Delhi District Court
State vs Rajeev Jhangi on 1 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS-02, NORTH EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA
COURTS, DELHI PRESIDED BY: SH. ANMOL NOHRIA, DJS
STATE Vs. RAJEEV JHANJI
FIR NO. : 110/2003, u/S 304A IPC
PS : SEELAMPUR
CNR NO. DLNE020000372005
- : JUDGMENT :-
A. CNR No. of the Case : DLNE02-000037-2005
B. FIR No. : 110/2003
C. Date of Institution : 29.03.2005
D. Date of Commission of : 22.04.2003
Offence
E. Name of the Accused, his : Rajeev Jhanji, S/o Sh.
Parentage & Addresses Rajender Jhanji, R/o E-107
Jhilmil Colony, Delhi.
F. Representation on behalf : Ms. Amandeep Kaur, Ld.
of APP.
G. Offence complained of : u/S 304A IPC
H. Plea of the Accused : Pleaded not guilty and
claimed trial.
I. Order reserved on : 28.06.2025
Digitally signed
by ANMOL J. Date of Order : 01.08.2025
ANMOL NOHRIA
Date:
NOHRIA 2025.08.01
14:33:17
+0530
FIR No. 110/2003 State vs. Rajeev Jhanji PS-Seelampur Page No. 1 of 29
K. Final Order : ACQUITTED
Brief Statement of Reasons for Decision of the Case :-
1.
The present FIR was registered under Sections 304A
India Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC“) upon the
complaint made by ASI Ratti Ram who was deputed by DD No.
15A on 22.04.2003 by the DO after receiving information about
death by electrocution of person namely Paras in an under
construction hospital at Shastri Park at around 3:50 PM. It is
further alleged that electrocution had happened because of faulty
welding machine which was owned by the accused being the
contractor under construction building where the incident had
occurred. The accused was charge-sheeted for offences
punishable under Section 304A IPC.
2. FIR was registered and has been investigated by the
officials of PS : Seelampur and SHO, PS : Seelampur filed the
charge sheet against the accused upon which cognizance was
taken on 29.03.2005 by the learned Predecessor of this Court.
3. Accused appeared before the Court and copy of
chargesheet along with other documents under Section 207
Cr.P.C. was supplied to him.
Digitally signed
by ANMOL
ANMOL NOHRIA
Date:
NOHRIA 2025.08.01
14:33:18
+0530
FIR No. 110/2003 State vs. Rajeev Jhanji PS-Seelampur Page No. 2 of 29
4. Charge was framed vide order dated 07.10.2005 for
the offence punishable Under Section 304A of the IPC against
accused by the learned Predecessor of this Court, to which, the
accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. During the trial, prosecution led the following oral
and documentary evidence against the accused to prove its case
beyond reasonable doubt-:
ORAL EVIDENCE
PW-1 : Chote Khan (Public witness)
PW-2 : ASI Sheela (DD Writer)
PW-3 : Pappu (Public Witness)
PW-4 : Sukhbir Singh (Public Witness)
PW-5 : Naveen Jhanji
Rajesh Kumar (dead body
PW-6 :
identify)
PW-7 : Retd. SI Rajender Singh (DO)
PW-8 : Naresh Kumar (PMR)
ASI Subodh Kumar (police
PW-9 :
witness)
CW-1 : Dharmender (Public Witness)
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Ex. PW2/A : DD No. 15A
Ex. PW5/A : Bail bonds
ANMOL
Digitally signed
by ANMOL
NOHRIA
Ex. PW6/A : Dead body identification memo
Date:
NOHRIA 2025.08.01
14:33:15
+0530
FIR No. 110/2003 State vs. Rajeev Jhanji PS-Seelampur Page No. 3 of 29
Ex. PW6/B : Dead body handing over memo
Ex. PW7/A : FIR
Ex. PW8/A : PMR
Seizure memo of welding
Ex. PW9/A :
machine
Ex. PW9/B : Arrest memo
Ex. PW9/C : Personal search memo
6. Chote Khan (PW1) has deposed on both that he does
not remember the date, month and year but about 3 years ago he
was working as helper on welding machine at under construction
hospital at Shastri Park wherein the accused was the contractor.
On the day of incident one Paras Nath was working on the
welding machine and he was also working in the same building
and later on he came to know that Paras Nath electrocuted and
died but he cannot say how the incident occurred or whether the
wiring of machine proper or not. He has correctly identified
present in the court.
