State of Himachal Pradesh vs Jagat Ram and another

Instant appeal filed under Section 378 CrPC is directed against judgment of acquittal dated 9.9.2008 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. 2, Palampur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh in Criminal Case No. 547-II/2004/2002, whereby respondents-accused (hereafter, ''accused'') have been acquitted of charges framed against them under Sections 336 and 304A IPC.

In nutshell, case of the prosecution is that on 31.10.2001, at 4.30 pm, at Dehan, father of the complainant namely Badri Ram, was working in rice husking machine belonging to the accused. It is further alleged that suddenly the Patta (belt) of rice husking machine broke down and stuck against face and head of Badri Ram, who died due to the same. It is further alleged that accused were negligent in not maintaining the rice husking machine in proper manner, due to which life of Badri Ram was endangered. Complainant took his father to the hospital but the doctors on duty declared him brought dead. Matter was reported to the police. Statement of complainant under Section 154 CrPC (Ext. PW-1/A) was recorded, on the basis of which, FIR Ext. PW-6/A was registered. After completion of investigation, police presented Challan in the competent court of law against accused. Accused were put to notice of accusation, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Subsequently, the learned trial Court, on the basis of evidence adduced on record by the prosecution, acquitted the accused of the charges framed against them under Sections 336 and 304A IPC vide judgment dated 9.9.2008. In the aforesaid background, State has laid challenge to the same by way of present appeal, praying therein for convicting the accused, after setting aside judgment of acquittal.

In the instant case, prosecution, with a view to prove its case, examined as many as 11 witnesses, whereas, accused, in their statements under Sections 313 CrPC, denied the case of the prosecution, in toto and claimed themselves to be innocent. However, the fact remains that accused did not lead any evidence in their defence.

PW-1, complainant, Ravinder Kumar, son of the deceased Badri Ram, stated that on 31.10.2001, at 4.30 pm, his father was working on the rice husking machine of accused Jagat Ram and in the meantime, Patta (belt) of the machine suddenly broke down and struck his father, blood started oozing out of his mouth and ear and he was taken to the hospital, where he was declared dead. He further stated that machine was old one and its Patta (belt) was also old. He further stated that accused Jagat Ram was required to replace the Patta (belt) with a new one. The incident took place as a result of negligence on the part of accused Jagat Ram.

PW-2 Jai Singh, stated in his cross-examination that the machine in question belonged to one Shri Suraj Ram. At this stage, it may be noticed that Suraj Ram, was not named in the FIR lodged on the basis of complaint having been made by PW-1.

PW-7 Kishori Lal stated that he repairs rice husking machine and other machines also. He has knowledge of these machines. He further stated that he had inspected the rice husking machine in the present case and there were five joints in the Patta (belt). He further stated that if there were more than one joints in the Patta (belt), it could break down at any time. He stated that the Patta (belt) shown to him was not fit for use. However, during his cross-examination, he stated that police had not taken into possession the Patta (belt) in his presence, however, admitted that Patta (belt) was shown to him at the spot as well as in his shop.

PW-11 Raghubir Singh, Inspector, Food and Supply Department at Palampur, stated that on 4.2.2002, he gave photocopy of notification regarding Rice Milling Act, Ext. PW-11/A to the police and also gave letter of the Department, Ext. PW-10/B and photocopy of renewal of licence of rice husking machine, Ext. PW- 11/C. While making his statement before the Court, he admitted these documents to be correct as per record.

PW-6 Inspector Gian Chand prepared spot map Ext. PW-6/B and took into possession Patta (belt) Ext. P1, vide memo Ext. PW- 4/A. He also got clicked photographs and placed them on record. He stated that he recorded statement fo Jai Singh vide Ext. PJ, as per his version.

PW-3 Sardari Lal , PW-4 Sunka Ram, PW-5 Milap Chand and PW-9, Purshotam Chand, are formal witnesses and as such, their statements may not be very relevant, while adjudicating the controversy at hand. PW-8 B.B. Katoch admitted that he had conducted post mortem of deceased. He proved Ext. PW-8/A, postmortem report, wherein he stated that cause of death in this case was shock due to injury to vital organ i.e. brain, overlying fracture frontal bone of skull extending into right orbit.

