Delhi District Court
State vs . Ram Prasad Etc. on 23 October, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEVENDER KUMAR GARG
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (EAST)
KARKARDOOMA : DELHI
State Vs. Ram Prasad etc.
FIR No. : 244/01
PS : Mayur Vihar
U/s : 304A IPC
Unique Case ID No. 02402R0169642003
Date of Institution : 31.10.2002
Date of reserving the order : 23.10.2013
Date of announcement : 23.10.2013
J U D G M E N T
1. Serial No. of the case : 172/12
2. Name of the Complainant : Smt. Renu
3. Date of incident : 06.10.2001
4. Name of accused persons :1. Ram Prasad S/o Vasudev, R/o 23/175
Trilok Puri, Delhi.
2. Raj Kumar S/o Sh. Sundaram, R/o B108,
Vidyut Vihar, Sarai Kale Khan, Delhi.
3.Vijay Singh, S/o Sh. Munsi Singh, R/o
36/3, Gali No. 1, Harijan Basti, Kondli,
Delhi.
5. Offence complained of : Under Section 304A IPC
6. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
7. Final Order : Acquitted
FIR No. 244/01 1/17
8. Date of such Order : 23.10.2013
BRIEF REASONS FOR SUCH DECISION:
1. The case of the prosecution against the accused persons is that a complaint was given by Smt. Renu on 06.10.2001 to police stating that her husband namely Sh. Satish sells toffee etc. on bench in front of his house for his livelihood and beside said bench there is pole of electricity pertaining to DVB and one wire is also attached for supporting the said pole. The motherinlaw of complainant was sitting inside the house and complainant was ironing the clothes then suddenly there was noise outside, then the complainant came out and saw that her husband is trapped between the electric pole and wire supporting the electric pole. He suffered due to the electric current in said wire. The neighbourers took out the husband of complainant from there and sent him to LBS hospital where the complainant came to know that he has expired. As per complainant, the death of husband of complainant was caused due to the negligence of Delhi Vidyut Board as there was electric current in the pole and supporting wire. On the basis of this complaint, FIR no. 244/01, U/S 304A IPC was registered at Police Station Mayur Vihar. The matter was investigated and chargesheet was filed against accused persons u/s 304A IPC.
FIR No. 244/01 2/17
2. The cognizance of offence was taken and accused persons appeared before the Court. On the appearance of accused persons copy of chargesheet was supplied to accused persons free of cost in compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C.
3. On 16.08.2004 notice u/s 304A IPC was framed against accused persons by my Ld. Predecessor which is as follows: "That all of you being employee of DVP were responsible for caring taking that the current could not pass in the electricity poles and its wires of the area of Trilok Puri. However, on 06.10.2001 you all negligently did not take care of your above said duty, as a result of which on that day the current passed into the supporting wires of the electricity poles situated in front of H. No. 16/461, Trilok Puri, and at about 8:30 am Satish @ Titu got electrocuted and thereby you all caused death on the person of Satish @ Titu and thus committed an offence punishable u/s 304A IPC, within the jurisdiction of PS Mayur Vihar.
4. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove its case, prosecution has examined thirteen witnesses i.e., PW1 Smt. Renu, PW2 Sh. Vijay, PW3 Ct. P. Sudhakar Raju, PW4 HC Jai Chand, PW5 Dr. R. N. Dass, PW6 Sh. Ved Praksh, PW7 Smt. Chameli, PW8 Satpal, PW9 HC Ram Kishan, PW10 Santosh Kumar, PW11 Sh. Ravi Tomar, PW12 Dr. L.C. FIR No. 244/01 3/17 Gupta and PW13 SI Nahar Singh. Vide order dated 26.08.11, PE was closed. Thereafter, statements of accused persons were recorded 03.11.11 and matter was adjourned for defence evidence. The accused persons have examined Sh. B.L. Talreja as DW1 and Sh. Dayaram as DW2. Thereafter, DE was closed and matter was adjourned for final arguments.
5. I have heard Ld. APP for the State Sh. N.K. Verma and Sh. Mahesh Patel Ld. Counsel for all the accused persons and perused the material on record carefully. Ld. counsel for accused persons has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Mukesh Kumar Vs. State, 2012 (1) JCC 457. I have also gone through the written submission filed on behalf of accused persons.
6. Ld. APP for the State has contended that prosecution has proved its case and he further contended that there is oral evidence against accused persons regarding the death of deceased that it occurred due to electric current. He further contended that accused persons have not been able to prove their defence that deceased died as he was stealing electricity through illegal means and due to this he got electrocuted. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for accused persons had contended that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and accused persons may be acquitted. He contended that prosecution has failed to substantiate the oral evidence of FIR No. 244/01 4/17 witnesses by medical evidence and no technical or scientific evidence was collected by IO for proving the negligence of accused persons. He has further contended that prosecution has failed to bring on record how the accused persons were negligent and what they omit which as per law they were required to do and no such documentary proof has been filed.
