Delhi District Court
State vs Prashant Singh on 12 November, 2025
IN THE COURT OF RISHABH KAPOOR, JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS -05 SOUTH WEST DISTRICT,
DWARKA COURTS, DELHI
RISHABH
KAPOOR
Digitally signed by
RISHABH KAPOOR
State Vs. : Prashant Singh
Date: 2025.11.12
14:56:05 +0530
FIR No : 111/2012
U/s : 304A IPC
P.S. : Vikas Puri
JUDGMENT:
1. Criminal Case No. : 9668/19 2. Date of commission of offence : 29.04.2012 3. Date of institution of the case : 24.11.2012 4. Name of the complainant : State
5. Name and parentage of accused : Prashant Singh s/o Sh.
Ravinder Singh
6. Offense complained or proved : U/s 304A IPC
7. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
8. Date on which order was reserved : 08.10.2025
9. Final order : Acquitted
10. Date of final order : 12.11.2025
1. The accused Prashant Singh is facing trial for offence u/s 304A IPC. The genesis of the prosecution story is that on 29.04.2012 pursuant to receipt of information vide DD No.16A PS Vikas Puri, the team of police reached the spot i.e. place near Panchwati Apartments, DAV School Vikas Puri Delhi where it transpired that one garbage dump truck of MCD State Vs : Prashant Singh FIR No : 111/2012 U/s: 304A IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 1 bearing no. DL-1GB-5788 was stationed under the high tension electric wire and the garbage placed on it was burnt. The tyres of said truck were also lying busted and it further transpired that the injured persons were taken to DDU Hospital for their treatment. Thereafter, SI Shyoram Yadav left for DDU Hospital, leaving HC Bhomraj at the spot. At DDU Hospital, it transpired to SI Shyoram Yadav that victim Manish was referred to Safdarjung Hospital for treatment /management of burn injuries suffered by him. The afore--named victim could not give his statement and on the basis of facts and circumstances of the case, the criminal was set into motion vide registration of FIR for offence u/s 337 IPC. During the course of investigation, the site plan was prepared and the aforesaid dump truck and its documents were seized. The injured victim Manish unfortunately passed away while he was under treatment at Safdarjung Hospital on 01.05.2012 and subsequently, the post- mortem of his dead body was conducted. The documents were collected from MCD and M/s Metro Waste handling Pvt. Ltd Company and it revealed that the accused Prashant Singh being the supervisor of M/s Metro Waste Handling Pvt. Ltd Company, directed driver of truck no. DL-1GB-5788 namely, Raju to park the truck at the spot despite being told that there were overhead electric wires which were hanging dangerously downwards and after the said truck was parked the accused being supervisor also directed deceased victim Manish to get atop of truck for covering the garbage, due to which he came in contact with the high tension electric wires and unfortunately succumbed to the injuries. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet for offence u/s 304A IPC was submitted for trial of accused.
State Vs : Prashant Singh FIR No : 111/2012 U/s: 304A IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 2
2. Thereafter, the cognizance of the offence was taken by the Ld. Predecessor Court and on the basis of material available on record, notice of accusation for offence u/s 304A IPC was framed and served upon accused Prashant Singh. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to establish guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined nine witnesses in all.
4. The accused also admitted certain formal documents in the nature of the DD no. 23, factum of registration of FIR, MLC, post-mortem report, death report and death summary of victim Manish along with DD no.35 B U/s 294 Cr.PC and pursuant thereto, the relevant witnesses pertaining to such records were dropped from the list of witnesses.
5. Thereafter, the statement of accused u/s Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein all the incriminating circumstances were put to accused and accused controverted and denied the allegations leveled against him. The accused did not lead evidence in his defense.
6. Ld. Addl. PP for State has contended that the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts with the help of coherent testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and therefore, the accused deserves to be convicted for the alleged offence.
7. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for accused has contended that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case at the instance of the police. It has also been argued that the State Vs : Prashant Singh FIR No : 111/2012 U/s: 304A IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 3 testimonies of the prosecution witnesses have not established either the complicity of the accused in the alleged offence nor same has established that the alleged incident took place due to any rash or negligent act on the part of accused. It has also been argued that the accused was working as a temporary worker on daily wages with the M/s Metro Waste Handling Pvt. Ltd. and he was not the supervisor in the said company as on the date of incident. It has also been argued that in fact one Jaspal Singh was the supervisor in the aforesaid company but the police in connivance with the MCD and said company has falsely implicated accused instead of supervisor Jaspal Singh. It has also been argued that even no employment related documents including the charter of duties of accused were collected by the IO during investigation so as to establish that he was acting in capacity of supervisor in the company, in order to impute culpability upon him for the alleged offence. It has been contended that there exist serious doubts in the prosecution story and accused is liable to be acquitted for the alleged offence.
8. I have heard the rival contentions advanced by the prose- cution and defense and have also gone through the case record carefully.
9. Prior to delving into the merits of the contentions ad- vanced on behalf of parties, let us briefly discuss the testi- monies of the material prosecution witnesses.
(i). PW-1 Vikas is cited as one of the eye-witness to the alleged incident. He deposed that he was working as JCB driver in year 2012 and on the date of incident, he had loaded one dumper with garbage of Metro in front of Panchwati Apartments Outer State Vs : Prashant Singh FIR No : 111/2012 U/s: 304A IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 4 Ring Road, Vikas Puri, Delhi and after such loading, he went to take a cup of tea on the other side of road. Thereafter, he saw some public persons running towards the dumper and when he went there, he found that garbage in dumper was burning and a helper was lying on ground. He further deposed that someone called police and fire brigade reached at the spot. Thereafter, he was encountered with the questions in the nature of cross examination by Ld. APP for State and he admitted that on 29.04.2012 he was driving JCB Machine in Metro Waste Handling Pvt. Ltd. Company and on that day around 11:30 AM, he had taken said JCB near Panchawati Apartments to load garbage in a truck. He could not state who was driving truck no.
DL-14-GB-5788, however, it was the same vehicle in which the garbage was loaded. He could not state the name of driver and helper in the said truck but stated that name of supervisor was Prashant. He denied that Raju informed Prashant that due to hot weather, the overhead electricity wires were lowered down and that he will not park the truck there but Prashant insisted him to park the truck there only. He denied that Raju informed Prashant that an accident might take place or that due to insistence of Prashant Raju parked truck there or that helper Manish under the instructions of Prashant went atop on the truck to cover garbage and got electrocuted by coming in contact with live electricity wires. He denied that incident took place due to rash or negligent act of accused Prashant. He identified accused Prashant as supervisor of the company. He denied of having made statement Ex. PW 1/A before the police. During his cross-examination, he denied that Jaspal Singh was authorized person/supervisor of Metro Waste Handling Pvt. Ltd Company.
(ii). PW-2 Rajender Kumar is the uncle of deceased Manish. He State Vs : Prashant Singh FIR No : 111/2012 U/s: 304A IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 5 deposed about the identification of dead body of Manish by him at Safdarjung Hospital and also qua handing over the same to him after its post-mortem. Through his testimony, the dead body identification memo was exhibited as Ex. PW 2/A, dead body handing over memo as Ex. PW 2/B and his statement as Ex. PW 2/C.
(iii). PW-3 HC Bhomraj deposed that on 29.04.2012, he reached the spot near Panchwati Apartments Nala Road Vikas Puri and there he found that truck no. DL-1GB-5788 was stationed. He stated that both the front tyres of the truck were damaged and SI Shyoram left him to the spot and went to DDU Hospital. During his cross-examination, he stated that he remained at the spot for about 2- 2 ½ hours.
(iv). PW-4 SI Johnson deposed that in October 2012, the case file was marked to him for remaining investigation and after completing the investigation, he filed charge-sheet before the court.
