Delhi District Court
State vs Sita Ram on 22 April, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR BANSAL
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
NORTH-WEST DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No. DLNW01-007078-2017
SC No. 432/17
State Versus : Sita Ram
S/o Ram Dulare
R/o N-250, Prem Nagar-II,
Delhi
FIR No. : 617/16
Police Station : Aman Vihar
Under Section : 308/304 IPC
Date of institution : 18.07.2017
Date of reserving order : 02.04.2024
Date of pronouncement : 22.04.2024
Appearance:
Sh. G.S. Guraya, Ld. Chief PP for State.
Ms. Ritambhara, Adv. for accused, through VC.
JUDGMENT
The story of prosecution in brief is that Kali Charan alongwith his wife Arula and younger son Rajesh was residing at H.No. N-251, Prem Nagar-II, Delhi, and was working as Plumber. Sita Ram was his neighbour, who is resident of H.No. N-250, Prem Nagar-II, Delhi. In the house of Kali Charan, there were two rooms and kitchen on ground floor and one room on the first floor. On 09.06.2016 Kali Charan alongwith his wife and son were sleeping on the roof by putting beddings on the roof. At about 5.20 AM, boundary wall of the house of Sita Ram suddenly fell on them, due to which they all three sustained injuries.
Page 1 / 152. It is alleged by Kali Charan that Sita Ram had put stones and stone slabs and all other articles on the boundary wall. He had asked Sita Ram to remove those stones, stone slabs and articles from there but he did not remove the same, due to which the wall fell on them. Somebody called at 100 number. PCR van came. They were removed to the hospital. Doctor, on examination, declared Arula and his son, as dead. On the complaint of Kali Charan, FIR was registered. Accused Sita Ram was arrested. After completion of investigation, charge sheet against accused Sita Ram was filed.
3. Ld. MM after complying with the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. committed the case to the Court of Sessions as the offences punishable u/s.304 and 308 IPC are exclusively triable by the Sessions Court. Accused was charged for the offences punishable u/s.304 and 308 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the case was fixed for prosecution evidence.
4. Prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined 15 witnesses.
5. Surender s/o Kali Charan was examined as PW1. He identified the dead bodies of his brother Rajesh and mother Arula in the mortuary vide statement Ex. PW1/A and after postmortem, received the bodies vide documents Ex. PW1/B & PW1/C. The testimony of the witness has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted.
Page 2 / 156. Kali Charan was examined as PW2. He deposed that he alongwith his wife and younger son was residing at H.No. N- 251, Prem Nagar-II, Delhi. Accused Sita Ram (correctly identified), his neighbour, who resides at N-250, Prem Nagar-II, Delhi, with his family. There are two rooms and one kitchen on the ground floor of his house and one room on the first floor. On 09.06.2016 he alongwith his wife and son Rajesh was sleeping on the roof of ground floor of the said house, on the beddings. At about 5.30 AM, the boundary wall of the roof of the house of accused Sita Ram collapsed, due to which, he, his wife and son sustained injuries.
7. He stated that accused had kept stone slabs, iron girders etc. on the boundary wall, which were there on his roof top. He requested accused Sita Ram number of times on earlier occasions to remove the said load from the boundary wall but he did not pay any heed to his requests. Due to the load of stone slabs and iron girders, which were there on the boundary wall, the boundary wall collapsed causing injuries on his person and death of his wife and son.
8. During cross-examination, he stated that he had asked accused Sita Ram to remove his illegal construction material many times but accused used to threaten him. He never lodged any complaint to the police in this regard. He had not made call at 100 number. His statement was recorded in SGM Hospital by the police. His statement was not read over to him by the police. He admitted that on that night, there was light rain and slight Page 3 / 15 thunder storm. He denied the suggestion that no construction material was lying there.
9. Ramdev Rai was examined as PW3. He also identified the dead bodies of Rajesh and Arula Devi vide documents Ex. PW3/A and PW3/B. After postmortem, he received the dead bodies vide memo Ex. PW1/B and PW1/C.
