Allowed

Radheshyam v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC13 Sept 2022CRR/170/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Revision No. 170 of 2011, the High Court of Chhattisgarh set aside the conviction of an applicant convicted under Sections 337 and 304 A IPC for an accidental death during a wall demolition. The court acquitted the applicant, relying on the acquittal of his superior officer and the absence of documentary evidence establishing sole responsibility.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment set aside; applicant acquitted of charges under Sections 337 and 304 A IPC; bail bond discharged; fine to be refunded.

Radheshyam Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

Criminal Revision No. 170 of 2011

¶5

Radheshyam S/o Kapurram, aged 51 years, R/o Village – Sanod, Police Station – Kanwar, District Durg (C.G.)

¶6

•	State of Chhattisgarh, Dhamtari (C.G.)	---- Applicant Versus Through District Magistrate, Dhamtari, District ----Non-Applicant/State
For	Applicant	: Mr. Parag Kotecha and Mr. Kripesh G. Kela, Advocates
For	Non-Applicant/State	: Mr. Shakti Singh Thakur, Panel Lawyer
	Hon’ble Shri	Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶7

13.09.2022

¶8

This criminal revision is filed against the judgment dated 11.03.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Dhamtari, District Dhamtari in Criminal Appeal No. 73/2010, whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.09.2010 recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagri, District Dhamtari in Criminal Case No. 560/2009 wherein the applicant was convicted under Section 337 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one month and Section 304 A IPC to undergo R.I. for six months with fine of Rs.500/- directing to run both the sentences concurrently, has been affirmed.

¶9

The applicant has challenged the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Dhamtari, District Dhamtari in the instant revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C.

¶10

Case of the prosecution is that on 10.01.2007 the work of demolition of wall was being done at Sondhur Jalasay under instructions of the present applicant and co-accused namely Deepchand. The present applicant at the relevant time was posted as Timekeeper, whereas co-accused was posted as Sub-Engineer of Public Works Department. When work was being executed by labourers, at the same time wall collapsed in which two

¶11

¶12

labourers namely Surja Bai and Ganeshi Bai were killed, whereas Radhiya Bai and Parwati Bai sustained injuries. F.I.R. was registered for offence punishable under Section 304 A of IPC against the present applicant and coaccused Deepchand.

¶13

The police after investigation, filed charge-sheet. The learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 338 and 304 A of IPC against the present applicant and co-accused Deepchand. The applicant as well as co-accused absurd the said charges and pleaded non-guilty. The prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses in support of the case and exhibited 17 documents. The statements of the applicant and the co-accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded and they examined three defence witnesses.

¶14

The learned trial Court after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted the applicant as mentioned in para-1 of this order.

¶15

Learned counsels for the applicant submit that co-accused Deepchand who was posted on the post of Sub-Engineer at the relevant time, on same set of facts and evidence, has been acquitted by the trial Court, whereas the present applicant who was working under instruction of Sub-Engineer has been convicted. They further submit that the present applicant was discharging his duty, the labourers were working and they were removing the bricks from wall, but accidentally wall collapsed and two persons namely Surja Bai and Ganeshi Bai died on the spot whereas Radhiya Bai and Parwati Bai sustained injuries. They also submit that the ingredients of Sections 337 & 304 A of IPC are not made out against the present applicant. They placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ambalal D. Bhatt vs. The State of Gujarat, AIR 1972 SC 1150 .

¶16

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for the applicant.

¶17

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

¶18

¶19

FIR Ex.-P/1 was registered at zero with allegation that co-accused Deepchand who was Sub-Engineer in Irrigation Department and present applicant Radheshyam who was Timekeeper were carrying out work of removing 10 feet wall, but accidentally the wall fell down and two labourers namely Surja Bai and Ganeshi Bai came beneath the wall and died, whereas Radhiya Bai and Parwati Bai sustained injuries. Numbered FIR Ex.-P/17 was registered for offence under Section 304 A of IPC. Dead bodies were sent for postmortem and as per postmortem reports, cause of death as opined by Doctor was excessive haemorrhage and shock due to rupture of organ and spleen and death was accidental in nature. As per Ex.-P/14 & Ex.-P/15, injured persons i.e. Radhiya Bai and Parwati Bai sustained injuries.