(v). PW-5 HC Mulak Raj deposed that on 02.05.2012, he along with SI Shyoram went to Mortuary of Safdarjung Hospital where after the post-mortem of deceased victim Manish, his dead body was handed over to his father.
(vi). PW-6 Ct Ajay deposed that on 29.04.2012 pursuant to receipt of information vide DD no. 16A, he along with SI Shyoram went to the spot near Panchwati Apartments and there truck no. DL-1GB-5788 was lying in a damaged condition. He further deposed that it was a garbage carrier truck and both its tyres were burnt. He further deposed that injured was already shifted to DDU Hospital and SI Shyoram went to DDU Hospital leaving HC Bhomraj at the spot. He further deposed that the MLC of injured was collected but his statement could not be recorded due to his condition and the injured was also State Vs : Prashant Singh FIR No : 111/2012 U/s: 304A IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 6 shifted to Safdarjung hospital. He further deposed that rukka was prepared by SI Shyoram on the basis of which he got FIR registered. He further deposed that during investigation, truck was seized by SI Shyoram vide memo Ex. PW 6/A. He identified the truck in photograph Ex. P1 (Colly). During his cross examination, he deposed that he remained at the spot for about 10-15 minutes. He could not state from whom the truck was seized by the IO nor he could state about the person who drove the truck to PS Vikas Puri. He stated that he and IO remained at Safdarjung Hospital for about half an hour. He admitted that no eye witnesses were found at the spot or in DDU or Safdarjung Hospital.
(vii). PW-7 Jaspal Singh deposed that he was working as Transport Manager in Metro Waste Handling Pvt. Ltd Co. since year 2002 and on 11.05.2012, he received a call from company that the helper of truck had succumbed to the injuries while he was on truck. He stated that the driver of the said truck was Raju and name of helper was Manish, while the name of supervisor was Prashant Singh. He stated that the truck used to take garbage from Vikas Puri. He further deposed that he handed over documents i.e. Article of Association, Memorandum of Association, List of trucks, Transport Authority Letter dated 15.03.2008, RC of truck, Fitness and Insurance of truck, ESI of deceased Manish and Payroll Sheet of accused to police vide memo Ex. PW 7/A. He identified the truck no. DL- 1GB-5788 in photographs Ex. P1 (Colly). He deposed that accused Prashant Singh was arrested by police in his presence vide memo Ex. PW 7/B. During his cross-examination, he admitted that no documents suggesting that accused was supervisor in the company on 29.04.2012 were handed over by him to police. He could not state about the time/date since State Vs : Prashant Singh FIR No : 111/2012 U/s: 304A IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 7 when the accused was working with the company. He admitted that no documents suggesting that the accused was on duty on the date of incident were handed over by him to police. He also admitted that the company had given by power of attorney to manage, control and supervise all the vehicles registered in the name of company. He admitted that he was the supervisor of truck no. DL-1GB-5788 with whom accident had taken place. This witness was thereafter declared hostile and was encountered with questions in the nature of cross-examination by Ld. APP for State, wherein he stated that he was supervisor of the truck in context of court cases or the superdari of the trucks in the name of company. During his further cross- examination, this witness affirmed that GPA dated 24.08.2009 Ex. PW 7/D1 bears his signatures. He denied that accused was not working as supervisor on 29.04.2012 or that the alleged incident did not take place due to rash or negligent act of accused.
