Delhi District Court
State vs Mukesh Goel on 15 February, 2025
IN THE COURT OF BHUJALI, JUDICICAL MAGISTRATE
FIRST CLASS01, NORTH DISTRICT,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI.
FIR No.: 337/2016
Offence U/s 287/338 IPC
Police Station: NARELA
Cr. Case No. 6030/2018
CNR No. DLNT020119012018
In the matter of
STATE
Vs.
Mukesh Goyal .......ACCUSED
1.Name of the Informant: Sh. Sachin S/o Sh. Manoj Kumar
2. Offence Complained of: Section 287/338 IPC
3. Date of Commission of 13.11.2018 Offence:
4. Name of Accused: Mukesh Goyal S/o Sh. Jai Bhagwan Goyal, R/o House no. 45, Maitri Apartment, Sector9, Rohini, Delhi.
5. Plea of Accused Not Guilty
6. Date of institution of 13.11.2018 case:
7. Date of pronouncement 15.02.2025 of Judgment:
8. Final Order: Acquitted A. BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION
1. Succinctly put, the facts of the case as per Prosecution are that on FIR No. 337/2016 State Vs. Mukesh Goyal PS Narela 1/19 20.04.2016 at around 5:00 A.M. at factory no. A48, Bhorgarh Industrial Area, Narela, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Narela, where the worker/complainant Sachin S/o Sh. Manoj Kumar Dev was working with the Molding Machine which was not working properly and the accused being owner of the factory was forcing the worker to finish the work without giving him proper instruction, information and necessary training which is required to be given to the worker before deployment on the machine, and in that process the left hand of complainant came in that machine and got crushed causing grievous injury. Thereafter, FIR was registered under Section 287/338 IPC and after completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed in the Court. This Court then took cognizance of the offences and the accused was summoned accordingly. The copy of the chargesheet and annexed documents in compliance of Section 207 CrPC was supplied to the accused.
2. The notice was framed against the accused for offence punishable under Section 287/338 IPC on 25.07.2019 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for the trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
3. In Prosecution evidence, the Prosecution has examined 08 witnesses. Accused did not dispute the registration of FIR (Ex. A1), certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act (Ex. A2), rukka endorsement DD no. 30A dated 24.04.2016 (Ex. A3) and MLC no. 97/17 FIR No. 337/2016 State Vs. Mukesh Goyal PS Narela 2/19 (Ex. A4), without admitting the contents therein u/s 294 Cr.P.C and thereafter the formal witnesses were dropped from the list of witnesses vide order dated 21.02.2023. The crux of the testimony of witnesses is as follows:
(a) PW1/Sh. Firoz was examined and deposed that he used to work in the factory Narela A48, Bhorgarh. At about 5AM, he was at home.
Someone made phone to him and he found that one boy namely Sachin who used to work there sustained injuries in his hand. He further deposed that he had not seen the incident.
He was duly crossexamined by Ld. APP for the State. During crossexamination, he denied that he was present at that time of incident and the hand of victim Sachin got crushed while working at the machine. He admitted that the injured was taken to the ESI Hospital. He did not know whether the date of incident was 20.04.2016. He denied the suggestion that the incident took place due to negligence of the accused Mukesh Goyal. He admitted that owner of the factory is Mukesh Goyal. At that stage, attention of the witness was drawn towards the accused Mukesh Goyal was present in the court that day and correctly identified by the witness. The witness after seeing the photographs of the molding machine, correctly identified the machine (EX. P1, Colly.). He denied that he was intentionally not pointing the accused person. He denied that he was not deposing the complete facts on the ground of working in the factory of the accused.
He was duly crossexamined by Ld. defence counsel.
FIR No. 337/2016 State Vs. Mukesh Goyal PS Narela 3/19
(b) PW2/Sh.Sachin (complainant/injured) was examined. He deposed that on he worked at Factory no. A48 Industrial Area, Bhorgarh in the year of 2016. His duty timings were from 9PM to 9AM. He used to work at Thread Cutter machine. He further deposed that on 19.04.2016 when he went to his factory in night. His factory owner i.e. accused Mukesh, told him that, that day, 'you have to work on molding machine'. He further deposed that he refused to do that because he did not know to work on above said molding machine. Thereafter accused Mukesh threatened him to left the job if is would not work on that machine he also requested to accused that machine is not properly working and accused straight forwards deny his submission and order to work on machine. He further deposed that on 20.04.2016 at around 5AM when he was working on the molding machine suddenly the said machine stopped and his left hand stuck in the machine. Thereafter, his coworker helped him taken to the hospital. He got discharged from the hospital on 21.04.2016 and he made a complaint on 24.04.2016 (EX. PW2/A) Accused was correctly identified by the witness.
