Delhi District Court
State vs . Hifzul Rehman on 17 September, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. CHANDER MOHAN
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE04/CENTRAL: DELHI
STATE VS. HIFZUL REHMAN
FIR No. 48/2018
CASE NO. 294757/2016
P.S. : SARAI ROHILLA
U/s 287/338 IPC
Date of institution of case : 26.08.2008
Date on which case reserved for judgment : 11.09.2018
Date of judgment : 17.09.2018
JUDGMENT :
a) Date of offence : 21.01.2008
b) Offence complained of : U/s 287/338 IPC
c) Name of complainant : Bhagat Kumar
d) Name of accused, : Hifzul Rehman
his parentage : S/o Sh. Abdul Rehman
local & permanent residence R/o Plot No. 360, Phase
1, Shahzada Bagh,
Inderlok, Delhi.
e) Plea of accused persons : Pleaded not guilty
f) Final order : Convicted.
FIR No. 48/20018 State Vs. Hifjul Rehman Pages 1 of 8
BRIEF FACTS OF CASE:
1. Accused has been charged with negligently omitting to take such order with the Injection Moulding machine in his factory as is sufficient to guard any probable danger to human life and due to this grievous injury was caused to complainant Bhagat Kumar.
2. On the basis of material filed along with the chargesheet, charge u/s 287/338 was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined witnesses.
4. Complainant stepped into the witness box as PW2 and narrated the entire incident. He deposed that on 21.02.2018, he was working in factory on Injection Moulding Machine situated at plot no. 360, Shahzada Bagh, Inderlok, Delhi. He was working in the factory in night and working overtime. The machine was not working properly for last one week from the date of the incident and regarding the same, he had informed the owner of the factory Hifjul Rehman (he was correctly identified by the witness during his examination recorded on 10.08.2010). While working, at about 02:45 am, machine gave jerk and his left hand was crushed. When he cried for help, another worker Bhola came and stopped the machine and pulled out his hand. He also called the accused FIR No. 48/20018 State Vs. Hifjul Rehman Pages 2 of 8 and thereafter he was taken to Hindu Rao Hospital. As per the complainant, the incident occurred due to negligence of the accused as he did not rectify/correct the machine despite asking by him. Police recorded his statement Ex.PW2/A.
5. Anand @ Bhola was examined as PW9 by the prosecution. He, by and large, corroborated statement of the complainant. He deposed that on 21.02.2008, he was employed in the factory of the accused. At about 02:45 pm, Bhagat Maan was working with him in the factory on a different machine. Suddenly, he heard the noise of Bhagat Kumar. He saw that left of Bhagat Kumar struck inside the machine on which he was working. He took out of the hand of Bhagat Kumar on the machine and informed the accused. Bhagat Kumar was admitted into Hindu Rao Hospital. He was working overtime in the factory due to heavy workload. On next day i.e. 22.02.2008, police came to the factory and prepared site plan Ex.PW7/C at his instance. Police also arrested the accused vide memo Ex.PW5/A. He pointed the offending machine to the police and police prepared pointing out memo Ex.PW7/A, bearing his signature at point B. Police sealed the machine and took the photographs of the machine. During his examination, he was shown the photographs of the machine mark A, B and C which he correctly identified.
6. Inspector of factories, Sh. S.P. Rana from labour department was examined as PW8. He deposed that he inspected the factory M/s Taj Industries situated at 360, Shahzada Bagh, Delhi on 19.03.2008 in relation to the accident that occurred on 20.02.2008. On inspection, he FIR No. 48/20018 State Vs. Hifjul Rehman Pages 3 of 8 found that machine was not provided with safety glass door alongwith interlocking arrangements to avoid such accident. His detailed report is Ex.PW8/A.
7. PW2, HC Rattan Singh received the rukka and on the basis of the same, registered the present FIR Ex.PW3/A, Sh. K.V. Singh record clerk from Hindu Rao Hospital was examined as PW4. He proved the MLC no. 1216/2008 of injured Bhagat Kumar prepared by Dr. Mukti Seth. Further, he was again examined as PW4/A and he proved medicolegal injury sheet no. 1216/2008 of injured Bhagat Kumar Ex.PW4A/A prepared by Dr. Rajiv Gupta. HC Mahesh Chand alongwith ASI Azad Singh went to Hindu Rao Hospital after receiving DD no. 5 and found Bhagat Singh admitted with injuries. He deposed that ASI Azad Singh recorded the statement of Bhagat Kumar in his presence and prepared the rukka and handed over to him for registration of FIR. On 22.02.2008, he was joined by the IO in the investigation. He accompanied the IO to the plot where the factory was situated. In the factory, they met Anand @ Bhola and at his instance prepared the site plan. In the meantime, factory owner Hifjul Rehman also came there. Bhola apprised them that Hifjul Rehman was the owner. IO arrested him and also sealed the offending machine with seal ASK and took its photographs. PW6 Rana Pratap Singh recorded the information regarding the incident as DD no. 5 (Ex.PW6/A) and handed over the same to ASI Azad and Ct. Mahesh Chand for necessary action. PW7 SI Azad Singh was the IO in the present case. He described in his testimony all the steps taken by him for the purpose of FIR No. 48/20018 State Vs. Hifjul Rehman Pages 4 of 8 investigation, including recording of the statement of witnesses, after registration of FIR. He further deposed that during the course of investigation, he came to know that the factory licence stands in the name of father of the accused. On interrogation of father of the accused, he apprised him that factory being run by his son i.e accused due to his old age. After completion of investigation, he filed the chargesheet.
8. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, statements of accused u/s 313 r/w 281 Cr.P.C was recorded by this court on 17.07.2018. After understanding the incriminating circumstances, he denied running/incharge/responsible for all the works of the factory. He further denied an incident taking place in his presence. He also denied of his knowledge of any inspection taking place of the factory by Sh. S.P. Rana from labour department. In nutshell, his plea was of a total denial.
9. No defence evidence was led by the accused.
10. I have heard, Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused.
11. PW1 Abdul Rehman has proved in his testimony that although he is the owner of M/s Taj Industries but the factory was being by his son Sh. Hifjul Rehman who was responsible for all the work, like taking care of machine, paying salary to labourers etc and factory was possession of his son Hifjul Rehman. This fact has not been disputed by counsel for the accused by giving any suggestions to the contrary or even during the FIR No. 48/20018 State Vs. Hifjul Rehman Pages 5 of 8 course of arguments. Infact, accused has nowhere disputed that he was not incharge of the above factory/workplace/industry. It was the primary responsibility of accused to take care of the machines and safety of the workers. It is also established that the hand of PW2 Bhagat Kumar got crushed while he was working in the factory of the accused on Injection Moulding machine. PW2 Bhagat Kumar has categorically deposed this fact and same has also been corroborated by coworker Sh. Anand who stepped into the witness box as PW9. PW2 has also categorically deposed that the incident occurred due to the negligence of the owner (accused present in the court) as he had not rectified/corrected the machine despite asking by him. In his crossexamination also he has stated that he had made the complainant to the accused verbally regarding some defect. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the accused had taken the plea (as per suggestions put to PW2 in his cross examination) that the accident occurred due to the fact that due to working in day shift and night shift, he fell sleepy and this caused the accident i.e the negligence has been attributed to the complainant/injured. This court is of the opinion that there is only a vague averment that the machine was defective but the prosecution in its entire evidence has failed to point out what the defect was or the nature of the defect or which part of the machine was defective and how that defect contributed to the accident. The report of Inspector of factory Ex.PW8/A also do not mention any such defect. Hence, this court is of the opinion that prosecution has failed to establish that hand of the complainant got crushed due to any defect in the machine.
FIR No. 48/20018 State Vs. Hifjul Rehman Pages 6 of 8
12. Moving further, it has come in the evidence of PW8, Inspector of factor Sh. S.P. Rana, Labour Department that on 19.03.2008, when the machine was inspected in relation to the accident, it was found that the machine was not provided with safety glass door alongwith interlocking arrangements to avoid such accident. Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that prosecution has failed to file any documents pertaining to requirement of any such safety glass door alongwith interlocking arrangements in the injection moulding machine or even any safety guidelines i.e onus was upon the prosecution to prove that such safety glass door alongwith interlocking arrangements was a requirement under law. This court is not an agreement with this contention of ld. Counsel for the accused. PW8 S.P. Rana Inspector of factory in his report Ex.PW8/A clearly mentioned the above deficiency i.e accident took place as the machine had not been provided with safety glass door alongwith interlocking arrangements. This court is of the opinion that there is no further requirement for any guidelines, manual etc when an expert and an engineer and above all an independent person i.e inspector of factory has pointed towards the above deficiency as the cause of the accident. He has no motive to depose falsely as he has no enmity with the accused and also no interest for the prosecution to succeed. Hence, his testimony carries considerable weightage and can be made the sole basis for the conviction of the accused. After the prosecution proved that the safety door alongwith interlocking system was wanting then onus was upon the accused to prove that there was no such requirement. As per the evidence of PW4 and MLC Ex.PW4/A there is right hand injury and amputation of FIR No. 48/20018 State Vs. Hifjul Rehman Pages 7 of 8 palm and fingers. Hence, injury stands clearly established.
13. In view of the above discussion, this court is of the opinion that prosecution has established that the accused knowingly or negligently omitted to provide the Injection Moulding machine which crushed the hand of the complainant with safety glass door alongwith interlocking arrangements to avoid the accident. Further, prosecution has also clearly established that grievous hurt was caused to PW2 Bhagat Kumar by this omission and negligence of the accused. Accordingly, accused Hifjul Rehman stands convicted u/s 287 and Section 338 IPC.
14. Let the injured PW2 Bhagat Kumar be summoned for hearing on the point of sentence/compensation for 15.10.2018.
Digitally signed by CHANDER CHANDER MOHAN
MOHAN Date: 2018.09.20
16:36:32 +0530
PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT (CHANDER MOHAN)
TODAY ON 17rd SEPTEMBER, 2018 MM04 (CENTRAL),
DELHI
FIR No. 48/20018 State Vs. Hifjul Rehman Pages 8 of 8