Sanjay vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 16193 MP

                                                             1
                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                   AT JABALPUR
                                                      CRA No. 9527 of 2023
                                          (SANJAY AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

                          Dated : 03-10-2023
                                Shri D.S. Sindhu - Advocate for the appellants.

                                Shri A.R. Ben - Deputy Govt. Advocate for respondent/State.

                                Reserved on             : 29.09.2023
                                Pronounced on           : 03.10.2023

                                Arguments of both the counsel for the parties are heard at length.

                                Judgment and record of the Court below perused.
                                                            ORDER

Heard on admission.

The appeal being arguable is admitted for final hearing. Also heard on I.A. No.18212/2023, which is an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of appellants.

The appellants have been convicted for the offences under Section 304-A (four counts) and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years with fine of Rs.2000/- for each count as well as under Section 287/34 of IPC and sentenced to

undergo R.I. for 6 months, with default stipulations.

In this application for suspension of sentence the learned counsel for appellants has taken the plea that appellant Sanjay Mandhana has already been acquitted in R.C.T. No.182/2014, which was registered for violating the provisions of the Factories Rules, 1948 and for not taking sufficient safety measures.

In the light of these facts, the record of trial Court has been perused. Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA HIMANSHU SHARMA Signing time: 10/4/2023 6:04:09 PM

There is a dying declaration of a labour Umesh, which has been relied upon by the trial Court. It is found established that there was no trained operator of machines nor was there any trained supervisor to look after the operation of machines. All the four persons, who were present inside the room where reactor was in operation, were unskilled labours and they suffered burn injuries. Had there been any trained operator present inside the room, he would have also suffered the same kind of injuries. Thus, this fact is evident that the reactor was being operated by unskilled labours. No document was produced from the appellants' side to show that the persons, who suffered injuries and died in the incident were ever given training to operate the reactor. Appellants have not

challenged the fact that they were responsible for the operations in the factory and it was found established that they allowed unskilled labours to work on technical operations.

Having considered these facts, this Court is not inclined to allow the application for suspension of sentence, particularly in the light of the fact that the negligence on the part of appellants resulted into death of four unskilled labours.

The application is accordingly dismissed. List this case for final hearing in due course.

(ANURADHA SHUKLA) JUDGE

rv

Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA HIMANSHU SHARMA Signing time: 10/4/2023 6:04:09 PM