IN THE COURT OF SHRI [ENTITY], METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : WEST-05, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI FIR No. : 687/2005 P.S. : Tilak Nagar Unique Case ID No. R1642532008 [ENTITY] v. [ENTITY], S/o Late Sardar Balwant Singh, R/o E-29, E Block, Vishnu Garden, Delhi. Date of institution of case : 15.04.2006 Date of reserving the judgment : (not reserved) Date of pronouncement of judgment : 04.04.2016 JUDGMENT
1. S. No. of the Case: 424/2/06/12.12.08 2. Date of Commission of Offence: 18.10.2005 3. Date of institution of the case: 15.04.2006 4. Name of the complainant: Sh. [ENTITY] 5. Name of the accused: [ENTITY] 6. Offence complained or proved: 287/338 [ACT] 7. Plea of Accused: "Not Guilty" 8. Final Order: Acquitted 9. Date of Final Order: 04.04.2016 FIR No. 687/05 1 of 7 PS Tilak Nagar BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION
1. This is the prosecution of the accused [ENTITY] for the offence punishable u/[SECTION] [ACT] on a chargesheet filed by police station Tilak Nagar in FIR No. 687/05.
2. The case of prosecution is that on 18.10.2005 at about 7.00 pm at NW-174, Narsingh Garden, Khyala, Tilak Nagar, a middle finger of left hand of a worker namely [ENTITY] got amputated. It is the case of prosecution that accused being the owner of factory knowingly or negligently omitted to take such order with the said machine as is sufficient to guard against any probable danger to human life which resulted in grievous injury to worker [ENTITY]. Accused was arrested and case property was seized. After completion of investigation, charge sheet against accused was filed in the Court u/[SECTION] [ACT].
3. Accused was summoned after the Court took cognizance of the offence. The copies of charge sheet and relevant documents were supplied to accused in compliance of [SECTION] [ACT]
4. Prima facie case was made out and charge for offence U/[SECTION] [ACT] was framed against the accused on 30.11.2009 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the matter was fixed up for recording of prosecution evidence. Thereafter, the Court proceeded for recording of prosecution evidence.
FIR No. 687/05 2 of 7 PS Tilak Nagar
5. To prove its case, prosecution has cited eight witnesses out of which only one is eye witness. Sh. [ENTITY] is the complainant and only eye witness in the present matter. He was summoned by the Court but he remained untraceable. He was also summoned through DCP concerned but all in vain. He was dropped from the list of witnesses as he remained untraceable. In the absence of testimony of material / eye witness, i.e., Sh. [ENTITY], the prosecution can never prove that the grievous injury caused to [ENTITY] had occurred as a result of rash or negligent act of accused. Rest all witnesses cited by the prosecution are formal witnesses and sufficient only to prove that a person namely [ENTITY] had got grievous injuries while operating a machine and that an FIR with respect to the said incident was lodged at PS Tilak Nagar vide FIR No. 687/05.
6. At the onset it would be appropriate to have glance at the ingredients of the offences charged :
[SECTION] [ACT]. Negligent conduct with respect to machinery. Whoever does, with any machinery, any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, or knowingly or negligently omits to take such order with any machinery in his possession or under his care as is sufficient to guard against any probable danger to human life from such machinery,shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
[SECTION] [ACT] . Causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others.
FIR No. 687/05 3 of 7 PS Tilak Nagar
Whoever causes grievous hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
7. A perusal of the aforementioned provisions makes it clear that rashness or negligence on the part of accused is an essential ingredient and the same should be proved to held the accused guilty for the aforesaid offences. In the present case, there is no eye witness of the incident as per the prosecution case. All the witnesses whose names have been mentioned in the list of witnesses are either police officials or formal witnesses who are not ocular witnesses and could not prove the culpability of accused. None of the remaining witness is an eye witness to the incident and no other witness is competent enough to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubts. The complicity of accused could have been proved by the ocular evidence or circumstantial evidence. The ocular witnesses are not examined and the circumstantial evidence is insufficient to infer the guilt of accused. It is well settled law that to convict the accused on circumstantial evidence, there must be complete chain of events pointing towards the guilt of accused and nothing else.
8. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled as "Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and Anr. V. [ENTITY] of Madhya Pradesh", AIR 1952 SC 343 that " It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from FIR No. 687/05 4 of 7 PS Tilak Nagar which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be in the first instance be fully established and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused."
9. The case is at the stage of PE, however, there is nothing incriminating against accused for proceeding further and recording the statement of remaining formal witnesses would be futile and wastage of the judicial time, resources and money.
10. In the opinion of the Court, this is a fit case to close PE and acquit accused today itself so as to protect his right of speedy justice as incorporated in [SECTION] of the [ACT].
11. In "P. Ramachandra Rao v. [ENTITY] of Karnataka" AIR 2002 SC1856 (Coram: 7 [ENTITY] CJI, [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY], Mrs. [ENTITY], [ENTITY], J.J.) the Honorable Supreme Court while commenting upon the right to speedy justice observed:
"21. Is it all necessary to have limitation bars terminating trials and proceedings? Is there no FIR No. 687/05 5 of 7 PS Tilak Nagar effective mechanism available for achieving the same end? The [ACT], as it stands, incorporates a few provisions to which resort can be had to for protecting the interest of accused and saving him from unreasonable prolixity or laxity at the trial amounting to oppression. The Constitution Bench in [ENTITY]'s case referred to such power, vesting in High Court (vide Paras 62 and 65 of its Judgment) and held that it was clear that even apart from [SECTION], the Courts can take case of undue or inordinate delays in criminal matters or proceedings if they remain pending for too long and putting to an end, by making appropriate orders, to further proceedings when they are found to be oppressive and unwarranted." (emphasis supplied).
12. In case titled as [PRECEDENT] Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that "in a case where, there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction the valuable time of Court should not be wasted for holding a trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on the future date".
13. Accordingly, in view of the above discussion and in the light of the above cited Judgments, the Court needs to protect the right of accused FIR No. 687/05 6 of 7 PS Tilak Nagar person to have speedy justice and acquit the accused forthwith as there is nothing incriminating against accused. Accordingly, PE stands closed, [ENTITY]ment of Accused u/[SECTION] [ACT] is dispensed with and accused namely [ENTITY] is acquitted for offences punishable u/[SECTION] [ACT].
Announced in open Court ([ENTITY]) on 04th day of April 2016 Metropolitan Magistrate West-05, Delhi FIR No. 687/05 7 of 7 PS Tilak Nagar