(viii). PW-8 Inspector Shyoram was the IO in the present case. He deposed about the proceedings of investigation conducted by him and his testimony is similar as that of PW-3, PW-6 and PW-7 and thus, same is not being reproduced in detail to avoid repetition. Through him, site plan was exhibited as Ex. PW 8/A and rukka as Ex. PW 8/A1. During his cross examination, he stated that he met with staff of Fire Brigade and PCR officials when he reached the spot after the incident. He stated that one SO and two constables of fire brigade were present at the spot along with PCR officials but he could not state about the names of such fire officials or PCR officials. He admitted that no public persons were present at the spot when he reached there for the first time. He could not state about the name of PCR officials who informed him that injured was rushed to DDU Hospital. He State Vs : Prashant Singh FIR No : 111/2012 U/s: 304A IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 8 stated that he did not meet any eye witnesses even at the hospital. He stated of having not disclosed that he prepared site plan at the instance of witness Raju. He stated of having prepared site plan on his own after visualizing the position of truck. He stated that no statements of any officials of MCD were recorded by him during investigation. He identified the Memorandum of Association between MCD and M/s Metro Waste Handling Co. as Ex. PW 8/D1. He could not state if the said memorandum contained the name of supervisor of the company. He could not state whether GPA Ex. PW 7/D1 mentions that Jaspal Singh was responsible for supervising and controlling the vehicles of company. He admitted that the documents. i.e. Payroll of Prashant Singh from company was collected by him. He admitted of having collected resolution dated 17.09.2009 Ex. PW 8/D3 passed by company wherein the authority was given to Jaspal Singh to handle and supervise the truck for removal of wastage of the date of incident. He denied that he had intentionally left Jaspal Singh and had falsely taken action against accused in the present case. He denied that the alleged incident took place due to rash and negligent act of accused or that the accused was falsely implicated in the present case.
(ix). PW-9 HC Virender is a formal witness who was summoned to produce the record of the relevant entries dated 29.04.2012 and he deposed that the said records are not available as same has been destroyed vide destruction order vide Ex. PW 9/A. This is the entire evidence led by prosecution.
10. The gist of the allegations leveled against accused Prashant Singh are that on 29.04.2012 at about 12:00 Noon at place towards Ganda Nala near Panchwati Apartments, Vikas Puri, Delhi, the accused being supervisor in M/s Metro Waste State Vs : Prashant Singh FIR No : 111/2012 U/s: 304A IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 9 Handling Pvt. Ltd. Company instructed driver Raju to park truck no. DL-1GB-5788 in a place where the high voltage electrical wires were lying overhead and thereafter the accused further instructed the helper Manish (since dead) to cover the garbage loaded on the truck, due to which the helper Manish came in contact with the high voltage electrical wires and got electro- cuted and thereby, the accused caused the death of victim not amounting to culpable homicide, thus constituting offence U/s 304A IPC.
11. In order to establish the guilt of accused for the alleged offence u/s 304A IPC, the prosecution was duty bound to estab- lish following necessary facts :-
a. That the accused Prashant Singh was working as Supervi- sor with the M/s Metro Waste Handling Pvt. Ltd. Company and in such capacity, he was entrusted with the duty to oversee the work relating to the picking up of garbage from the prescribed MCD Garbage dump sites.
b. That the accused issued instructions to driver Raju to park the truck no. DL-1GB-5788 at place where high tension electri- cal wires were lying overhead.
c. That driver Raju was coerced by accused to comply with the instructions regarding the parking of the truck in place above the electrical wires.
d. That the accused in the capacity of the Supervisor also in- structed and coerced victim Manish who was working as a helper in the truck, to place covering over the garbage lying in the truck, due to which he came in contact with the high-tension electric wires and succumbed to the injuries.
State Vs : Prashant Singh FIR No : 111/2012 U/s: 304A IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 10
12. In order to establish aforesaid facts, the prosecution is pri- marily relying upon the testimony of PW-1 Vikas and PW-7 Jas- pal Singh. PW -1 has been cited as one of the alleged eye wit- ness to the incident and during the course of deposition, he al- though stated that accused Prashant was Supervisor at the MCD garbage dumping site as on the date of incident but he denied that the accused insisted driver Raju to park the truck beneath the overhead high tension electric wires despite the re- luctance shown by the driver Raju due to possible untoward happening. PW-1 also denied the fact that he had seen helper Manish going over the truck for covering the loaded garbage upon the instructions of accused Prashant Singh, thus, in short from the testimony of PW-1, it has not been established that the accused Prashant Singh being the Supervisor working with the M/s Metro Waste Handling Pvt. Ltd. Company acted in rash or negligent manner by coercing driver Raju to park the truck be- neath the overhead electrical wires or that he insisted victim Manish to go over the truck for covering the garbage due to which he came in contact with the overhead high tension elec- trical wires and died.