¶20

10.PW-1 Dhamedra Rao Babar who by taking dehati nalishi had given the same to the Police Station Shihava and on such basis, numbered FIR was registered under Section 304 A of IPC.

¶21

11.PW-2 Komal Sahu, Sub-Inspector conducted investigation and filed chargesheet. PW-3 Jhumuklal has deposed that labourers were engaged in work on the instructions of the present applicant and co-accused Deepchand. PW-4 Sawana Bai has deposed that work was being carried out by the Irrigation Department and it was being supervised by the Sub-Engineer and the present applicant.

¶22

12.PW-5 Dr. G.R. Agrawal conducted the postmortem of both the deceased and examined the injured persons. PW-6 Kevda Bai has deposed that the coolies told the labourers to push the wall which collapsed on labourers' side. At the time of incident, the present applicant was on the spot and he was discharging his duty as directed by his superior officer Deepchand, SubEngineer. PW-7 Lobhan Singh has deposed that they were following the instruction of the present applicant, whereas PW-8 Dhan Bai has deposed that they were executing the work on the instructions of present applicant and co-accused Deepchand, Sub-Engineer and she is unaware as to who

¶23

¶24

was at fault. Likewise, PW-9 Radhiya Bai has deposed that the work was being carried out by the present applicant and co-accused Deepchand and the same evidence has been given by PW-11 Parwati Bai.

¶25

13.The prosecution has exhibited 17 documents, but there is not a single document to establish that the present applicant was solely responsible to carry out the work. The applicant was following the order/instruction given by his superior authority i.e. Sub-Engineer Deepchand, who has been acquitted by the trial Court.

¶26

14.DW-1 Deepchand, who was co-accused in the present case, has stated that on the date of incident, work of removal of bricks from wall was being carried out on instruction of Timekeeper (present applicant) and he was not present at the relevant time on the spot. He has further stated that the labourers were not following the instructions of their superior. DW-2 Anandram has stated that at the time of incident Deepchand was posted on the post of SubEngineer and the present applicant was posted on the post of Timekeeper. He has further stated that he does not know as to who is responsible for the incident. DW-3 Gangaram Sinha has stated that the work to remove the bricks was being carried out on the instruction of the present applicant and co-accused Deepchand was not present on the spot.

¶27

15.One report Ex.-D/1 has been given by the Executive Engineer wherein it is stated that it was an accident and no one is responsible for the same. Some labourers have given their affidavits and stated that they were following instruction of the present applicant vide Ex.-D/2 to Ex.-D/9.

¶28

16.DW-1 Deepchand who is co-accused has not filed any document to show that the work was being supervised by the present applicant and with intent to get rid from the present case he himself entered into the witness box and made allegation against the present applicant. He has produced affidavits of labourers in which they have made allegation against the present applicant, but those persons/ labourers have not been examined, therefore, the

¶29

¶30

statements made in those affidavits cannot be taken into consideration and further cannot be used against the present applicant. The courts below have convicted the present applicant only on the ground that at the time of incident, the present applicant was present and real issue with regard to power of the present applicant to issue necessary instructions or orders to carry out any work has not been examined by the courts below.

¶31

17.From the above discussion, it appears that the applicant was present on the spot, however, there is no document whereby he was instructed or ordered to carry out the work of removal of bricks from the wall, he was working under the instruction of his superior authority and most of the witnesses have deposed against both i.e. the present applicant and co-accused Deepchand, but the learned trial Court on the same set of facts and evidence acquitted Sub-Engineer Deepchand and convicted the present applicant. It appears that the applicant was only carrying on a practice prevalent in the department and the entire responsibility cannot attributed to the present applicant in absence of any documentary evidence in this regard.

¶32

18.Accordingly, the revision is allowed. Judgment impugned is set aside and applicant is acquitted of the charges levelled against him under Sections 337 & 304 A of IPC by extending him benefit of doubt. As the applicant is already on bail, no further order to set him free etc, is necessary. Bail bonds so furnished stand discharged. If fine amount has been deposited by the applicant, the same be refunded to him.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶35

vatti

Radheshyam v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radheshyam v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abc Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Balram Das Vaishnav Vs Smt.Saroj Vaishnav and Another

Smt. Usha Gupta Vs Devi Prasad Gupta

Fulmati Vs Injoriya Bai

Abc Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bhondu @ Barati Vs Bhangin Bai