Delhi High Court
K.K. Reddy vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 27 March, 2014
Author: Indermeet Kaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment :27.03.2014.
+ CRL.REV.P. 78/2014
K.K. REDDY ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Mr.Uddyam
Mukherjee, Mr.Anuj Handa and
Mr. Sahil Bhalaik, Advs.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through Ms. Fizani Hussain, APP along
with SI Lokender Singh.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
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 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.
INDERMEET KAUR, J
MARCH 27, 2014
A