Prosecution, by way of examining aforesaid witnesses, more particularly, PW-1, PW-2 and PW-7, made an attempt to prove on record that accident occurred due to sheer negligence of the accused, who, at the relevant time were also working on the rice husking machine. This court, after having carefully perused entire evidence led on record by the prosecution, sees substantial force in the arguments of learned counsel representing the accused that prosecution was not able to prove on record by leading cogent and convincing evidence that accident occurred due to negligence of the accused, who admittedly, at the relevant time, were working on the same machine, with deceased Badri Ram, who unfortunately lost his life in the alleged accident.

PW-1, son of deceased, himself admitted that he had no occasion to see the accident with his own eyes as he reached the spot after accident had taken place. Otherwise also, in his statement, there is nothing, from where, it can be inferred that there was negligence, if any, on the part of accused. There is no mention of names, if any, of accused in the statement of PW-1, rather he admitted that accused were also working with his father on the rice husking machine at the relevant time. In his statement recorded under Section 154 CrPC, Ext. PW-1/A, PW-1 stated that his father was working on rice husking machine alongwith accused Jagat Ram and other accused Subhash Chand was also working with his father. It is not understood how these persons namely Jagat Ram and Subhash Chand, who were admittedly working with deceased, could be held responsible for unfortunate death of Badri Ram, especially when there is overwhelming evidence available on record that these two persons were also working on same machine, with deceased.

Similarly, PW-2 Jai Singh, though stated that father of complainant was working on rice husking machine and suffered injury on face and head due to sudden breaking of Patta (belt), but he also nowhere disclosed names of accused, who were working with deceased at the relevant time. There is nothing in the statements of these witnesses, from where, it could be inferred that accused were rendering any help to the deceased, while he was working on rice husking machine or they were mute spectators. PW-2, Jai Singh, in his cross-examination, though admitted that machine belonged to accused persons, but categorically denied that incident took place as a result of negligence on the part of accused persons. Prosecution heavily relied upon the statement of PW-7 Shri Kishori Lal, who, being mechanical expert, examined the machine on the asking of police and stated that Patta (belt) of the machine was not fit for use. It has come in his statement that Patta (belt) had five joints and if there were more than one joints in a Patta (belt), it could break down at any time. Prosecution, placed on record Ext. PW-11/B, copy of letter of Food and Supply Department, application of Suraj Ram, whereby he had applied for renewal of licence of rice husking machine, Ext. PW-11/C. Perusal of Ext. PW-11/C clearly suggests that rice husking machine actually belonged to Suraj Ram son of Ghataru Ram, who had actually applied for renewal of licence of machine for the years 1990-1993. However, perusal of Ext. PW-11/B reveals that the concerned Department had informed that the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Repeal Act, 1997 had been repealed and therefore, there was no question of issuance of licence for the rice mills.

After having carefully perused Ext. PW9/A, this Court is in agreement with the arguments having been advanced by the learned counsel representing the accused that machine in question actually belonged to Suraj Ram, who was original owner of the machine. It is not understood that once machine belonged to Suraj Ram, why prosecution failed to array him as accused. In nutshell, case of the prosecution was that Badri Ram died due to negligence of owner of machine, and as such, it was owner of machine, who was required to be prosecuted. Since original owner of machine was not arrayed as accused by the prosecution, there was no occasion for the court below to rely upon statement of PW-7 i.e. mechanical expert, who in his statement stated that Patta (belt) was not fit for use. From statement of PW-7, it is ample clear that Patta (belt) of machine was required to be replaced, but, in that regard, steps, if any, were to be taken by owner Suraj Ram and by no stretch of imagination, accused, who were working with deceased at the relevant time, could be arrayed as accused. Since in the instant case, prosecution failed to array original owner of rice husking machine as accused, there was no occasion for the court below to record conviction of accused, on the basis of statement of PW-7, whereas it stood proved that Patta (belt) in question was required to be replaced.

Apart from above, this Court was unable to lay its hand on any evidence brought on record by the prosecution, suggestive of the fact that there was negligence on the part of accused.

Consequently, in view of discussion made herein above, this Court sees no illegality or infirmity in the judgment passed by learned trial Court and same is upheld. The appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits. Bails bonds, if any, furnished by the accused, are also discharged.

Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.