7. Section 304A IPC reads as under: "[304A. Causing death by negligence. Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both]"
8. Perusal of the file would show that prosecution has examined Smt. Renu wife of deceased as PW1. She has deposed that there is an electric pole outside her house and a supporting wire along with it which supports the pole from the ground and her husband used to run small shop outside their home. On 06.10.11, her husband was sitting outside in his shop and she was inside her house. After hearing alarm raised by public persons of "karant lag gaya, karant lag gaya", she came out of her house and saw that hand of her husband was touching the wire and he was stuck to the wire and was unable to get himself free. She further deposed that public persons were trying to free her husband from the wire with the help of stick and other means and FIR No. 244/01 5/17 thereafter she fell down and became unconscious. She got photographs exhibited as Ex. P1 and Ex. P2.
9. In her cross examination, she stated that she has not put any signatures on any of the papers.
10. The prosecution has examined mother of deceased Smt. Chamaili as PW7. She deposed that probably about 6 years back, it was 6 th day of the month, however, she does not remember the exact year and month, at about 8 a.m. she was sitting in a room in her house and her daughter in law was ironing the clothes in the room and at that time her son namely, Satish Kumar went outside to his shop which was situated near the wall of public urinal. After some time, she heard a noise outside her house and her daughter in law immediately went outside followed by her and when PW7 came out, she saw her son was sticking on the wire coming from the pole which was installed in the safety tank of public urinal and which was near the shop and his hands were around the said wire. When PW7 tried to touch him, she received electric shock and was thrown away by shock. The public persons were trying to detach him with help of wooden sticks etc. but in vain and after some time her son fell down on the ground on his own. He was taken to hospital by public persons and later on she came to know that her son had expired in the hospital.
FIR No. 244/01 6/17
11. The above said witnesses are the material witnesses, who, according to the prosecution, have seen the incident by their eyes. PW1 has stated in her cross examination that she had not put any signatures on any paper. PW13 IO SI Nahar Singh had deposed in his examination in chief that he recorded the statement of the complainant Smt. Renu which was attested by him. Perusal of Ex. PW13/A would show that where PW13 has attested, there appears something written on it, which appears like some signatures but nowhere it is clear whether it is signature or the said statement is unsigned. No reason has been mentioned why the said statement was not signed by complainant, in case when she stated in her cross examination that she did not put any signatures on said statement and neither she stated in her chief in examination regarding the complaint made to the police. There is no thumb impression on the above said complaint which belongs to the complainant.
12. PW7 Smt. Chamaili has been cross examined on 19.07.08 and 06.07.10. On 06.07.10, she was recalled for further cross examination after getting permission on application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. Some suggestions regarding the theft of electricity and hanging of wires from the pole by neighbours for stealing the electricity were put to the witness to which she denied.
13. In the cross examination of 06.07.10 she deposed that she told the police that FIR No. 244/01 7/17 when she saw her son, his hands were around the electric wire or when she tried to touch him, she also received electric shocks and she was thrown away by the shock or the efforts of public persons in removing her son from the wire went in vain or that after some time her son fell down on the ground of his own. Above said para was confronted with statement of PW7 u/s 161 Cr.P.C. where it was not so recorded.
14. She further deposed in cross examination that she cannot say how many wires were coming from the pole. She also admitted that there was no electric connection in the shop of her son. However, she denied the suggestion that her son had taken illegal connection from the pole and using the electricity. She also deposed that none of senior officer of the electricity department came at the spot for inspection and no photographs of spot were taken in her presence. She further deposed that she did not take any treatment from the hospital with respect to electric shock received by her and was treated by public persons manually by pressing her
15. The prosecution has examined Sh. Vijay as PW2 who has deposed that he does not know anything about this case. He has not supported the case of the prosecution. He only stated that he came to know that deceased has died due to electrocution. The above said witness was cross examined by Ld. APP on the ground that he was resiling from his previous statement. FIR No. 244/01 8/17 Suggestions were put to the witness, putting the case of prosecution but he denied those suggestions and nothing incriminating elicited from his mouth. When he was cross examined by Ld. counsel for accused persons, then he stated that it is correct that he was not present at the spot on the date and time of the incident. He further stated that he has not given any statement to the police.
