State Of Chhattisgarh vs Hirauram And Others 60 Wpl/7239/2008 ... on 7 February, 2018
4. After all the witnesses of the prosecution were examined the
statement of the accused was recorded under section 313 of Code
of Criminal Procedure wherein all the incriminating evidence
which had come on record during the deposition of the witnesses of
the prosecution were put to the accused and the accused was asked
FIR NO.75/2006, PS Anand Vihar Page 5/14
STATE VS. PRADEEP MITTAL
for his explanation. The accused denied all the incriminating facts
and stated that the accused had been falsely implicated. That the
accused was not even present at the spot where the deceased Rohit
had fallen pit. The accused also stated that it was the duty of the
security guard appointed by the Guru Govind Singh Indrapastha
University to look after the property. That the firm of the Accused
namely Messrs. Jyoti Swaroop Mittal had sub contracted the work
for construction of the boundary wall to Messrs. NK Builders
represented by Mr. Kamal Suri on September 9, 2005 and since
then it was Mr. Kamal Suri who was in charge of the work of
construction of boundary wall and was present at the site
throughout thereafter. The accused also stated that the pit in
question was not dug either by the firm of the accused or the sub
contractor of the accused NK Builders. As per the accused, the pit
in question was naturally formed by depressions over the property
and the water had filled due to rain in the pit. That the water of the
pit was never used for the construction of the boundary wall either
by the accused or his sub contractor. As per the accused the
deceased had surreptitiously entered upon the site in question and
the death of the deceased was due to the accident/misadventure and
not due to any rash or negligent act of either the firm of the accused
or by Messrs. NK Builders.