In the Court of Sh. [ENTITY], M.M(C01), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi FIR No. 330/96 Unique Case ID No. R001477/97 P.S Karol Bagh [ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] Judgment: 1) Name of complainant [ENTITY], S/o Sh. Narain Singh, R/o Vill. Dhawoli, Post Office Madhopur, Distt. Madhopur, Bihar. 2) Name of accused Praveen Chadha, S/o Sh. Dhan Raj Chadha, R/o 10185C, Arya Samaj Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. 3) Date of commission of offence 11.06.1996 4) Date of institution of challan 04.06.1997 5) Offence complained of 304A [ACT] 6) Offence charged with 304A [ACT] 7) Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty 8) Arguments heard/order reserved 04.05.2011 9) Date of pronouncement 04.05.2011 10) Final order Acquitted Brief statement of the reasons for the decision: 1.
On 11.06.1996 at about 08:15 a.m one Sh. [ENTITY] an FIR No. 330/96 1 of 11 employee of M/s. Kafila restaurant situated at 10185C, Arya Samaj Road, PS Karol Bagh, New Delhi, while pouring water into the water cooler installed in the said restaurant received an electric shock and died subsequently. The accused is owner of the said restaurant and due to his negligence in taking proper care of the installation and maintenance of the electric water cooler in his restaurant such incident took place. On the statement of fellow employee [ENTITY] an FIR u/[SECTION] [ACT] was registered for causing death due to negligent act. Investigation was carried out.
2. On conclusion of investigation, chargesheet was filed and copy was supplied to both the accused.
3. On the basis of record, notice u/[SECTION] [ACT] for the offence u/[SECTION] [ACT] and amended notice on 06.01.2005 was framed against accused [ENTITY] to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In support of its case, prosecution has examined nine witnesses.
5. PW1 [ENTITY] deposed that on 11.06.1996 upon receiving information he alongwith ASI [ENTITY] reached at Kafila restaurant 10185C, Arya Samaj Road, Karol Bagh and found one dead body of [ENTITY] inside the restaurant near the electric water FIR No. 330/96 2 of 11 cooler. IO recorded the statement of [ENTITY] and prepared rukka and got the case registered through this witness. He alongwith IO removed the dead body to the dead house for carrying out postmortem. He proved seizure memo as Ex. PW1/A. He was crossexamined by the defence.
6. PW2 [ENTITY] is father of the deceased who identified the dead body of his son on 12.06.1996. He was crossexamined by the defence.
7. PW3 [ENTITY] is brother of the deceased who identified the dead body of his brother on 12.06.1996. He identified his signature at point A on his statement as Ex. PW3/A. Despite opportunity, he was not crossexamined by the defence.
8. PW4 W/SI [ENTITY] is the formal witness being duty officer on 11.06.1996. He proved the carbon copy of FIR as Ex.PW4/A by producing the original of the same. He also proved the endorsement on rukka as Mark X. He was cross examined by the defence.
9. PW5 Dr. [ENTITY] deposed that on 12.06.1996 he had conducted the postmortem examination of the dead body of [ENTITY]. He proved his report as Ex.PW5/A. Despite opportunity, he was not cross examined by the defence.
FIR No. 330/96 3 of 11
10. PW6 Sh. [ENTITY], Electrical Inspector has conducted the inspection of case property as well as the spot and filed his detailed report as Ex. PW6/A. He was crossexamined by the defence.
11. PW7 [ENTITY] deposed that he took the photographs Mark A to K and handed over the same to the IO. He was cross examined by the defence.
12. PW8 [ENTITY] proved the certificate of registration of eating house as Ex. PW8/A. He was crossexamined by the defence.
13. PW9 SI [ENTITY] is the IO of the present case who carried out the investigation and prepared necessary documents. He was crossexamined by the defence.
14. In this case prosecution has examined nine witnesses. Despite several opportunities prosecution failed to examine the complainant [ENTITY] and eyewitness [ENTITY] as they were not traceable. Thereafter PE was closed.
15. In his statement under [SECTION] [ACT] recorded in accordance with [SECTION] [ACT], all incriminating evidence was put to the accused. He denied the same by submitting that the deceased was not his employee at the time of alleged incident and the premises i.e Kafila Restaurant was locked. He was called from his residence i.e FIR No. 330/96 4 of 11 GH13/217, Paschim Vihar, Delhi63 and when he reached at Kafila Restaurant after 10 a.m the dead body was lying in the police vehicle and except I.O no higher police official was present there. He further deposed that he has been falsely booked by the police in this case. On option given, he opt to lead defence evidence.
16. DW1 Sh. [ENTITY] deposed that on the date of incident at about 09:30 am he saw one [ENTITY]'s dead body was lying at the pavement in front of Kafila restaurant and at that time the shutter of Kafila restaurant was down and locked. Accused came at the spot at 10/10:30 a.m. After that accused opened the shutter of kafila restaurant. He further deposed that he had not seen the deceased working in the Kafila restaurant. He was cross examined by Ld. APP for the [ENTITY].
17. Final arguments heard. Record perused.
18 . In the case before hand prosecution has examined nine witnesses out of which PW1 [ENTITY], PW4 W/SI [ENTITY], PW8 [ENTITY] and PW9 SI [ENTITY] were deposed on procedural aspect being police officials. PW2 [ENTITY] and PW3 [ENTITY] identified the dead body, PW5 Dr. [ENTITY] proved the postmortem report, PW7 [ENTITY] is the photographer and FIR No. 330/96 5 of 11 are formal in nature. Complainant as well as eyewitness were not examined by the prosecution.
19. The only star witness of the prosecution is PW6 Sh. [ENTITY], Electrical Inspector who conducted the inspection of case property as well as the spot and filed his detailed report as Ex. PW6/A. As per the said report the electric water cooler (Model No. 22081, Sr. No. 17076, MakeVoltas Limited, AC Single Phase, Power575 watts, voltage230 V) connected with an automatic voltage stabilizer (capacity 1KVA, AC single phase, Sr. No. 8733) alongwith metallic stand was inspected in P.S Karol Bagh. During inspection it was observed that there were two naked joints in the internal wiring of the water cooler. One of the naked joint was found touching the metallic frame of the said water cooler. The naked joint electrically charged the metallic frame of the water cooler and passed the current to the metallic stand on which the said cooler was placed. Deceased [ENTITY] while pouring water in the water cooler came in contact with the electrically charged metallic stand of the cooler and received electric shock, which proved fatal. It was also reported that the metallic frame/ stand of the water cooler was not earthed.
20. As there is no eyewitnesses prosecution tried to establish its case FIR No. 330/96 6 of 11 on the basis of circumstantial evidence.
" In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence." (C. Chenga Reddy and others vs. [ENTITY] of A.P. (1996) 10 SCC 193).
21. Further in Padala Veera Reddy vs. [ENTITY] of A.P. and other, AIR 1990 SC 79, it was laid down that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests, (1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;
(2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;
(3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively should FIR No. 330/96 7 of 11 form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else;
(4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence."
22. However, in the present case various links are missing to establish the unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence to prove the prosecution case. Further it is observed that the case property i.e electric water cooler as well as its stand were examined by the PW6 in the PS and are easily available in the open market. Even the photographs taken by PW7 can not be read into evidence as their negatives were not produced before the court despite opportunity.
23. The accused is facing trial for causing death due to negligent act as punishable u/[SECTION] [ACT]. In order to bring home conviction u/[SECTION] 8 of 11 A [ACT] the prosecution has to prove negligence which in common parlance means and implies "failure to exercise due care, expected of a reasonable and prudent person". It is a breach of duty and negligence in law ranging from inadvertence to shameful disregard of the safety of others. In most instances, it is caused by heedlessness or inadvertence, by which the negligent party is unaware of the results which may follow from his act.
24. In the case of Niranjan Singh vs. [ENTITY], 1996 JCC, 677, Hon'ble High Court held that:
"What [SECTION] [ACT] requires is causing death by doing an rash or negligent act, and this means that death must be the direct or proximate result of the rash or negligent act".
25. Further Sir [ENTITY] in [PRECEDENT] held:
To impose criminal liability under [SECTION], [ACT], it is necessary that the death should have been the direct result of a rash and negligent act of the accused, and that act must be the proximate and efficient cause FIR No. 330/96 9 of 11 without the intervention of the author's negligence. It must be the causa causans; it is not enough that it may have been the causa sine qua non."
26. In the case before hand the current was passed due to naked joints which were inside the water cooler and those naked joints were not visible without opening the rear side of the water cooler. It can not be expected from the ordinary prudent man being the owner of the restaurant that he will be aware of such minute technical facts/ lapse in the ordinary course of his business. Further mere non earthing of the stand of the water cooler does not meet the criteria of criminal negligence as required for conviction u/[SECTION] [ACT]. Possibility of ignorance about this lapse cannot be ruled out. Therefore it cannot be presumed that this negligence of accused was the direct cause of the death though it may be a contributory cause. The incident was happened in the early hours of the day in the absence of accused. It is not proved on record as to how the deceased came in contact with the stand of the water cooler.
27. In these circumstances it would be highly unsafe to convict a person for criminal negligence causing death of another due to such a FIR No. 330/96 10 of 11 remote cause of death which may not be in his knowledge. There is nothing on record to suggest that accused has even bare idea about the naked joint inside the water cooler due to which the current was passed to the metallic frame of the water cooler and its stand. Law is no more res integra that in order to attract [SECTION] [ACT], death must be a direct result of rash or negligent act of the accused and the act must be sufficient cause without the intervention of another act of negligence.
It must be the causa causans, it is not enough that it may have been the causa sine qua non. Thus where death is not the direct result of rash or negligent act on the part of the accused and was not proximate and sufficient cause without the intervention of another act of negligence, the accused must be acquitted of the charge under [SECTION] Accordingly, it is held that that the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Hence accused [ENTITY] is acquitted from all the charges levelled against him.
Announced in the [ENTITY] open court on 04.05.2011 [CASE NUMBER]
It is certified that this judgment contains eleven pages and each page bears my signature.
[ENTITY] MM(C01)/ Delhi04.05.2011 FIR No. 330/96 11 of 11