, with fire or any combustible matter, 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 fire or any combustible matter in his possession as is sufficient to guard against any probable danger to human life from such fire or combustible matter,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.
16. Section 304A IPC provides for the offence of causing death by negligence. Death must have been caused by rash or negligent act which must not amount to culpable homicide. It reads as under:
"Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, FIR No. 513/2007 State Vs. Ramjeet & Anr Page No. 8 of 13 shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with dine, or with both."
17. There is a slight distinction between a rash act and a negligent act. 'Rashness' conveys the idea of recklessness or doing an act without due consideration and 'negligence' connotes want of proper care. A rash act, therefore, implies an act done by a person with recklessness or indifference to its consequences. The doer, being conscious of the mischievous or illegal consequences, does the act knowing that his act may bring some undesirable or illegal results but without hoping or intending them to occur. A negligent act, on the other hand, refers to an act done by a person without taking sufficient precautions or reasonable precautions to avoid its probable mischievous or illegal consequences.
18. A perusal of the above discussed provisions makes it very clear that an act of rashness or negligence endangering the human life or personal safety is a common ingredient in all these offences. Now a question arises as to what would constitute a rash or negligent act. At this stage, reference may be taken from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohammed Aynuddin @ Miyan vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has discussed in detail as to what constitute a rash or negligent act. It was inter-alia held the following:
"A rash act is primarily an over hasty act. It is opposed to deliberate act. Still a rash act can be a deliberate act in FIR No. 513/2007 State Vs. Ramjeet & Anr Page No. 9 of 13 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."
19. Therefore, indifference to the consequences of one's act or absence of reasonable care and precaution is the most important ingredient constituting rashness or negligence. It should be noted that intention of the person acting rash or negligent act is immaterial. What is important is that he has not taken due care or has done the said act with indifference to the consequences.
20. It is pertinent to mention that the public witnesses in the present case PW Mamchand and PW Babita could not be served at any of the available addresses despite repeated issuance of the process. Accordingly, vide order dated 26.07.2023 and 08.11.2023, the said witnesses namely PW Mamchand and PW Babita were dropped from the list of the witnesses. Moreover, one of the public witness namely Ravi Aggarwal was also dropped from the list of the witnesses vide order dated 10.04.2023 at the request of Ld. APP for the State.
21. In the present case, the prosecution has examined only one witness i.e. PW1 Narayan, however, the said witness turned hostile during his testimony and did not support the case of the prosecution. The said witness had denied the suggestion that the accused persons were present on the spot. The said witness had denied the suggestion FIR No. 513/2007 State Vs. Ramjeet & Anr Page No. 10 of 13 that he deliberately not identifying the accused persons, who were present at the spot. Perusal of the the testimony of the said witness reveals that the same suffers from material contradiction and does not inspire the confidence of this Court.
22. It is apposite to mention that in the present case, notice u/s 285/304-A of IPC was framed against the accused persons on the ground that both of being the supervisor of the factory, acted in rash and negligent manner by omitting to provide safety guard to deceased while he was doing the welding work in their supervision and due to the said act, the victim namely Om Prakash scummed to injuries. It is pertinent to mention that PW3/Retd/SI Kaptan Singh has admitted in his cross examination that IO of the case has not taken any documents to show Om Prakash Dubey s/oLate Hari Chand was the contractor of deceased namely Om Prakash S/o Sh. Bijender. Moreover, IO/PW5/Retd/SI Pawan Kumar has also stated in his cross examination that he has not taken any documents to show Om Prakash Dubey s/o Late Hari Chand was the contractor of deceased namely Om Prakash S/o Sh. Bijender. It is also apposite to mention that IO has also not produced any documents on record which fortify the fact that accused Ramjeet was the supervisor of the factory where the incident took place. No reasonable explanation has been given by the prosecution for not placing on record the relevant record or bringing the relevant witnesses to prove the accused persons were the supervisor of the factory, where the alleged incident took place.
23. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment of "State of Karnataka vs. Satish"
SCC (CRI) 1508 and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled "Abdul Subhan vs. FIR No. 513/2007 State Vs. Ramjeet & Anr Page No. 11 of 13 State" 2007 (1) CCC (HC) 414 observed that in the absence of material facts and circumstances indicating that the accused acted in a rash or negligent manner, he cannot be held guilty for the offence.
24. In the opinion of this Court, the testimonies of all the PWs even taken together are so deficient as to assist this court to form even a vague opinion, let alone any conclusion, regarding the fact that death of the victim was caused due to the rash and negligent act of accused persons. There is no evidence to establish the fact that the accused persons knowing and negligently omitted to provide safety guards to deceased while doing the welding work under their supervision and also insisted him to use the oil drum as platform for such work.
25. No doubt wrong acquittals are undesirable and shake the confidence of the people in judicial system, much worse, however, is the wrongful conviction of the innocent man. The consequences of conviction of innocent men are far more serious and its reverberation would be felt by an innocent all his life in a civilized society, therefore, it is the duty of the court to avoid any wrongful conviction and to grant benefit of doubt where ever the need arises. If two views are possible, one favouring the accused and the other against him, the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused and in the instant case, prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.
FIR No. 513/2007 State Vs. Ramjeet & Anr Page No. 12 of 13
26. At this stage, court further deems it fit to state, that it is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence, that culpability cannot be established on surmises and conjectures but it should rest on cogent, reliable and clinching evidence, dispelling every doubt and bulwarking the fact that in all possibility, the offence must have been committed by the accused.
27. Therefore in view of the above said discussion it is pellucid, that the case of the prosecution suffers from several glaring loopholes. Hence, this court is of the considered opinion, that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused persons namely Ramjeet and Om Prakash Dubey stand acquitted from the charges U/s. 285/304A IPC.
Dictated directly into the computer (AJAY NARWAL)
and announced in the open Court, MM-02/North/Rohini
On 29th May, 2024. Delhi/29.05.2024.
FIR No. 513/2007 State Vs. Ramjeet & Anr Page No. 13 of 13