Photographs of the molding machine was correctly identified by the witness and photographs (already EX. P1 (Colly.) He was duly crossexamined by Ld. defence counsel. He was again re examined by the Ld APP for the state for seeking some clarifications and further crossexamined by Ld. defence counsel.
(c) PW3/SI Naresh was examined. He deposed that on 20.04.2016, FIR No. 337/2016 State Vs. Mukesh Goyal PS Narela 4/19 he was posted at PS Narela as ASI. On that day, he was performing his duty as DO in the police station and his duty timings were 12:00 a.m. midnight to 08:00 a.m. He further deposed that at about 6:20 a.m., he received information from wireless operator about admission of one injured to the ESI Hospital. Accordingly, he reduced the said information into the Rojnamcha register vide entry no. 7. Thereafter, he also prepared DD no. 7A (Ex. PW3/A). He further deposed that he informed about the said DD to HC Jitender through phone for further investigation.
He was not crossexamined despite opportunity given.
(d) PW4/Sh. Jai Bhagwan was examined. He deposed that he is the proprietor of factory namely M/s Jai Hanuman Plastics, at A48, DSIIDC, Industrial Area, Narela, Delhi. The said factory was running in rented accommodation and he took that property on rent from a person namely Naresh Garg. The said factory was running by his son namely Mukesh Goyal and he had given all the authorities to running the factory to him. He further deposed that after the accident took place, police officials recorded his statement. Accused was correctly identified by the witness.
He was duly crossexamined by Ld. defence counsel.
(e) PW5/Sh. Pinkesh Kumar was examined. He deposed that on 09.05.2016, he was working as Inspector of factory, GNCTD. He received a request from IO/HC Jitender for mechanical inspection of machine situated in factory no. A48, DSIIDC, Bhorgarh, Narela, Delhi (Ex. PW5/A). He further deposed that in pursuance of the said request on FIR No. 337/2016 State Vs. Mukesh Goyal PS Narela 5/19 21.06.2016, he conducted the inspection of the horizontal molding machine kept at the said factory in presence of the owner Mukesh Goyal of said premises. He further deposed that as per his report, it was found and revealed that the injured Sachin S/o Sh. Manoj Kumar Dev has sustained on his left hand on 24.04.2016 because of lack of proper instruction, information and necessary training required to be given to the workers before deployment on the said machine by the owner. He further deposed that on the basis of the said inspection, he prepared the report no. FD/UR/IF/NW/15/1886 dated 21.06.2016 (Ex. PW5/B). Witness correctly identified the photographs of the said machine (already Ex. P1, colly.). Accused was identified by the witness.
He was duly crossexamined by Ld. defence counsel. The present witness was reexamined by Ld. APP for the State after permission of the Court. During examination, witness admitted that the inspection was conducted on 23.05.2016 and due to lapse of time, he had mistakenly stated above the same to be 23.07.2016.
(f) PW6/Sh. Naresh Garg was examined. He deposed that he had rented out the said factory to Jai Bhagwan S/o Sh. Mansaram R/o Flat no. 45, Matri Apartment, Sector9, Rohini, Delhi for Rs. 8,000/per month through rent agreement (Ex. PW6/A). In the said factory, M/s Jai Bhagwan plastics through proprietor was being run. IO had recorded his statement which was read over to him.
He was duly crossexamined by Ld. defence counsel. During crossexamination, witness stated that he had rented out the premises to FIR No. 337/2016 State Vs. Mukesh Goyal PS Narela 6/19 Jai Bhagwan and Mukesh Goyal, was not party to the said rent agreement. He further stated that he had no concerned with Mukesh Goyal.
(g) PW7/HC Kishan Kumar was examined. He deposed that he received the present case file for further investigation from MHC(M) on 20.01.2018. Thereafter, he prepared chargesheet and filed before the Court.
He was duly crossexamined by Ld. defence counsel. During crossexamination, witness admitted that he never visited the spot.
