Delhi High Court
State vs Rajesh Gupta @ Titu on 16 March, 2010
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision : 16th March, 2010
+ Crl.L.P.No.129/2009
STATE ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP
versus
RAJESH GUPTA @ TITU ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Amit Ahlawat, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?Yes
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)
Crl.M.A.No.8606/2009(Delay)
1. There is a delay of two days in filing the petition
seeking leave to appeal.
2. For the reasons stated in the application, we
condone the delay in filing Crl.L.P.No.129/2009.
Crl.L.P.No.129/2009
1. Learned counsel for the respondent states that if
the matter can be disposed of on merits today itself, he has no
objection if leave to appeal is granted.
2. We accordingly allow Crl.L.P.No.129/2009 and grant
leave to appeal to the State against the impugned judgment
and order dated 09.02.2009.
Crl.A. No.______/2009
1. The registry is directed to assign number to the
instant appeal.
2. Vide impugned judgment and order dated
09.02.2009, the learned trial Judge has acquitted the
respondent of the charge for the offence punishable under
Sections 304-A/308/34 IPC.
3. We note that three persons namely the respondent
Rajesh Gupta, Shiv Raj Jindal and Sushil Kumar were charged
and on a revision petition preferred to this Court by Sushil
Kumar, vide order dated 30.08.2006, charge against him was
set aside and accordingly Sushil Kumar was discharged.
4. Trial continued against Shiv Raj Jindal and Rajesh
Gupta.
5. As per the prosecution Rajesh Gupta was the owner
of plot of land bearing municipal No.125, Village Badhola and
without any sanction from the Municipal Authorities he
commenced construction on a building on his property which
collapsed at around 1:00 PM on 12.03.2000 resulting in injuries
being caused to Smt.Bimla, Smt.Manju, Arun, Sunil, Suraj and
Rahul. Golu son of Bimla died.
6. The learned trial Judge has acquitted the
respondent holding that the testimony of Sh. Rajesh Batra PW-
14 and the report Ex.PW-14/A through the medium of which
the State intended to prove that the structure erected by the
respondent was weak, did not inspire confidence for the
reason the author of the report was J.K.Bhardwaj but the same
was intended to be proved through the testimony of Rajesh
Batra who had never visited the spot and had not examined
the structure.
7. Shiv Raj Jindal has been acquitted as he was only
supervising the construction.
8. We fail to understand the reasoning of the learned
trial Judge qua the respondent for the reason that the structure
being erected by the respondent collapsed all of a sudden at
1:00 PM on 12.03.2000 is not in dispute. It is not the case of
the respondent that there was a storm or that due to any
external force the building fell.
9. Suffice would it be to state that the municipal
building by-laws require a municipal sanction to be obtained
and the building to be constructed under the supervision of an
architect. Law requires a structural consultant/engineer to be
associated with reference to the working drawings pertaining
to the structural loads. Admittedly, the respondent had
nothing of that sort of way to him. The principle of res ipsa
loquitur is attracted on the facts of the instant case.
10. Under the circumstances we hold that the
respondent is guilty of the offence punishable under Section
304-A IPC i.e. of being rash and negligent.
11. It is not in dispute that the adjoining properties of
respondent were jhuggi and it was within the reasonable
contemplation of the respondent that if his structure collapsed,
injury could result to the jhuggi dwellers.
12. We hold that no case is made out to convict the
respondent for the offence punishable under Section 308 IPC.
13. Learned counsel for the respondent states that the
respondent is ready and willing to compensate the persons
who were affected. Learned counsel states that Rs.80,000/-
has already been paid by the respondent to Bimla who not
only suffered injuries herself but even lost her son Golu.
14. Bimla affirms having received Rs.80,000/- from
respondent.
15. Learned counsel for the respondent states that
respondent has brought with him that a further sum of
Rs.1,20,000/- which may be disbursed by way of
compensation to Bimla, Arun, Manju, Rahul, Suraj and Santosh
who is mother of Sunil.
16. We note that Bimla and her husband Raj Kapoor are
present in Court, they would be entitled to the maximum
compensation for the reason not only Bimla was injured but
she lost her son Golu and her son Suraj was injured.
17. Unfortunately, Sunil died, but not due to the injury
suffered by him when the building in question fell. His mother
Santosh is present in Court. Manju is present in Court. Arun's
mother Smt.Billu and Rahul's father Ramanad are present in
Court.
18. Sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- brought by the respondent
has been disbursed in Court as under:-
(a) Further sum of Rs.20,000/- has been paid to Bimla
as compensation for herself, injuries caused to her son
Suraj, as also for the death of her son Golu. We note that
Bimla has already received Rs.80,000/- as compensation.
(b) Rs.40,000/- has been paid to Santosh as
compensation for the injuries caused to her son Sunil,
who had since died.
(c) Rs.20,000/- has been disbursed to Manju for injuries
suffered by her.
(d) Rs.20,000/- has been paid to Smt.Billu, mother of
Arun for injuries caused to Arun.
(e) Rs.20,000/- has been paid to Ramanand, father of
Rahul for injuries caused to Rahul.
19. We note that injuries suffered by the persons who
were injured were neither serious nor grievous and hence the
compensation are being paid commensurate with the injuries
suffered.
20. On a separate sheet of paper acknowledgment
have been received from the recipients of the compensation
disbursed.
21. SI A.P.Singh who is present in Court has identified
the persons who have received compensation.
22. Noting that the respondent remained in custody for
a period of three months when he got bail, we direct that
keeping in view the compensation which has been paid by the
respondent, ends of justice would meet if the sentence
imposed upon the respondent is to undergo imprisonment for
the period already undergone by the respondent.
23. Meaning thereby the respondent would not be
taken into custody.
24. Appeal stands disposed of.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J
SURESH KAIT, J
MARCH 16, 2010
'mr'
