JUDGMENT & ORDER : This is an appeal, preferred under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C., against the judgment and order dated 28.12.2007, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dibrugarh in Case No.83C/1999 acquitting the accused respondents of the charges under Sections 73 and 72(c)(1)(a) of the Mines Act, 1952. 2. The prosecution case is that, on 08.10.1998, the Naharkatia Oil Mines under Oil India Limited, 6 workmen were engaged in pulling out the production tube from the Oil Well in the work over operation and stacking them on the tubing raft vertically. The tubing raft collapsed resulting in the death of one, namely, Tileswar Sonowal on the spot. The accused respondent No.1, Sri Depti Kumar Banik was the General Manager, accused respondent No.2, Sri Prasanta Kumar Dutta was the Deputy General Manager, accused respondent No.3, Anjan Kumar Kataky was the Chief Engineer and the accused respondent No. 4, Ved Prakash Sarma was the Deputy General Manager/Mines Manager of the said Mines. These accused respondents were responsible for conduct of Mines Operation in strict compliance with the provisions of Mines Act and Rules framed there under. 3. The complainant, on receipt of the information about the occurrence, inspected the place of occurrence and enquired into the incident. During his such inspection and enquiry, he found that the accused respondents failed to ensure that the tubing raft was made of sound construction with adequate strength making it safe for the workers. There was failure on the part of the management of the accused respondents in ensuing safety of the workers. 4. On the basis of such facts, complaint was filed by the Chief Inspector of Mines under Section 75 of the Mines Act for commission of the aforesaid offences by the accused respondents under Sections 73 and 72(c)(1)(a) of the Mines Act. 5. The accused respondents appeared in the Court and faced the trial. 6. In this case, the prosecution examined as many as 4 witnesses and the defence examined none. One witness was examined as Court witness. 7. 5. The accused respondents appeared in the Court and faced the trial. 6. In this case, the prosecution examined as many as 4 witnesses and the defence examined none. One witness was examined as Court witness. 7. In this case, once the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dibrugarh convicted the accused appellant, but on appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh, vide judgment dated 31.10.2006, remanded back the case to the learned Trial Court after setting aside the judgment with a direction to examine the accused respondents under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. afresh and decide the case according to law. 8. On receipt of the case, on such remand, the learned Trial Court proceeded again from the stage of Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., and after evaluation of the evidence on record, acquitted the accused respondents from the charges under the provisions of law referred to above. 9. I have meticulously examined the evidence on record. I have also heard the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, Mr. S C Keyal for the appellants. I have also scanned the evidence of the witnesses examined in this case by the prosecution. 10. On the basis of the complaint as well as the evidence on record, this Court is required to determine whether the raft was collapsed due to lack of sound construction and appropriate maintenance of the same by the accused respondents and also whether they were responsible for the incident resulting in the death of the worker, Tileswar Sonowal. 11. The PW1, Narendra Kumar Kherada, visited the place of occurrence after receipt of telephonic information and he found that the tubing raft, used for storing the tubing collapsed, as the tubing raft was placed on loose ground/loose soil. The raft was also found broken and rusted. The workman, Tileswar Sonowal died due to falling of the tubing raft. He had enquired about the matter and his enquiry report is at Ext.2. 12. The PW2, Numol Ch. Dowrah, deposed in his evidence that he was at the place of occurrence and he saw the tubing raft was broken down and pipes were falling and hitting the deceased Tileswar Sonowal, who died on the spot. The tubing raft was said to have broken in the welding joint. 12. The PW2, Numol Ch. Dowrah, deposed in his evidence that he was at the place of occurrence and he saw the tubing raft was broken down and pipes were falling and hitting the deceased Tileswar Sonowal, who died on the spot. The tubing raft was said to have broken in the welding joint. In the cross-examination, he is found to have admitted that there was no possibility of breaking down of the raft as it was constructed of pipes. 13. The PW3, Sri Tipeswar Gogoi, deposed in his evidence that he was also working at the relevant time of the occurrence as top-man in Well No.491 under Oil India Limited. He was on the top of the rig. He saw the tubes were falling down from the raft and Tileswar Sonowal was hit by it, causing his death. The raft was broken in the welding joint. The rig, according to him, was used for 2 years and no such type of incident used to happen in using such raft generally. According to him, the welding joint was broken down due to stocking of more pipes in one side. 14. The PW4, Durgeswar kumar, is the Chief Engineer of the Oil India Limited, Duliajan. He was the Safety Officer of Oil India Drilling Division. He inspected the place of occurrence after getting the information and found the deceased Tileswar Sonowal lying dead there. He saw the raft was broken in the welding joint. According to him, he had the responsibility to look after the safety of the raft, although, there was Installation Manager and other competent Officers to look after the safety of the raft. He has very categorically disposed in his cross-examination that the raft in question was constructed in several cross members, and under it there was solid steel plate. He is found to have asserted that there was no possibility to sink down of the raft. 15. The Court witness, Sri Narayan Singh, was the Deputy Director of Mines and Safety, Digboi and Inspector of Mines. He only filed the complaint, vide Ext. 15. He also prepared the enquiry report, vide Ext. 2. According to him, the accused respondents were responsible for contravention of the provisions of the Mines Act and Oil Mines Regulation. 16. 15. The Court witness, Sri Narayan Singh, was the Deputy Director of Mines and Safety, Digboi and Inspector of Mines. He only filed the complaint, vide Ext. 15. He also prepared the enquiry report, vide Ext. 2. According to him, the accused respondents were responsible for contravention of the provisions of the Mines Act and Oil Mines Regulation. 16. It appears from the above evidence on record that none of the witnesses had categorically deposed that the accused respondents were negligent in discharging their responsibilities, so far safety of the tubing raft is concerned. The evidence of PW3 is very categorical to the effect that the tubing raft was constructed with cross members and there was solid steel plate, and therefore, there was no possibility of any crack in the tubing raft. None of the other witnesses are found to have deposed anything to show the failure in the part of the accused respondents in discharge of their duties as mandated by the provisions of the Mines Act. 17. That being so, it does not appear that the order of acquittal recorded by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dibrugarh, suffers from any such infirmity necessitating interference by this Court. 18. It is the specific argument of the appellant that the acquittal was recorded primarily on the basis of the statements made by the accused respondents under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. I have meticulously examined the judgment, impugned in this appeal, and tried to find out whether the argument of the appellant has basis to substantiate. But, in fact, this Court is disheartened as it could not find from the judgment impugned that the learned Trial Court passed the judgment on the basis of the statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and rather found that the judgment is based on evidence on record. 19. There is no other ground raised by the appellant either in the memorandum of appeal or during the course of hearing justifying necessity of interference by this Court with the order of acquittal recorded in the impugned judgment, by the learned Trial Court. 20. In view of the above, the impugned judgment, recording acquittal of the accused respondents, is affirmed. 21. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. 22. Return the LCR along with a copy of this judgment.