(h) PW8/ASI Jitender, no. 377/Security was examined. He deposed that on 19.04.2016 at around 5:00 A.M., he received DD no. 7A. Thereafter, he went to the ESI Hospital, Rohini, where he received the MLC of the injured and also came to know that injured had been taken to the another hospital. He returned to the spot He further deposed that on 24.04.2016, complainant Sachin came to the police station, he recorded his statement. On the basis of statement , he prepared rukka (Ex. PW 8/A). Thereafter, FIR got registered on the basis of rukka. He alongwith complainant went to the spot i.e. DSIIDC, Narela Factory of molding. He prepared the site plan at the instance of complainant (Ex. PW8/B). He further deposed that on 28.04.2016, he seized the machine vide seizure memo Ex. PW8/C. Thereafter on 06.05.2016, he arrested the accused Mukesh vide arrest memo Ex. PW8/D. He prepared the personal search of the accused vide memo Ex. PW8/E. He also seized the rent agreement vide seizure memo Ex. PW8/F. Thereafter, mechanical inspection of the FIR No. 337/2016 State Vs. Mukesh Goyal PS Narela 7/19 machine was got conducted and taken on record. He also taken on record MLC result of the complainant/victim. He also recorded the statements of the witnesses. Accused was correctly identified by the witness. He also identified the photographs of machine (Ex. P1, colly.).
He was duly crossexamined by Ld. defence counsel.
4. After the Prosecution evidence was closed, the statement of accused under Section 281 r/w 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 21.08.2023. Accused stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case and all the witnesses are interested witnesses. Accused did not opt to lead the defense evidence. Thereafter final arguments were heard in details. I have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions of the accused and the State.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
5. Ld. APP submitted that Prosecution has been successful in proving guilt against accused beyond reasonable doubt and the testimony of Prosecution witnesses establishes the act rash and negligent act of the accused which has resulted in alleged injuries to the victim and accordingly, he submitted that the accused deserves to be convicted in the present case.
Per contra, Ld. defence Counsel submitted that Prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts as the case of the Prosecution is based on presumption and surmises and that the prosecution witnesses have not been able to depose anything FIR No. 337/2016 State Vs. Mukesh Goyal PS Narela 8/19 against the specific act of the accused which can be termed as rash and negligent and their testimony cannot be the sole basis of conviction against the accused. He further submitted that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case and that he was not present at the alleged spot and he had no role in causing any injuries to the victim. Therefore, as argued, he deserves to be acquitted in the present case.
APPRECIATION OF LAW:
6. In the present matter, the accused has been charged for the offences U/s. 287/338 IPC. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the Prosecution was required to establish the following ingredients as mentioned U/s 287/338 IPC.
Section 287. Negligent conduct with respect to machinery.--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.
FIR No. 337/2016 State Vs. Mukesh Goyal PS Narela 9/19 Section 338 IPC Causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others. -- Whoever causes grievous hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
7. Thus, the Prosecution, by way of clear and reliable evidences, was required to show that the accused had knowingly or negligently omitted to take such order with machinery installed in his factory which is sufficient to guard against any probably danger to human life for such machinery and by the abovesaid negligent act accused caused grievous injury on the person namely Sachin.
8. Under the Indian criminal jurisprudence an accused is presumed to be in innocent until proven guilty. It is a settled law that the Prosecution has to stand on its own legs to substantiate the allegations as set out in the FIR. The Prosecution is also required to prove the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. The charge of accusation of offence of Section 287/338 IPC cannot be imposed upon the accused merely on the basis of an accident. The Prosecution must prove by way of clear and reliable evidences that alleged accident took place due to rash FIR No. 337/2016 State Vs. Mukesh Goyal PS Narela 10/19 and negligent act of the accused. The element of the rashness and negligence on the part of the accused is to be proved by leading cogent evidence to that effect.
9. Before proceeding further, it is imperative to understand as to what constitute the rash and negligent act in terms of the legally settled position. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohammed Aynuddin @ Miyam v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2000) 7 SCC 72 defined the term "rash and negligent". It was held that:
"A rash act is primarily an over hasty act. It is opposed to a deliberate act. Still, a rash act can be a deliberate act in 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. It is the imperative duty of the driver of a vehicle to adopt such reasonable and proper care and caution"
10. The Apex Court while drawing the distinction between rash act and negligent act in Bhalachandra Waman Pathe Vs. The State of Maharashtra, 1968 ACJ 38, held as under:
FIR No. 337/2016 State Vs. Mukesh Goyal PS Narela 11/19 "An offence under Section 304A Indian Penal Code may be committed either by doing a rash act or a negligent act. There is a distinction between a rash act and a negligent act. In the case of a rash act as observed by straight, J. in Idu Beg's case the criminality lies in running the risk of doing such an act with recklessness or indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negligence is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise that reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard against injury either to the public generally or to an individual in particular, which having regard to all the circumstances out of which the charge has arisen, it was the imperative duty of the accused person to have adopted. Negligence is an omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. Again as explained in Nidamarti Negaghushanam's case, a culpable rashness is acting with the consciousness that the mischievous and illegal consequences may follow, but with the hope that they will not, and often with the belief that the actor has taken sufficient precautions to FIR No. 337/2016 State Vs. Mukesh Goyal PS Narela 12/19 prevent their happening. The imputability arises from acting despite the consciousness. Culpable negligence is acting without the consciousness that the illegal and mischievous effect will follow, but in circumstances which show that the actor has not exercised the caution incumbent upon him and if he had he would have had the consciousness. The imputability arises from the neglect of the civil duty of circumspection."