16. The prosecution has examined Sh. Santosh Kumar as PW10 who has got exhibit two photographs as Ex. P1 and P2 and its negatives as P3(colly.). He admits in his cross examination that photographs are not of entire pole. He further stated that he has not prepared any bill in respect of photographs and does not remember the time when he reached at the spot.
17. The prosecution has examined Sh. Ravi Tomar, Assitant Vice President, O & M, SouthEast, BSES as PW11, he has deposed that in the month of October 2001, he was posted as Assistant Engineer at DVB in Zone no. 2034 and 16 block, Trilok Puri which was in his jurisdiction and he used to monitor the electricity supply in the area. He further deposed that accused Vijay Singh was JE and accused Ram Prasad and Ram Kumar were the Line Staff at that time and were working under his supervision. On 06.10.2001, he was informed regarding the incident of electrocution in the area and all the three accused persons went to the spot and got disconnected the electricity supply FIR No. 244/01 9/17 of that area.
18. The above said witness was cross examined and in his cross examination he admitted that at the time of inspection by him, both the egg insulator were intact and there was no leakage of current from both insulators and the insulators were at the height of about 45 feet. He further deposed that pole in question was properly maintained and also admitted that said area is electricity theft prone area and illegal wires were found hanging and bundled from LV mains. He further stated that he did not find negligence of accused persons and further admitted that electrical inspection of Delhi Govt. also inspected the site and found no fault of accused persons. In his re examination he admitted that he used to take action in respect of electricity theft and he visited the area 15 days prior to the date of incident and illegal wires were found hanging at that time from the pole.
19. Prosecution has examined Dr. L.C. Gupta as PW12 who conducted postmortem on the body of deceased on inquest papers and stated that cause of death in this case was due to shock resulting from contact with live electrical wire and regarding time of death he stated that it occurred about 24 hours prior to postmortem examination. He further stated that there was typical live electric wire burned liaison on left time temple, left side angel of mouth, left side middle of abdomen, right elbow, mid 1/3 of abdomen, left side FIR No. 244/01 10/17 of chest and right top shoulder. PW12 got the postmortem report exhibited as Ex.PW12/A. Prosecution has examined Dr. R.N. Dass, CMO of LBS hospital as PW5 before whom deceased was brought for medical examination and he found no pulse, BP, respiration in him and his pupils were fixed and dilated. He further deposed that deceased was declared brought dead in the hospital and he got MLC exhibited as Ex.PW5/A.
20. The prosecution has examined investigation officer SI Nahar Singh as PW13 who has deposed that on 06.10.2001, he was posted at PS Mayur Vihar and on receipt of DD no.11A, he came to know about deceased namely Satish who was taken to LBS hospital and in the meanwhile he received information vide DD no. 12A that injured Satish has expired. Thereafter, he reached at LBS hospital and collected MLC of Satish and record statement of Smt. Renu Ex.PW13/A, prepared rukka Ex.PW13/B and sent Ct. Jai Chand to PS for registration of FIR. He prepared site plan Ex.PW13/C at the instance of complainant and called photographer Santosh for taking photographs of the spot. The dead body was got identified by the relatives of deceased and postmortem was conducted on 07.10.2001.
21. He further deposed that an application was sent to Delhi Vidyut Board office to ascertain the liability of negligence of officials concerned and same was informed to him that all the three accused persons were responsible for the FIR No. 244/01 11/17 said act. On 13.07.02, all the three accused persons were arrested and personally searched and were released on police bail. IO recorded the statement of witnesses.
22. PW13 was cross examined by Ld. counsel for accused persons in which he admitted that there is no application dt. 18.06.01 and reply on record which pertains to ascertain the liability and negligence of the officials in the present case. He also stated that he had written application to Electrical Inspector of Delhi Govt. to inspect the site for ascertaining the reason of incident but he admitted that no such application is on record. He further admitted that he had not collected the report from said Electrical Inspector. He further stated in his cross examination that there were two wires to give support to the pole. He further stated that he had not called any Electrical inspector or any DVB officers to check whether both wires contained electrical current or not. He admitted that he had not seized the wire in which allegedly there was current. He also admitted that there was no electrical meter inside the said shop of deceased and Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 i.e. photographs do not contain the photo of pole as well as both wires and admitted that both photographs on the file are of similar nature.
23. In his cross examination, he stated that he had collected sanction u/s 197 Cr.P.C. from Incharge of accused persons for their prosecution, however, FIR No. 244/01 12/17 perusal of the file would show that there is no such sanction on record and neither any witness has been called who may have deposed regarding such sanction. Even such witness has not been cited in list of witness in charge sheet. He further admitted in his cross examination that he had not collected any scientific evidence that deceased died due to electric current from electric pole.
