* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : 16 th March, 2010 + Crl.L.P.No.129/2009 STATE... Petitioner Through: Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP versus RAJESH GUPTA @ TITU... Respondent Through: Mr.Amit Ahlawat, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?Yes PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral) Crl.M.A.No.8606/2009(Delay) 1. There is a delay of two days in filing the petition seeking leave to appeal. 2. For the reasons stated in the application, we condone the delay in filing Crl.L.P.No.129/2009. Crl.L.P.No.129/2009 1. Learned counsel for the respondent states that if the matter can be disposed of on merits today itself, he has no objection if leave to appeal is granted. 2. We accordingly allow Crl.L.P.No.129/2009 and grant Crl.L.P.No.129/2009 Page 1 of 6
leave to appeal to the State against the impugned judgment and order dated 09.02.2009. Crl.A. No. /2009 1. The registry is directed to assign number to the instant appeal. 2. Vide impugned judgment and order dated 09.02.2009, the learned trial Judge has acquitted the respondent of the charge for the offence punishable under Sections 304-A/308/34 IPC. 3. We note that three persons namely the respondent Rajesh Gupta, Shiv Raj Jindal and Sushil Kumar were charged and on a revision petition preferred to this Court by Sushil Kumar, vide order dated 30.08.2006, charge against him was set aside and accordingly Sushil Kumar was discharged. 4. Trial continued against Shiv Raj Jindal and Rajesh Gupta. 5. As per the prosecution Rajesh Gupta was the owner of plot of land bearing municipal No.125, Village Badhola and without any sanction from the Municipal Authorities he commenced construction on a building on his property which collapsed at around 1:00 PM on 12.03.2000 resulting in injuries being caused to Smt.Bimla, Smt.Manju, Arun, Sunil, Suraj and Rahul. Golu son of Bimla died. Crl.L.P.No.129/2009 Page 2 of 6
6. The learned trial Judge has acquitted the respondent holding that the testimony of Sh. Rajesh Batra PW- 14 and the report Ex.PW-14/A through the medium of which the State intended to prove that the structure erected by the respondent was weak, did not inspire confidence for the reason the author of the report was J.K.Bhardwaj but the same was intended to be proved through the testimony of Rajesh Batra who had never visited the spot and had not examined the structure. 7. Shiv Raj Jindal has been acquitted as he was only supervising the construction. 8. We fail to understand the reasoning of the learned trial Judge qua the respondent for the reason that the structure being erected by the respondent collapsed all of a sudden at 1:00 PM on 12.03.2000 is not in dispute. It is not the case of the respondent that there was a storm or that due to any external force the building fell. 9. Suffice would it be to state that the municipal building by-laws require a municipal sanction to be obtained and the building to be constructed under the supervision of an architect. Law requires a structural consultant/engineer to be associated with reference to the working drawings pertaining to the structural loads. Admittedly, the respondent had Crl.L.P.No.129/2009 Page 3 of 6
nothing of that sort of way to him. The principle of res ipsa loquitur is attracted on the facts of the instant case. 10. Under the circumstances we hold that the respondent is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC i.e. of being rash and negligent. 11. It is not in dispute that the adjoining properties of respondent were jhuggi and it was within the reasonable contemplation of the respondent that if his structure collapsed, injury could result to the jhuggi dwellers. 12. We hold that no case is made out to convict the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 308 IPC. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent states that the respondent is ready and willing to compensate the persons who were affected. Learned counsel states that Rs.80,000/- has already been paid by the respondent to Bimla who not only suffered injuries herself but even lost her son Golu. 14. Bimla affirms having received Rs.80,000/- from respondent. 15. Learned counsel for the respondent states that respondent has brought with him that a further sum of Rs.1,20,000/- which may be disbursed by way of compensation to Bimla, Arun, Manju, Rahul, Suraj and Santosh who is mother of Sunil. Crl.L.P.No.129/2009 Page 4 of 6
16. We note that Bimla and her husband Raj Kapoor are present in Court, they would be entitled to the maximum compensation for the reason not only Bimla was injured but she lost her son Golu and her son Suraj was injured. 17. Unfortunately, Sunil died, but not due to the injury suffered by him when the building in question fell. His mother Santosh is present in Court. Manju is present in Court. Arun s mother Smt.Billu and Rahul s father Ramanad are present in Court. 18. Sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- brought by the respondent has been disbursed in Court as under:- (a) Further sum of Rs.20,000/- has been paid to Bimla as compensation for herself, injuries caused to her son Suraj, as also for the death of her son Golu. We note that Bimla has already received Rs.80,000/- as compensation. (b) Rs.40,000/- has been paid to Santosh as compensation for the injuries caused to her son Sunil, who had since died. (c) Rs.20,000/- has been disbursed to Manju for injuries suffered by her. (d) Rs.20,000/- has been paid to Smt.Billu, mother of Arun for injuries caused to Arun. (e) Rs.20,000/- has been paid to Ramanand, father of Crl.L.P.No.129/2009 Page 5 of 6
Rahul for injuries caused to Rahul. 19. We note that injuries suffered by the persons who were injured were neither serious nor grievous and hence the compensation are being paid commensurate with the injuries suffered. 20. On a separate sheet of paper acknowledgment have been received from the recipients of the compensation disbursed. 21. SI A.P.Singh who is present in Court has identified the persons who have received compensation. 22. Noting that the respondent remained in custody for a period of three months when he got bail, we direct that keeping in view the compensation which has been paid by the respondent, ends of justice would meet if the sentence imposed upon the respondent is to undergo imprisonment for the period already undergone by the respondent. 23. Meaning thereby the respondent would not be taken into custody. 24. Appeal stands disposed of. PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J MARCH 16, 2010 mr SURESH KAIT, J Crl.L.P.No.129/2009 Page 6 of 6