Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(ii) As per the say of the prosecution witnesses, Jasoda Park Appartment was lacking in quality of construction and 05 people expired and about 02 persons sustained injuries. That the occupants of the flats namely one Banjul Chanda Pillar and Kiri Valhalla Patel had complained about the poor quality of construction much prior to its collapse and also regarding irregularities in constructing the building.

4. According to ld. Counsel Mr. SV Raju appearing for ld. Counsel Ms. Saita Raju for the petitioner, the provisions of contained in Sections 418 & 420 of IPC do not even remotely emerge from the complaint or for that matter, from the entire records pertaining to the investigation. In absence of evidence as to cheating, the petitioner could not have been prosecuted for the offence punishable under Sections 418 & 420 of IPC. He has placed reliance on the decision of Hari Prasad Chamaria v. Bishun Kumar Surekha and Ors. and submitted that in view of the ratio propounded by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision, the petitioner accused could not have been prosecuted for the aforesaid offence. It is argued by ld. Counsel appearing for the petitioners that the accused has been asked to face a trial of very serious offence of 'culpable homicide not not amounting to murder' under Section 304 of IPC initially. When the accused had approached this Court, the Court quashed the said offence on some concession made on behalf of the State and it was submitted that the provisions of Section 304 Part : II of IPC may be attracted in view of the nature of allegations made by the complainant and evidence placed by the prosecution witnesses. The chargesheet indicates commission of an offence under Section 304 IPC simpliciter. Ld. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has attempted to take this Court through certain decisions and one book wherein the effect of the real earthquake has been described in detail in a scientific method. Zerox copy of the print out taken from the World Book Encyclopedia referred to by ld. Counsel is also tendered before the Court for perusal. Undisputedly, the building collapsed because of the stroke of the earthquake which was on the pillers erected for construction of various apartments in a multi-storyed building and the collapse can not be attributed to to anybody i.e. building contractor, designer or supervisor.

6. On careful reading of the impugned order, it emerges that the details arguments were advanced before the ld. Trial Judge i.e. ld. Addl. Sessions Judge dealing with the trial, but the ld. Judge recorded finding on certain assumption and conjunctures for the purpose and observed that the petitioners were the persons responsible for deliberately constructing and putting up super-structure in such a fashion with a deliberate intent on the part of the petitioners which can be said to be not worthy to resist earthquake stroke. I would like to refer to relevant para of the impugned judgment and order whereby it is inferred that the arguments of ld. Counsel Mr. Raju were not capable of appealling to the conscious of the trial Court. It is observed that investigation reveals that there were number of irregularities in construction of the scheme of the apartment and they are built to indicate that the construction poor in quality and there were material available on record which indicates that residents of the flats lost their lives but for the poor quality of the construction. Placing reliance on the ratio of the decision of Om Wati (Smt.) and Anr. v. State through Delhi Administration and Ors. , it is observed that no reasons are required to be recorded that charges are framed against the accused if prima facie case is made out against the accused, the Judge must proceed to frame charge in terms of Section 228 of CrPC. According to the ld. Addl. Sessions Judge, he was satisfied about the strength of the prima facie case against the petitioners as would necessitate proceeding with the trial against the accused and further necessitates framing of charge under Section 228 of CrPC. In view of the observations made by the ld. Addl. Sessions Judge referred to above, the following facts which are clearly emerging from papers of investigation placed on record:-

8. According to ld. PP Mr. Oza, the petitioners are responsible for the collapse of the building and it can reasonably be inferred that but for poor quality of construction and variations made in design, the building has collapsed and the petitioners and persons working with him were able to know that such a super-structure can not exist and resist any stroke either man-made or natural like earthquake. So, there is an element of knowledge and, therefore, when bail application was argued, the proposition made by ld. Advocate General that the case would fall in the category of the offence punishable under Section 304 Part : II of IPC was found acceptable to the accused persons. Ld. PP Mr. Oza has drawn attention of the Court to various irregularities found and the quality of the material used. He has taken this Court through the panchanama drawn by the investigating agency and opinion of the experts that has been considered by the ld. Addl. Sessions Judge before framing of the charge which could not be noticed by the innocent occupiers of the apartment and, therefore, they have lost their lives. Stroke of earthquake was not grave in the area where apartment in question has collapsed otherwise all other buildings in the area could have sustained great damage. So, the buildings that were poorly constructed in violation of the norms of construction, occupants of those building have lost their lives or have sustained bodily injury. Therefore only, the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder is registered. It is not the case of the prosecution that deaths have been caused, but it was possible to infer that the building in the event of any stroke like the earthquake when collapses, it can be said that for buttressing the profit more, such building was erected in a reckless manner and which has ultimately resulted into great loss.