Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1823 (RAJ)

HIMMAT SINGH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

2017-08-11

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2017
ORDER : PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J. 1. The petitioners have preferred this criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 against the order dated 10.08.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Bikaner in criminal revision No. 84/2005 and for quashing of the proceedings initiated in its pursuance pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Bikaner in FR No. 111/99 (arising out of FIR Case No. 182/99 of P.S. Sadar, Bikaner for the offence under Sections 304-A & 201 of IPC. 2. The respondent No. 2 filed a complaint in which FIR No. 182/99 was registered at P.S. Sadar, Bikaner for the offence under Sections 304-A and 201 IPC. The allegation was that the respondent's son Hitendra Kumar was employed in Hotel Laxmi Niwas which was owned by Mahendra Singh and on 10.02.1999 during construction work while a truck was unloaded in the hotel premises as per the instructions of the owner Narendra Singh and contractor, the petitioner's son was engaged in the same, marble slab fell on the petitioner's son and other labourer, as a result of which, three labourers namely Mohd. Ali, Sarafat Ali and Ayub received injuries and the complainant's son died on the spot. 3. The negative final report was filed by the police and on re-investigation also, a negative final report was filed. The orders accepting the negative final report was challenged by revision whereby learned revisionary court remanded the matter back. Three witnesses were examined and learned trial court vide order dated 18.05.2004 again accepted negative final report by a detailed order. Again revision was filed and on 10.08.2007, the revision petition was allowed and complaint was remanded back to the trial court to pass orders afresh. The revisionary court kept the hearing on 24.08.2007 but being aggrieved by the order dated 10.08.2007 passed by the learned revisionary court and the proceedings initiated pursuant thereto pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Bikaner numbered as FR Case No. 111/99. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has shown the order impugned and on internal page 5 para 4 of the order, it is categorically reflected that the learned court below rather than stating at the prima-facie level of the case has gone deep into the averments and has even gone to the extent to the examination of witnesses and has considered the independent witnesses while passing the remand order. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also shown the order dated 18.05.2004 whereby the learned court below has dealt at length, the statement made by Mohd. Ali, Sarafat Ali and Ayub who while being injured witnesses were only requiring the treatment and admitted that while unloading the marble slab on 10.02.1999, the son of the complainant Hitendra died while being crushed under the falling of marble. 6. Thus, statement of Mohd. Ali, Sarafat Ali and Ayub who were themselves injured witnesses have clearly made out that the truck was being unloaded and there was no negligence on the part of the contractor Himmat Singh, truck driver Banshi and truck owner Subhash. The injured witnesses have categorically stated that these three persons cannot be attributed with the crime in question. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the submission on the ground that the revisionary court has merely remanded back the matter. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the order passed by the learned court below on 18.05.2004 considered the offence/statement of the injured witnesses Mohd. Ali, Sarafat Ali and Ayub was justified. The narration of the event culminated into a fact that three accused persons have in fact not attributed any kind of act or omission which could lead to their trial. The revisionary court has merely stated that the learned court below has not gone deeply into the prima facie case and has in fact examined the witnesses which cannot be said to be relevant piece of evidence. The witnesses of Mohd. Ali, Sarafat Ali and Ayub who were themselves injured in the incident of 10.02.1999 clearly shows that no role whatsoever is attributed to the accused persons as they were not responsible for the negligence or hurry which resulted into the unfortunate death of the complainant's son. 9. In light of the aforesaid discussion, the present petition is allowed and the order dated 10.08.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Bikaner in Criminal Revision Petition No. 84/2005 as well as criminal proceedings pending before learned A.C.J.M. No. 2, Bikaner in FR Case No. 111/99 (arising out of FIR No. 182/1999 of P.S. Sadar, District Bikaner) is hereby quashed and set aside.