APPRECIATION OF FACTS AND EVIDENCES.
11. To prove its case u/s 287/338 IPC against the accused, the Prosecution was required to prove the following ingredients:
a). That the accused had the actual control over the machine by which alleged injuries were caused to the victim;
b). That the victim suffered injuries from the machine as alleged to be under the control of the accused;
c) That owing to the rash and negligent act of the accused the victim namely Sachin suffered grievous injuries.
12. The first ingredient under section 287/338 IPC stands proved as PW01 had stated that the owner of the factory is Mukesh Goyal. PW2 also deposed that his factory owner is accused Mukesh. Even PW4 , who is the father of the accused has deposed that the said factory used to be run by his son Mukesh Goyal and he had given him all the authority to FIR No. 337/2016 State Vs. Mukesh Goyal PS Narela 13/19 run the factory. Even though the accused has disputed the ownership of the factory , the accused has not brought for any cogent evidence to dispute the same . No reason is forthcoming on behalf of the Accused to challenge the veracity of the testimonies of PW - 1, PW - 2 and PW3 , which the court has found absolutely to be inspiring in confidence as qua the ownership/management of the factory and that the accused had actual control over the machine.
13. The 2nd ingredient qua the fact of injury also stands proved as the accused has not disputed the genuiness and correctness of MLC no 97/17 i.e. Ex A4 vide statement recorded on 21.02.2023. The accused has also not disputed the suffering of injuries by the victim but has rather taken the defence that the the owner of the factory had restricted the injured from operating the machine and the injured was only employed as thread cutter. Thus, the first and second ingredients stands established.
14 Now, the next question that comes into mind is that whether it was the rash and negligent act of the accused owing to which the victim namely Sachin suffered grievous injuries as alleged by the Prosecution.
15. The Prosecution has examined PW1,PW2, PW4, PW5 and PW6 to prove its case against the accused for the alleged offence u/s 287/338 IPC. Rest of witnesses of the Prosecution are formal witnesses whose testimony proves the formal part of the investigation.
16. The testimony of PW1, contrary to what was alleged by the prosecution , is not of the eye witness as the witness stated that he was not FIR No. 337/2016 State Vs. Mukesh Goyal PS Narela 14/19 present at the time of incident. His testimony otherwise also does not appear to be of any help for the case of the Prosecution as he stated that the machine was functioning properly and smoothly. PW01 in substance turned hostile to the version of the prosecution.
17. To sustain the conviction of the accused in the present case, it becomes imperative upon the prosecution to categorically and convincingly establish that the accused had omitted to take such precaution with the machine as was sufficient to protect against any probable danger to human life from using such machine.
18. To prove this vital ingredient, the prosecution has heavily relied upon the examination of only PW2 i.e. the injured himself. PW2 is the sole eye witness examined by the prosecution( since PW1 already turned hostile and stated that he was not present at the time of incident ) who is the injured and a careful probe and scrutiny of the deposition of this witness shows that he simply stated about the machine not working properly, this witness explained nothing about any particular part which was missing in the machinery or which was necessary to guard against any probable danger or accident. Neither this witness explained or even made a whisper about the technical aspects of the machinery nor this witness mentioned or specified anything about the manner as to how was his left hand got injured while working on the moulding machine and what was the additional safety measure which was to be taken by the employer which was missing as far as the moulding machine in question was concerned. There is no other record which could show that the FIR No. 337/2016 State Vs. Mukesh Goyal PS Narela 15/19 injured had earlier made any complaint to the accused with regard to any absence of the safety measure in the moulding machine or the moulding machine not working properly nor any other worker has been examined by the prosecution to corroborate or substantiate the allegation of the injured that the moulding machine was faulty as it was not safe to work. Even as per the version of the prosecution the accused not present at the time of incident.