10. ASI Om Prakash was examined as PW4. He deposed that on 09.06.2017 (2016) at about 5.35 AM, he received information from Wireless Operator about the incident, on the basis of which, he recorded DD No. 7PP, copy of which he proved as Ex. PW4/A.
11. ASI Azad Singh was examined as PW5. He was working as Duty Officer on 09.06.2016. He deposed that at about 8.30 AM, Ct. Satish brought a rukka sent by ASI Raj Kumar, on the basis of which, he got recorded FIR No. 617/16. He proved the copy of the FIR as Ex. PW5/A. He also made endorsement on the rukka regarding registration of FIR, which is Ex. PW5/B. He also proved the certificate u/s. 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW5/C.
12. ASI Nem Singh was examined as PW6. He was working as MHC(M). He deposed that on 09.06.2016 ASI Raj Kumar deposited with him one mat, pillow, bed-sheet and one mattress in sealed parcel and he made entry at serial no. 1181 in register no.19. He proved the copy of the register having that entry as Ex. PW6/A. Page 4 / 15
13. During cross-examination by Ld. defence counsel, he stated that the pullanda was having seal of RK. He denied the suggestion that the case property was not deposited in the Malkhana as deposed by him.
14. SI Satish Kumar was examined as PW7. He deposed that on 05.12.2016 the investigation of this case was entrusted to him. He recorded the statement of SI Jitender Joshi, collected the photographs taken from the mobile phone, which are Ex. PW7/A1 to A10. During investigation, he also added Section 308/304 IPC in place of 336/304A IPC. After completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet.
15. During cross-examination by Ld. defence counsel, he stated that he recorded the statement of SI Jitender Joshi on 05.03.2017 at PS Aman Vihar. No date and time is mentioned on the photographs Ex. PW7/A1 to A10.
16. Dr. Munish Wadhawan was examined as PW8. He deposed that he conducted the postmortem on the dead bodies of Asla Devi and Rajesh and proved the same as Ex. PW8/A & PW8/B. He stated that in both the postmortem reports, the cause of death is cerebral damage as a result of blunt force impact and all injuries were ante-mortem in nature and possible in manner as alleged. The testimony of the witness has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted.
17. SI Satya Dev was examined as PW9. He was the Page 5 / 15 Incharge of Mobile Crime Team, which visited the scene of crime. He deposed that he alongwith his team i.e. Photographer Ct. Rakesh reached on the roof of House No. N-251, Prem Nagar, Delhi. IO/ASI Ram Kumar alongwith his staff met him. Ct. Rakesh took the photographs of the spot and he inspected the scene of crime. He found two blood stained pillows and one blood stained plastic mat at the spot. There were many bricks lying at the spot. He prepared his report which is Ex. PW9/A. During cross-examination, he stated that he received the call at about 6.40 AM.
18. Dr. Gurdip Singh from SGM Hospital was examined as PW10. He deposed that he has been deputed by Medical Superintendent to depose in place of Dr. Rohit, who is on long leaves. He proved the MLC of patient Rajesh @ Bahua aged 23 years male as Ex. PW10/A. The patient was declared brought dead. He also proved the MLC of patient Arula aged 50 years female as Ex. PW10/B. The patient was declared brought dead. He also proved the MLC of patient Kali Charan aged 45 years male as Ex. PW10/C. On the person of patient, two injuries were found i.e. CLW over head 6x2 cms and CLW over right foot 10x3 cms. The patient was advised X-Rays of chest, b/L HIP, right foot and DL Spine. The patient was referred to Ortho. The nature of injuries opined as simple.
19. Dr. Sunil Kumar, Incharge (Radiology) was examined as PW11. He deposed on behalf of Dr. Mehboob-Ur-Rehman, who has left the hospital and prove X-Ray report of patient Kali Charan Ex. PW11/A. No bone injury was seen.
Page 6 / 1520. Dr. Avnish Mishra was examined as PW12. He deposed that on 09.06.2016, as SR (Ortho), he medically examined patient Kali Charan and advised him X-Rays and proved his endorsement from point X to X1 on Ex. PW10/C. The testimony of the witness has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted.