24. Further, accused has examined Sh. B.L. Talreja, Retired Assistant Electrical Inspector from Govt. of NCT of Delhi as DW1. DW1 has deposed that on receiving information from Sh. Ravi Tomar, AE, he visited the spot on 08.10.01 and at the time of inspection he tested the stay wire which was connected to the pole of DVB overhead mains near H. No. 16/461, Trilok Puri. He further deposed that at the time of inspection there was no leakage in the said stay wire and egg insulators were provided in the stay wire to break the continuity of stay wire so that the current should not travel to the ground and there were proper safety measures at the spot. He further deposed that he went to police station and contacted the IO and asked him to produce the wire which was seized from spot and IO told him that he would produce the same before the court. He further deposed that said wire was used by the deceased to take illegal supply from said electric pole. He also prepared report of inspection on 08.10.01 and same has been got exhibited as Ex.DW1/1.
FIR No. 244/01 13/17
25. In his cross examination he deposed that IO had not requested him regarding report made by him on 08.10.01 and in his volunteered deposition he said that they give the report when request for the same is made. He further deposed that he had not seen the deceased neither he had personal knowledge of the same as he had visited the spot after two days. Accused has also examined Sh. Dayal Ram, Electrical Overseer from Labour Office of Govt. of NCT as DW2, who had brought the file and deposed that original file was misplaced somewhere and on the direction of Labour Commissioner, file was reconstructed and he got the order for reconstruction of file exhibited as Ex.DW2/1.
26. Now the question arises whether prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt?
27. Perusal of deposition of PW1 who is wife of deceased would show that she has stated in his chief examination that she saw that hand of her husband was touching the wire and he was stuck to the wire and was unable to free himself. PW7 Smt. Chameli i.e. mother of deceased has also deposed that she saw her son was sticking on the wire coming from the pole which was installed in safety tank of public urinal and which was near the shop and his hands were around the said wire. However, perusal of deposition of PW5 Dr. FIR No. 244/01 14/17 R.N. Dass before whom deceased was first taken, has not mentioned any injury in the hands of deceased and neither in the postmortem report conducted by PW12 Dr. L.C. Gupta. Perusal of the postmortem report would show that there is no mention of such injury in the hands of deceased. PW1 had admitted in her cross examination that she did not put signature on the complaint. There is no explanation on record why she did not put her signature on the complaint which was allegedly given by her to the police. Some new facts were also mentioned by PW7 in her statement which was confronted to her and no proper explanation was given by her why same were not told to the police and hence appears to be after thought. She had also deposed that she also felt shock of electric current but admittedly she did not get her examined medically. The prosecution had also made Sh. Vijay as eye witness but he did not support the case of the prosecution and rather admitted that he was not present at the spot on the date and time of incident. PW10 Santosh Kumar admitted that photographs in question are not of entire pole. If the same could have been photographed properly, then it would have been a good evidence for analysing the factual position but it has not been done so.
28. Further, PW11 Sh. Ravi Tomar who was posted as Assistance Engineer admitted in his cross examination that said area is electricity theft prone area and stated that he did not find negligence of accused persons. In his re examination he admitted that he visited the area 15 days prior to date of FIR No. 244/01 15/17 incident and illegal wires were found at that time from the pole. The accused persons had examined Sh. B.L. Talreja, Retired Assistant Electrical Inspector as DW1 who had stated that there was no leakage in the stay wire and there were proper safety measures at the spot. The prosecution has also not placed on record the sanction required u/s 197 of Cr.P.C. for prosecuting the accused officials for acts done by them in discharge of their official duties. Nothing on record has been placed for showing that no such sanction was required taking into consideration the facts of the present case. The prosecution has not been able to prove negligence by technical or scientific means.
29. PW13 SI Nahar Singh admitted that no application dt. 18.06.01 which pertains to ascertaining the liability and negligence of officials in present case is on record, he also admitted that photographs do not contain the photo of pole as well as both wires and admitted that both photographs are of similar nature.
30. In a case titled in AIR 1956 Cr. L.J. 1234, it was held that, "In the event of any doubt as to the guilt of accused, the benefit will go to the accused".
In such cases, in view of Saifulla Vs. State reported in 1998 (1) CCC 497 (Delhi) and Abdul Gaffar Vs. State reported in 1996 JCC 497 (Delhi) benefit of doubt is to be FIR No. 244/01 16/17 given to the accused.
31. For the forgoing reasons, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against all accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Benefit of doubt is given to all accused persons. Hence, all three accused persons are acquitted for the offence punishable U/s 304A IPC. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court (DEVENDER KUMAR GARG)
on 23.10.2013 MM (EAST)/KKD/Delhi
(This judgment consists seventeen pages)
FIR No. 244/01 17/17