13. Moving further, PW-7 Jaspal Singh was the Transport Man- ager in M/s Metro Waste Handling Pvt. Ltd. Company and he has been examined to prove the fact that the accused was working as Supervisor in the said company as on the date of the incident and that it was the duty of the accused to oversee the management of the garbage dumping site and the loading/ unloading dump relating to the garbage dumps. PW-7 during the course of his deposition has conceded to the fact that he had not handed over any documents relating to employment of accused with M/s Metro Waste Handling Pvt Ltd. Company ex- cept the pay slips of accused. PW-7 has also conceded to the State Vs : Prashant Singh FIR No : 111/2012 U/s: 304A IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 11 fact that he was given a power of attorney by the company to manage control and supervise all the vehicles registered in the name of company including the vehicle no. DL-1GB-5788. Inter- estingly, PW-7 was also encountered with the GPA dated 24.08.2009, Ex. PW 7/D1 which was produced by him at the time of getting the vehicle no. DL-1GB-5788 released on super- dari and on seeing the same, he confirmed the fact that said GPA was issued in his favour by the company on 24.08.2009. On careful perusal of GPA Ex. PW 7/D1, it appears that PW-7 Jaspal Singh was authorized by the company as a general at- torney to control, manage and supervise all the vehicles of the company.
14. The afore-said GPA gives a blanket power to PW-7 for su- pervising, controlling and managing all the vehicles of M/s Metro Waste Handling Pvt. Ltd. Company including the vehicle no. DL-1GB-5788 and the power granted to PW-7 for such management control and supervision of the vehicles of com- pany was the general power, without any rider that same was only limited to the extent of handling the court cases relating to the vehicles of the company. The prosecution has not brought on record any documentary evidences showing that PW-7 be- ing the GPA of M/s Metro Waste Handling Pvt. Ltd. Company who in fact was the de-facto Supervisor of the company in the context of supervision, control and management of the vehicles has further delegated such authority given to him in favor of ac- cused Prashant Singh. PW-7 has conceded to the fact that no employment related documents of accused except the salary slips were given by him or the company to police during the course of investigation of the case. Likewise, IO i.e. PW-8 In- spector Shyoram has also admitted that he had not seized any documents from M/s Metro Waste Handling Pvt. Ltd. Company State Vs : Prashant Singh FIR No : 111/2012 U/s: 304A IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 12 which reflect that the accused was responsible to look-after the work of supervision and management of the vehicles of com- pany. From the testimony of PW-8, it emerges that he was also not provided any such document relating to the employment of accused even by PW-7 Jaspal Singh and rather he has acted against the accused on the basis of verbal assertions of PW-7 that the accused was working as Supervisor at the given MCD site and was responsible for overseeing the vehicle no. DL- 1GB-5788 on the date of incident. For want of any documentary records regarding the employment of accused, it cannot be pre- sumed that the accused was working as Supervisor with the M/s Metro Waste Handling Pvt. Ltd. Company as on the date of incident or that the accused was responsible for supervising, controlling and managing the vehicles of the company. It rather perceives that the power to control, manage and supervise the vehicles including the vehicle no. DL1-GB-5788 vested with PW-7 Jaspal Singh as on the date of incident and such fact also gives support to the assertions made by the defense that the accused was scapegoated in the present case at the instance of PW-7 Jaspal Singh.
