Delhi District Court
State vs . Mianwali Nagar 1/7 on 25 November, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-04, WEST, TIS HAZARI COURT
State v. Akash Juneja
FIR No. 432/2015
PS Mianwali Nagar
U/s 287/304-A IPC
JUDGMENT
Sr. No. of the case : 86/2/2016
New case No. : 60160/2016
Date of Institution : 30.03.2016
Date of Commission of Offence : 21.06.2015
Name of the complainant : ASI Mahender Prakash
Name & address of the accused : Akash Juneja
S/o Sh. Rakesh Juneja
R/o C-22, Bali Nagar
near Rajouri Garden,
New Delhi.
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Acquitted
Date on which reserved for judgment : 25.11.2016
Date of announcing of judgment : 25.11.2016
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION
ALLEGATIONS
1. Vide this judgment this court shall dispose of the present case under Section 287/304-A IPC.
2. The story of the prosecution is that accused Akash Juneja was having a factory at SFS-18, DSIDC, Rohtak Road, Nangloi, Delhi. The deceased Dhiru FIR No. 432/2015 u/s. 287/304-A IPC State Vs. Mianwali Nagar 1/7 was working as a labour in his factory. On 21.06.2015 the accused Akash Juneja directed the deceased Dhiru to work on Moulding Machine despite resistant on the part of the deceased as he was not skilled to operate that machine. Further, the machine was not functioning properly, despite requests being made by workers accused did not get the machine repaired. The accused was insisting the deceased to work on the machine resulting into incident in question causing death of the deceased.
3. After investigation, charge-sheet under section 173 Cr.P.C was filed. The accused was summoned to face trial and he was supplied the copy of charge sheet as per section 207 Cr.P.C.
4. On the basis of the charge-sheet, a notice for the offence punishable under section 287/304-A IPC was framed against accused Akash Juneja to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. In order to prove the above said allegations, prosecution has cited 15 witnesses of which PW Divesh Kumar Mandal and Golu are the only eye witnesses of the incident. Remaining witnesses are formal or police witnesses and none of them is the witness of incident. Thus, the relevant witnesses to prove the fact that the incident in question caused due to the negligence on the part of accused or if the victim/deceased was working on the machine in question at the time when deceased got injured are PW Divesh Kumar Mandal and Golu.
6. Prosecution has examined only three witnesses in support of its case i.e Sh.
Golu, HC Rajesh Kumar and Sh. Divesh Mandal.
7. PW1 Sh. Golu stated that he is working at SFS-18, DSIDC, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi, as helper. It is stated by him that he does not remember the FIR No. 432/2015 u/s. 287/304-A IPC State Vs. Mianwali Nagar 2/7 exact date of occurrence, however, it took place in the year 2015. It is stated that on the date of incident, he along with his co-workers namely Divesh and Dhiru were sleeping at the side of machine in factory. On next day, when he woke up at about 05.30 AM he saw that his co-worker namely Dhiru was lying in injured condition at the right side of machine. It is stated that thereafter he made a call at 100 number and after 30 minutes PCR van came at the spot. It is stated that police officials of PCR van had taken victim Dhiru to SGM Hospital and after sometime, he also went to SGM Hospital. It is stated that the information of incident was also communicated by him to the owner of the factory/accused namely Akash Juneja. It is stated that the police officials did not enquire from him about the incident. It is stated by him that he cannot tell how the said accident took place. It is further stated by him that his statement was not recorded by the IO. In his cross-examination by Ld. APP, he denied the entire prosecution story. In his cross-examination done on behalf of accused, he accepted that the machine in question generally used for work from 10:00 AM to 08:00 PM only.
8. PW2 HC Rajesh Kumar was the MHC(M) on 21.06.2015, who exhibited on record the relevant entry in register no.19 at serial no.1939 as Ex.PW2/A vide which one plastic container containing hair of victim Dhiru and blood sample of the victim sealed with the seal of 'MP' was deposited in the Malkhana.
9. PW3 Sh. Divesh Mandal stated that in the year of 2015 he was working in a factory at Udyog Nagar as helper. It is stated that on the date of incident, he was sleeping in the factory at Udyog Nagar. It is stated that two other persons namely Dhiru (deceased) and Golu were also sleeping there. It is stated that at around 06.00 AM he woke up at the instance of Golu and saw that deceased Dhiru was FIR No. 432/2015 u/s. 287/304-A IPC State Vs. Mianwali Nagar 3/7 lying in an unconscious condition nearby the machine and blood was oozing out of the body parts of the deceased. It is stated that on seeing this incident, he came outside the factory and communicated the incident to a tea vendor situated outside the factory. It is stated that at the instance of tea vendor, he made a call at 100 number as well as at 102. Immediately thereafter ambulance as well as PCR van reached at the spot. It is stated that with the help of Golu and the owner of tea stall the deceased Dhiru was shifted in ambulance and he was removed to the hospital while he remained in the factory at the instance of PCR Van officials. After sometime, police officials came at factory and he alongwith police officials went to police station Mianwali Nagar and police officials inquired from him about the incident. After inquiry from him police officials again took him to the factory for the inspection of the factory where the incident occurred. It is stated that the site plan Ex. PW3/A was prepared and the machine was sealed by the police officials. In his cross-examination by Ld. APP, he denied the entire prosecution story. It is stated by him that he had not seen the incident.