21. Ct. Satish Kumar was examined as PW13. He deposed that on the intervening night of 08 and 09.06.2016 he was posted at PP Prem Nagar, PS Aman Vihar and was on emergency duty from 8 PM to 8 AM. At about 5.40 AM, ASI Rajkumar received call vide DD No. 7-P regarding felling of wall of H.No. 250, N-Block. He alongwith ASI Rajkumar reached there. They found that boundary wall of the roof of H.No. 250 had fallen down on the roof of H.No. N-251. They came to know that three injured persons had been taken to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital by PCR. IO went to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital leaving him on the spot. After some time, IO came back at the spot and called the crime team. Crime team reached spot and inspected the scene of crime. They also took the photographs of the scene of crime. IO prepared the rukka and handed over to him to get the FIR registered. He went to the police station and got the FIR registered. He came back to the spot and handed over the original rukka and copy of FIR to the IO. IO inspected the scene of crime and lifted the mat (chattai), pillow and one mattress stained with blood from the roof of H.No. N-251, put all these in a plastic katta, sealed with the seal of RK and seized vide memo Ex. PW13/A. Thereafter, they Page 7 / 15 returned to PS Aman Vihar and the case property was deposited with MHC(M). Thereafter, they went to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital and got the postmortem conducted on the bodies and thereafter handed over to the relatives. Thereafter, they came to the spot. IO arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex. PW13/B and personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW13/C. Accused was released on bail on the surety of his son. The witness identified the case property as Ex. P-1 (collectively).
22. During cross-examination by Ld. defence counsel, he stated that police post is at a distance of about 1 or 1½ kilometers from the spot. They reached the spot at about 5.50 AM. The height of the wall was of 5 to 6 feet, which had fallen on the roof of the victim. It was 4 inches wall. He left the spot with rukka at about 8 or 8.30 AM. About 50-60 persons gathered at the spot. Crime team reached the spot at about 7 or 7.15 AM. There were 2-3 persons in that team. IO requested public persons to join the investigation but none agreed.
23. SI Raj Kumar was examined as PW14. He deposed that on 09.06.2016 after receiving the DD no. 7 PP Ex. PW4/A, he alongwith Ct. Satish reached at N-250, Prem Nagar-II, Delhi, where they came to know that injured had already been removed to SGM hospital by PCR officials. He went to SGM hospital leaving Ct. Satish at the spot. In the hospital, he found injured Kali Charan, Arula and Rajesh @ Bahva admitted in the hospital. He collected the MLCs. Arula and Rajesh were declared brought dead by the doctor. On the MLC of injured Kali Charan, the doctor concerned mentioned the alleged history as fall of bricks.
Page 8 / 15He recorded statement of injured Kali Charan which is Ex. PW14/A and thereafter, returned to the spot. He called the crime team at the spot. Crime team inspected the scene of crime and also took the photographs on his instructions. He prepared rukka Ex. PW14/B and sent the same through Ct. Satish for registration of FIR. After some time, Ct. Satish came back at the spot and handed over the original rukka and copy of FIR to him. He recorded the statements of members of crime team and they were discharged. He seized one mat, one pillow, one bed sheet and one mattress from the spot, put in a plastic katta, sealed with the seal of RK and seized vide memo Ex. PW13/A. He corroborated the testimony of PW13 regarding deposit of case property in the Malkhana, getting the postmortem conducted and arrest of the accused. He also proved the documents regarding identification of the dead bodies as Ex. PW14/C. He deposed that he prepared site plan of the scene of crime which is Ex. PW14/D. He identified accused and also the case property.
24. During cross-examination, he stated that he had added the missing word "बबर" after the word "कई" and it was written as "कई बबर". He denied the suggestion that this correction was not spontaneous. He admitted that there is no photograph of silli or girder on record. He volunteered that the silli was kept beside the roof wall of house of the accused, due to which the roof wall of his house fell on the injured. He denied the suggestion that silli was not kept beside the roof wall, that is why silli had fallen with roof wall on the injured. He had not collected the samples of the material used in the roof wall of the house of accused. On his transfer from the concerned police station to PCR, he handed Page 9 / 15 over the case file to the MHC(R).
