Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(b) The DD No. 14 was marked to SI Gyan Chand, who along with Ct.

Parama Ram reached at the spot. Upon reaching at the spot, they found JCB loader machine, noticed that the wall had collapsed on the other side, and the deceased was trapped under the collapsed wall.

(c) The deceased was immediately moved to the Babu Jagjivan Ram Hospital, Jahangir Puri through PCR vehicle.

(d) SHO also reached at the spot. It was found that the accident had occurred due to the negligent handling of the JCB loader machine and due to its blade having struck against the MCD waste house wall. It was found that driver did not take enough care to remove the persons near the waste house before operating the JCB.

11. Pratap Singh, portrayed as an eyewitness by the prosecution, was examined as PW-2 but he did not fully support the prosecution on critical aspects of the case. He testified that he works as a driver for the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and had parked his dumper, registered as DL-1G- 1803, near the incident site at about 8:30 a.m. to load garbage. He then left to get tea at a nearby stall while MCD officials were present with the JCB machine. Upon returning, he observed that the wall of the MCD Waste House had collapsed, also bringing down a tea stall situated behind the wall. He noted that the JCB was operated by the accused at that time. After the collapse, MCD officials and the public gathered to rescue the injured, who was still alive and subsequently taken to the hospital. PW-2, however, could not recall who PS Shalimar Bagh State vs. Satya Prakash transported the deceased to the hospital. During cross-examination by the Ld. APP, PW-2 confirmed that his statement had been recorded by the police and read back to him. He acknowledged that the accused was operating the JCB but clarified that he did not witness the wall's collapse since he was away drinking tea. He could not specify the speed at which the JCB was operating. When confronted with extracts from his earlier statement Marked as "A," he denied seeing the wall collapse or participating in the rescue efforts. He also refuted claims that he frequented the same tea stall crushed by the wall. Furthermore, PW-2 testified about the subsequent arrest of the accused, including his personal search and the preparation of the arrest memo and personal search memo, identifying his signatures on these documents as an attesting witness. He confirmed the injured was transported to the hospital by ambulance, identified the accused during the trial. Despite suggestions to the contrary, he denied being untruthful or influenced by the accused. During his cross-examination by the defence, PW-2 mentioned that he had tea at the nearby Dhaba Sardar Ji and upon returning, saw the ongoing rescue efforts. He admitted to not witnessing the accident itself and professed ignorance about the nature of the documents signed by him, and that he has no knowledge regarding the speed of JCB machine.

25. There is ambiguity in the record with respect to availability to any other eye-witness at the spot. PW-6 and PW-1 have testified that they had reached at the spot within 5-7 minutes of incident, had met PW-2 after registration of FIR, who narrated as to how accident had occurred and implicated the accused. In rukka (a document which is prepared prior to FIR), it has been mentioned that no eye-witness was found at the spot, though in the rukka it has been mentioned PS Shalimar Bagh State vs. Satya Prakash that the JCB was driven negligently due to which its blade struck against the wall. PW-1 and PW-6 have not stated that anywhere that when they reached at the spot, blade of JCB was struck in the debris of collapsed wall or the debris of collapsed wall were found on the JCB blade. PCR call form is not on record. PCR caller has not been examined. Thus, if PW-2 was absent from the spot when PW-1 and IO/PW-6 had arrived, there is no explanation for the conclusion reached upon by the IO in the rukka.

26. It is to be seen whether the fact that the JCB was operating in close proximity to wall just before it collapsed, awareness of accused about wall's condition and presence of deceased behind the wall, collapsing of wall on the other side, taken together are sufficient enough to draw a presumption of rashness or negligence of the accused. It has been held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is equally applicable to the cases of accident and not merely to the civil jurisprudence. Thus, these principles can equally be extended to criminal cases provided the attendant circumstances and basic facts are proved. It may also be noticed that either the accident must be proved by proper and cogent evidence or it should be an admitted fact before this principle can be applied. This doctrine comes to aid at a subsequent stage where it is not clear as to how and due to whose negligence the accident occurred. The factum of accident having been established, the court with the aid of proper evidence may take assistance of the attendant circumstances and apply the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. The mere fact of occurrence of an accident does not necessarily imply that it must be owed to someone's negligence. In cases where negligence is the primary cause, it may not always be that direct evidence to prove it exists. In such cases, the circumstantial evidence may be adduced to prove negligence. Circumstantial evidence consists of facts that necessarily point to negligence as PS Shalimar Bagh State vs. Satya Prakash a logical conclusion rather than providing an outright demonstration thereof.1 In Ravi Kapur (supra), the Hon'ble Court stated the following elements of this doctrine: