Devener Kumar. Now, it is to be seen what both these witnesses have deposed in their testimony before the Court. PW5 deposed that on 06/07/2010, he used to work in factory no. 0-34, Sector1, DSIDC Bawana, Delhi, as labour and deceased Ratnu @ Rattan Lal was also working in the same factory as helper. He further deposed that at about 01.00 p.m., some labour was working on the pressing machine (the machine on which making of hinges is done) and Rattan Lal was sitting beside it, helping the labour and suddenly one hinge hit Rattan Lal on his chest, who immediately removed it from his hand and threw it on the ground and was removed to hospital by the factory owner i.e. appellant/accused. He further deposed that pressing machine did not have any safety cover due to which the present incident occurred and the owner did not put any safety cover of the said machine despite the repeated requests of the workers. The version of PW5 is not corroborated by any other witness. Neither there is any other witness in this regard. It is quite surprising that a factory where the manufacturing work was going on, the IO recorded statement of only one witness, whereas there would have been many other co-workers who were working there. If the testimony of PW5 is read with the testimony of PW7, who has given the mechanical inspection report, it is nowhere mentioned that safety cover was essential for providing safety to the workers.