10. During trial accused admitted the preparation of mechanical inspection report (Ex.X-1) as per which the interlocking system of the machine was found not functioning. However, accused denied contents of the inspection report. It is also stated by him that incident had not taken place due to working on the machine.
11. PW1 Sh. Golu and PW3 Sh. Divesh Mandal are the only eye witnesses of the incident in the present case, however, they flatly denied the prosecution story. Both of them have denied if victim was working on the machine in question at the time when he got injured. Since, both the eye witnesses have turned hostile and denied the prosecution story, carrying on with further prosecution evidence and FIR No. 432/2015 u/s. 287/304-A IPC State Vs. Mianwali Nagar 4/7 recording testimonies of formal witnesses would have become only a futile exercise, and wastage of judicial time, resources and energy. The prosecution can never successfully prove that the present case was a result of an act/negligence on the part of the accused. The testimony of all the remaining witnesses together is insufficient to prove the allegations against the accused qua offences U/s 287/304-A IPC. It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled "Satish Mehra vs. Delhi Administration & Anrs". reported as 1996 JCC 507, that "In case where there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction, the valuable time of the court should not be wasted for holding a trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on a future date". Hence vide a separate order, PE was closed.
12. In "P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka" AIR 2002 SUPREME COURT 1856 the Honorable Supreme Court while commenting upon the right to speedy justice observed:
22. Is it at all necessary to have limitation bars terminating trials and proceedings? Is there no effective mechanism available for achieving the same end? The Criminal Procedure Code, as it stands, incorporates a few provisions to which resort can be had for protecting the interest of the accused and saving him from unreasonable prolixity or laxity at the trial amounting to oppression.
Section 258, in Chapter XX of Cr.P.C., on Trial Summons - cases, empowers the Magistrate trying summons cases instituted otherwise than upon complaint, for reasons to be recorded by him, to stop the proceedings at any stage without pronouncing any judgment and where such stoppage of proceedings is made after the evidence of the principal witnesses has been recorded, to pronounce a judgment of acquittal, and in any other case, release the accused, having effect of discharge. This provision is almost never used by the Courts.
13. It has been held that the Courts can take care of undue or inordinate delays in criminal matters or proceedings if they remain pending for too long and can put FIR No. 432/2015 u/s. 287/304-A IPC State Vs. Mianwali Nagar 5/7 an end to them by making appropriate orders, to stop proceedings when they are found to be oppressive and unwarranted.
14. In view of the above discussion and in the light of the above cited judgment, the Court is of the view that it needs to exercise its power under section 258 Cr.P.C qua offences u/s 287/304-A IPC to make the ends of justice meet, and stop the proceedings against the accused. Recording of statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C is also dispensed with.
Final Order
15. The essential ingredients to constitute an offence punishable under Section 287 Indian Penal Code are that there must be rashness and negligence. For an offence under Section 304-A, the act of accused must be rash and negligent, which should be responsible for the death which does not amount to culpable homicide.
16. The prosecution in the present case has failed to prove that the incident in question had taken place when the deceased was working on the faulty machine in question. Further, it has also not been proved that despite knowing about the faulty condition of the machine accused deliberately failed to get the same repaired. Thus, it has not been proved that accused did any act so rash or negligent or knowingly or negligently omits to take such order with the machinery as is sufficient to guard against any probable danger to human life from such machinery. In the light of the aforesaid discussion and cited judgments, the court while protecting the right of the accused to have speedy justice invokes the power conferred upon it under s.258 of Cr.P.C to stop the proceedings against accused Akash Juneja qua offences u/s 287/304-A IPC and hereby releases the accused Akash Juneja under sections 287/304-A IPC, which shall have the effect FIR No. 432/2015 u/s. 287/304-A IPC State Vs. Mianwali Nagar 6/7 of acquittal as the material witnesses i.e. Sh. Golu and Sh. Divesh Kumar Mandal have been examined.
17. Accused has furnished fresh bail/surety bond in terms of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. The same has been accepted. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR) COURT ON 25.11.2016 MM-04 (WEST)/DELHI
Containing 7 pages all signed by the presiding officer.
(GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR) MM-04 (WEST)/DELHI FIR No. 432/2015 u/s. 287/304-A IPC State Vs. Mianwali Nagar 7/7