25. SI Jitender Joshi was examined as PW15. He deposed that on 09.06.2016 he was posted as Incharge PP Prem Nagar, PS Aman Vihar. He received information about the fall of wall on some persons at House No. N-250, Prem Nagar -II, Delhi, regarding which DD No. 7 PP was lodged at PP Prem Nagar. He alongwith other police officials reached at the spot. He came to know that injured had already been taken to hospital by the PCR officials. He took the photographs of scene of crime with his personal mobile phone and proved the same as Ex.PW7/A1 to A10. The witness has also proved the certificate u/s. 65B of the Evidence Act as Ex. PW15/A.
26. In this case, Ct. Rakesh, who was the Photographer of the Crime Team, was dropped as no photograph could be printed, which he clicked of the scene of crime. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed. Statement of accused was recorded u/s.313 Cr.P.C. wherein he denied the entire evidence and claimed that he is innocent. He wished to lead evidence in his defence and examined Mahant Lal as DW1.
27. Sh. Mahant Lal deposed that Sita Ram is his neighbour. The incident took place some time in the year 2016 but he does not remember the exact date due to lapse of time. He deposed that on that date at about 5.30 AM it was raining and lightening struck on the boundary wall of the house of accused, hence, it broke and fell on the victims, who were sleeping near the boundary wall. The boundary wall was about 2.5 feet in Page 10 / 15 height. There was nothing kept on the wall when the incident happened. During cross-examination by Ld. Chief Prosecutor, he admitted that wall in question was in the ownership of accused Sita Ram. He admitted that in the photographs, the articles visible are not wet and are dry. He admitted that he reached the spot after the incident. He admitted that if it is raining continuously, no person can sleep on open roof or open place. It is correct that deceased persons were sleeping outside the room on open roof. He denied the suggestion that he is in business terms with Sita Ram as they both are in property business. He admitted that he was called by Sita Ram to the court for giving evidence. Thereafter, the defence counsel closed the evidence and the case was fixed for final arguments.
28. I have heard Ld. Chief PP for State, Ld. counsel for the accused and perused the record.
29. Ld. Chief PP for State submitted that in this case, as per the evidence, Kali Charan alongwith his wife Arula and son Rajesh was sleeping on the roof of his house on the intervening night of 08 and 09.06.2016. On 09.06.2016 at about 5.30 AM the boundary wall of the roof of accused Sita Ram, who is neighbour of Kali Charan and resident of H.No. N-250, Prem Nagar-II, fell on Kali Charan, his wife and son. Ld. Chief PP submitted that the boundary wall of the roof was only 4 inches thick. Accused Sita Ram had placed stones, stone slabs and girders on that weak wall of only 4 inches, due to which it collapsed and fell on Kali Charan, Arula and Rajesh, causing death of Arula and Rajesh. Kali Charan also sustained injuries Page 11 / 15 on his head and the leg. Ld. Chief PP submitted that photographs available on record, which are proved as Ex. PW7/A1 to A10, clearly show that the wall had collapsed on Kali Charan, his wife and son. The postmortem reports of Arula and Rajesh have also been proved on record, according to which they both died due to the cerebral damage caused by blunt force. The doctor has also opined that such injuries are possible as per the history i.e. due to fall of wall. Ld. Chief PP submitted that the evidence shows that the wall had fallen because undue load has been put on the wall which was only 4 inches thick. It was also pointed out to Sita Ram many times by Kali Charan to remove that load from the wall otherwise it will fall but he had not done so, resulting into this incident.
30. Ld. Chief PP for State submitted that a defence has been taken that it rained on that night but surprisingly when the photographs were taken, it was all dry. In fact, there was a light rain as admitted by Kali Charan and not heavy rain and also slight thunder storm. It is not so that it rained heavily, resulting into fall of wall. There is also no evidence that lightening strike on the wall, due to which wall collapsed. Ld. Chief PP submitted that in fact it is due to the act of accused Sita Ram, who had put the load on the wall, which the wall could not sustain, resulting into collapse and loss of two valuable lives Arula and Rajesh and injuries on the person of Kali Charan. It is submitted that the prosecution has been able to discharge its onus. The guilt of the accused has been proved on record. It is prayed that the accused be held guilty and convicted.