19. It becomes further apropos to examine the testimony of the witness PW5 who was the factory inspector at the relevant time. PW5 is the witness who had mechanically inspected the moulding machine in question and therefore a probe in his testimony become indispensable to arrive at any just conclusion as to whether the moulding machine was actually faulty and that it was not installed with the appropriate safety device which was a prerequisite for operating the said machine. This witness also did not find any fault in the machinery at the time of inspection and as per his report there is no mention of any fault in machine or lack of safety equipment. It become further pertinent to mention here that this witness proved his detailed report as Ex.PW5/B and a bare perusal of this report shows that there is no such mention of any fault or lack of security measure . Which also casts a doubt upon assertion of the injured that the moulding machine was not properly working since the day he joined and information regarding the improper functioning was given many times to the accused .The report just says that the injured Sachin had sustained injury because of lack of proper FIR No. 337/2016 State Vs. Mukesh Goyal PS Narela 16/19 instruction, information and necessary training required to be given to the workers before deployment on the said machine by the owner.
20. Here is it pertinent to mention that accused not present at the time of incident . PW2 deposed that the accused had ordered him to work on the machine despite his initial refusal. PW2 stated that no other employee was present at time when accused ordered him to operate the machine . The prosecution has failed to examine any other witness to show that accused used to generally order any employees i.e. helpers and thread cutters to operate the machinery. Even the injured himself admitted that that the said machines used to be operated by machine man. The prosecution has failed to examine any independent witness to show that the accused had asked the injured to work on the said machine on the day of incident. The prosecution failed to prove that the accused had deployed the injured to work on the said machine. The injured was only employed as a thread cutter and not a machine operator thus it cannot be said that by not providing him training to work on the moulding machine that the accused had hazarded a dangerous and wanton act with a knowledge that it may cause injury to him.
21. The injured has also admitted that he was only thread cutter and not machine operator. The injured had never operated the machinery before the day of incident( even though he was working the factory since long time i.e about one year). Which also casts a doubt upon his assertion that accused used to generally order any employees i.e. helpers and thread cutters to operate the machinery.
FIR No. 337/2016 State Vs. Mukesh Goyal PS Narela 17/19 The injured even failed to specify as to who used to work on the two machines even though he was working in the factory for 01 year.
22. All these aspects were to be proved by the prosecution to hold the accused liable for any such rash and negligent act and therefore it may be unfair to harness culpability upon the accused on the basis of any presumption more so, when it is the duty of the prosecution to prove every ingredient of the offence alleged.
23. To fall within the mischief of Sec. 287 IPC, an accused must have done with any machinery, any act so "rashly and negligently" as to endan ger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt and injury to any person. Sec. 287 IPC also makes the "knowingly or negligently" omitting to take such order with any machinery in his possession or under his care as sufficient to guard against any probable danger to human life from such machinery an offence. Thus, in order to make the omission to take such order with any machinery liable for punishment under Sec.287 IPC, it must necessar ily prove that the accused had failed or omitted to take such order or make such arrangement with the machinery "knowingly or negligently". Fur ther, as per Sec.338 IPC as well, the rash and negligent act of the accused must be to such an extent that it should endanger human life or the per sonal safety of others. The criminality lies in running the risk of doing such an act with recklessness or indifference and to the consequences.
FIR No. 337/2016 State Vs. Mukesh Goyal PS Narela 18/19
24. The rash and negligent act of the accused must be the causacau sans and it is not enough to say that it may have been the causa sine qua non "(Bhal Chander Vs State of Maharashtra AIR 1968 SC 1319 & Kishan Chand Vs State of Haryana (1970 33 SCC 904)" similar view was held in "Jacob Methew Vs State of Punjab (2005 6 SCC 1)". CONCLUSION.
25. Therefore, in view of the above discussions, it can be safely, said that the Prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused u/s 287/338 IPC. In these circumstances, it may be safely concluded that the essential ingredients of Section 287/338 IPC are not established against the accused and the case of prosecution is not proved against him beyond all reasonable doubts. Therefore, accused Mukesh Goyal S/o Sh. Jai Bhagwan Goyal is hereby acquitted of the offences under Section u/s 287/338 IPC.
This judgement is announced in the open court and directely dictated in the computed.
This Judgment contains total 19 pages and have been signed by the undersigned.
Announced in open Court on 15th February 2025. Digitally signed by BHUJALI BHUJALI Date:
2025.02.15 15:23:33 +0530 (Bhujali) JMFC01/North/Rohini 15.02.2025 FIR No. 337/2016 State Vs. Mukesh Goyal PS Narela 19/19