15. Further, even for the sake of arguments, if it is assumed that the accused was working as Supervisor with M/s Metro Waste Handling Pvt. Ltd. Company as on the date of incident and also that he was responsible to supervise, manage and control the vehicles of company including vehicle no. DL-1GB -5788, still the case of prosecution cannot be said to have been proved due to the reason that the only alleged eye witness to the inci- dent i.e. PW-1 Vikas has clearly denied that the driver Raju was not insisted by the accused to park the vehicle beneath the overhead high tension electric wires and also that the PW-1 had never seen the accused insisting or coercing helper Manish to State Vs : Prashant Singh FIR No : 111/2012 U/s: 304A IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 13 go over the truck for covering the garbage, due to which he got electrocuted after coming into the contact with the high tension electric wires. The driver of the truck namely, Raju could not be examined as a witness in the present case due to his unfortu- nate demise and his name was struck off from the list of wit- nesses on 30.12.2016. Apparently, there are no other eye wit- nesses to the incident who could depose about the fact that the accused insisted driver Raju to park the truck beneath the high tension electric wires and that he insisted victim Manish to go above the truck for covering the garbage due to which he came in contact with the electric wires and unfortunately succumbed to injuries. PW-3 HC Bhomraj and PW-6 Ct. Ajay who are the police witnesses having accompanied the IO to the spot after the incident, have though stated that they had remained at the spot for a considerable time period but both the said witnesses could not state about the reasons due to which IO could not record statements of any other eye witnesses/public persons who were present at the spot. PW-8 i.e. IO Inspector Shyoram has though stated that when he reached the spot, he met one staff official from PCR and three staffers from the Fire Brigade who were already present there but again, the said PCR official and the officials from fire department were not examined by him as a witnesses in the present case.
16. Again, PW-8 has also not disclosed about the reasons due to which he could not record above-named officials PCR and fire department or any other public persons present at the spot, despite their availability, nor he could state about the reasons, under which he did not make any efforts to seize the employ- ment related documents of accused from which it could be di- vulged that the accused was working as Supervisor with M/s Metro Waste Handling Pvt. Ltd. Company and that in such ca-
State Vs : Prashant Singh FIR No : 111/2012 U/s: 304A IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 14 pacity he was responsible for supervising, managing and con- trolling the vehicles including the vehicle no. DL-1GB-5788. These facts collectively give rise to an inference that the ac- cused was implicated in the present case merely on the basis of oral assertions made by PW-7 and without any other sufficient incriminating evidences having surfaced against him. In nut- shell, there are no evidences led by the prosecution to establish beyond all the reasonable doubts that the accused was working as Supervisor with M/s Metro Waste Handling Pvt. Ltd. Com- pany as on the date of incident and that in such capacity, the accused first insisted the driver Raju to park vehicle no. DL- 1GB-5788 at a place where the high voltage electrical wires were lying overhead despite the reluctance shown by the driver to do so and thereafter, insisted and coerced victim Manish to go over the truck and cover the garbage due to which he came in contact with high tension electrical wires and got electrocuted or that the incident resulted from the rash or negligent act of ac- cused.
17. Accordingly, in view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to establish beyond all reasonable doubts that on the given date, time and place, accused Prashant Singh acted in rash or negligent manner either by showing indifference towards the possible consequences of his instructions issued to driver Raju for parking the vehicle below the over-head high tension electric wires and to the instructions given to helper Manish for going over the vehicle to cover the garbage, due to which he came in contact with said high tension electric wires and got electro- cuted or by failing to take necessary care while issuing such in- structions so as to avert the incident in which the death of victim Manish ensued by coming in contact with the high tension elec-
State Vs : Prashant Singh FIR No : 111/2012 U/s: 304A IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 15 tric wires while he was covering the garbage loaded on the truck which was parked below the high tension electric wires thus causing his death not amounting to culpable homicide and therefore, the accused deserves to be acquitted for offence for which he has been charged. The accused Prashant Singh is accordingly acquitted for offense u/s 304A IPC.
Announced in the open court i.e. 12.11.2025.
(Rishabh Kapoor) Judicial Magistrate First Class-05 (South-West)/Dwarka/12.11.2025 State Vs : Prashant Singh FIR No : 111/2012 U/s: 304A IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 16