Page 12 / 1531. Ld. defence counsel submitted that onus was upon the prosecution to prove that cause of death is result of any act committed by the accused herein. There is nothing on record that any overt act was committed or there was any ommission on the part of the accused, due to which the boundary wall had collapsed or had fallen. Ld. counsel submitted that admittedly on that day, there was a thunder storm as admitted by Kali Charan, the injured himself. Due to that reason, the wall had collapsed. The case of the prosecution is that there was load put on the wall by putting stones, stone slabs and the girders on that boundary wall but no such evidence has been brought on record by the prosecution. Though Kali Charan has stated so but the photographs of the scene of crime were taken, which are Ex. PW7/A1 to A10. In none of the photographs, no stone, stone slabs or girder is visible. The IO stated that there were stones put by the side of the wall but again the same are not visible in photographs. In any case, it is not the story of the prosecution that those stones, stone slabs and girders were put on the wall and not by the side of the wall. Ld. counsel submitted that as the wall had fallen, therefore, those stones, stone slabs would have also fallen and should have been visible in the photographs, which is not there. Under the circumstances, the story of the prosecution itself becomes doubtful that the wall had collapsed due to putting of stones, stone slabs and girders on that wall. Ld. counsel submitted that there is also nothing on record that the building material used in the wall was not proper or that the wall was not constructed properly. There was no new construction going on. Under the circumstances, there is nothing on record established by the prosecution that due to any act or omission on Page 13 / 15 the part of the accused, the wall had fallen. Ld. counsel submitted that as the prosecution has miserably failed to prove and bring on record that it was the accused due to whose negligence the wall had fallen, no offence is made out. Benefit may be given to the accused and he be acquitted.
32. After hearing the arguments and going through the record, I find that story of the prosecution is that Sita Ram had placed stones, stone slabs and girders on the boundary wall of the roof of his house, due to which the boundary wall had collapsed. No doubt, according to the evidence brought on record the boundary wall of the house of Sita Ram had collapsed. Onus was upon the prosecution to prove that the collapse of the wall is the direct result of any action or omission on the part of accused Sitam Ram. As mentioned above, according to the prosecution case, the reason of collapse of wall is putting load on the boundary wall, which it could not bear, i.e. placing girders, stone slabs and the stones on that wall. Admittedly, the scene of crime was photographed by PW7. He does not say at what time he had taken the photographs but in these photographs there is no stones, stone slabs or iron girders visible. Admittedly, these photographs are of the scene of crime. Therefore, this story of the prosecution that there were stones, stone slabs and iron girders put on that wall, is not corroborated or supportive. Defence taken is that on that day, there was a thunder storm. This fact is also admitted by Kali Charan when he appeared in the witness box and stated that there was a light rain and slight thunder storm on the intervening night. In any case, it was for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond Page 14 / 15 reasonable doubt and show that due to any act of Sita Ram the wall had fallen, which in my opinion, the prosecution has miserably failed.
33. The defence has also examined one witness, according to whom, the lightening struck on the wall, resulting into collapse of the wall but there is no such evidence that on that day the lightening struck on the wall. Hence, I do not find any force in this defence. However, as the prosecution has also failed to prove the guilt of the accused, the benefit is given to the accused. Accused Sita Ram is, accordingly, acquitted of the charge u/s. 308/304 IPC.
34. Bail bond of accused stands cancelled and his surety stands discharged. Original documents, if any, be released to the rightful owner(s) after getting the endorsement, if any, cancelled.
35. Accused is directed to furnish bail bonds u/s.437A Cr.P.C. in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount.
36. After compliance, file be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally
signed by
VIRENDER
Announced in the open Court VIRENDER KUMAR
KUMAR BANSAL
today i.e. 22nd April, 2024 Date:
BANSAL
2024.04.29
13:00:34
+0530
(Virender Kumar Bansal)
Principal District & Sessions Judge (NW)
Rohini Courts, Delhi (sb)
Page 15 / 15