Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1037 (DEL)

K. K. Reddy v. State of NCT of Delhi

2014-03-27

INDERMEET KAUR

body2014
JUDGMENT Indermeet Kaur, J. (Oral) Crl. M.A. No.1973/2014 (Exemption) 1. Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions. 2. Application disposed off. CRL.REV.P. 78/2014 & Crl. M.A. No.1972/2014 (stay) 3. The petitioner has impugned the order dated 22.10.2003 passed by the Sessions Judge upholding the order of the Magistrate dated 27.05.2008 wherein charge had been framed against the petitioner under Section 304-A of the IPC; his submission is that neither the ingredients of rash and nor any negligence qua the petitioner are made out; in the absence of which charge under Section 304-A of the IPC could not have been framed against him. 4. Record shows that on 02.07.2005, an accident had been reported in the St. Stephen Hospital; one person (later on identified by Naveen and since deceased) working as contract labour had received injuries due to fall of a piece of heavy object/stone on his head; he was admitted to the hospital where he succumbed to his injuries. At the time of his admission, the victim was unfit for statement. He succumbed to his death and the cause of death was noted as a head injury. In the course of investigation, the statement of Innocent Beato Rexess, the Administrator In-charge of the St. Stephen Hospital had been recorded. He had stated that the Chief Project Engineer looking after the maintenance of the hospital building was the petitioner K.D. Reddy; in this statement, it was categorically stated that even on the date of incident i.e. on 02.07.2005, it was the duty of the Chief Project Engineer (the petitioner) to look after the maintenance of the building. 5. Admittedly the petitioner was the Chief Project Engineer and was In-charge of the maintenance of the building; the Sessions Judge has noted that the petitioner was in fact an employee with the hospital. The hospital was constructed in the year 1975-76 being an old structure; it was the bounden duty of the petitioner to maintain it and note and rectify the places and portions of the building which required a repair. It is also not a case that on 02.07.2005 (date of the incident), there was any untoward mishap or because of any special reason, the stone had fallen down from the building. In the course of investigation, it was revealed that another portion of the 4th floor of the building was also broken and required repair. 6. It is also not a case that on 02.07.2005 (date of the incident), there was any untoward mishap or because of any special reason, the stone had fallen down from the building. In the course of investigation, it was revealed that another portion of the 4th floor of the building was also broken and required repair. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that this was a tile which had fallen down and these tiles have a life running into several years and it was purely by way of an accident that this tile had fallen down; in these circumstances, neither any rashness and nor any negligence can be attributed to the petitioner. 7. Trite it is to say that at the stage of framing of charge, it is a prima-facie case alone which has to be looked into; vice-verse there is also no doubt to the proposition that unless and until there is a prima-facie case, charge cannot be framed. What is described as ‘rash’ or ‘negligent’ is an act which is done without due care and diligence. Tested on this touchstone, it was the duty of the Chief Project Engineer looking after the maintenance of the building to ensure that there were no loose tiles; it was obviously such a situation which had led to the stone/tile loosening itself from its root and falling upon the head of the victim. 8. The statement of Mintoo, the person sleeping along with the deceased under the roof of the building, had also been recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.PC; this is to the effect that as a normal routine, they used to sleep under the roof of the building; on the day of incident, a stone from the upper portion of the building had fallen on the head of the victim pursuant to which he had died. 9. At this stage, it cannot be said that this incident which had occurred was not the result of any rash or negligent act of the petitioner. 10. The impugned order of the Sessions Judge endorsing the finding of the Magistrate and dismissing his appeal does not suffer from any infirmity. 11. This petition is without any merit. Dismissed.