6.1. Chote Khan (PW1) was cross examined by the Ld.
APP as he was resiling from his previous statement and in his
cross examination by Ld. APP he has deposed that his statement
was recorded by the police, however, upon confrontation with the
Digitally signed same he denied having stated to the police that the wires of
by ANMOL
ANMOL NOHRIA
Date:
NOHRIA 2025.08.01
14:33:17
+0530FIR No. 110/2003 State vs. Rajeev Jhanji PS-Seelampur Page No. 4 of 29
welding machine were damaged from various places and they
had requested contractor Rajeev Jhanji to replace the same. He
has further denied of having been won over by the accused.
6.2. Chote Khan (PW1) was not cross examined by the
accused despite being give an opportunity.
7. Pappu (PW3) has deposed on oath that on
22.04.2003 he was operating crane at under construction in
Shastri Park and on that day at about 9:30 AM a labourer Paras
suffered electric shop in finger of his right hand from a machine
in the second floor and died at the spot due to electric shock.
7.1 Pappu (PW3) was not cross examined by the
accused despite being given an opportunity.
8. Sukhbir Singh (PW4) has deposed on oath in the
year 2003 one hospital was under construction at Shastri Park
and he was working there as shuttering worker under supervision
of Jitender Verma who used to work for company N.N. Jha. One
worker namely Paras was working in the said premises and in the
morning at around 8:00 AM to 9:00 AM and died due to
electrocution being engaged in the welding work, he was
working on top floor but deceased was working two floors below
Digitally signed
by ANMOL and he had not seen the deceased get electrocuted but heard the
ANMOL NOHRIA
Date:
NOHRIA 2025.08.01
14:33:16
+0530FIR No. 110/2003 State vs. Rajeev Jhanji PS-Seelampur Page No. 5 of 29
noises and came to know about the same. He immediately rushed
and some other labourers were getting the deceased down from
the stairs and no person namely Jitender is present in the court.
8.1. Sukhbir Singh (PW4) was cross examined by the Ld.
APP as he was resiling from previous statement wherein he has
deposed that he has studied up to 8th class and was working as
carpenter at the construction site. He was confronted with the
statement mark X1 and has denied the suggestion that accused
Rajeev Jhanji was the shuttering contractor at the site. He has
admitted the deceased had been working under the supervision
of the contractor prior to his joining and that on 22.04.2023
deceased was working on second floor as a welder for shuttering
where he got electrocuted while welding. He has denied the
suggestion that no rubber gloves were provided to the labour
working at the construction site. He has failed to identify the
accused despite specific attention being drawn to the accused and
denied the suggestion of having deposing falsely or being won
over by the accused.
8.2. In his cross examination Sukhbir Singh (PW4) by
the counsel of the accused has deposed that there was no written
agreement between him and the contractor and he used to work
there as a daily wager.
Digitally signed
by ANMOL
ANMOL NOHRIA
Date:
NOHRIA 2025.08.01
14:33:16
+0530
FIR No. 110/2003 State vs. Rajeev Jhanji PS-Seelampur Page No. 6 of 29
9. Naveen Jhanji (PW5) has deposed on 28.04.2003 he
had gone to the PS in connection with furnishing bail bond of
accused Rajeev Jhanji. He has correctly identified accused
present in the court.
9.1. Naveen Jhanji (PW5) was cross examined by the Ld.
APP as he was resiling from previous statement wherein he has
deposed that on 28.04.2003 he was working in EPI Company and
the said company was contractor for the hospital. He has
volunteered that sub contract was given to MICD for the
construction. He has admitted that the work was given to separate
contractor but upon confrontation with his statement Mark N, has
denied the suggestion that shuttering work was given to the
accused or that labour work was done with the consent of the
accused.
9.2 Naveen Jhanji (PW5) was not cross examined by the
accused despite being given an opportunity.
10. Dharmender (CW1) has deposed on oath that in the
year 2003 he used to work as helper in an under construction
hospital in Delhi but does not remember the location and used to
work with welder with Paras as a helper. Paras told him to bring
pipe from downstairs as he was of tender age, after getting the
Digitally signed
by ANMOL pipe he did not come to the place where Paras was working as a
ANMOL NOHRIA
Date:
NOHRIA 2025.08.01
14:33:15
+0530FIR No. 110/2003 State vs. Rajeev Jhanji PS-Seelampur Page No. 7 of 29
welder and thereafter he came to know from the supervisor that
Paras got electrocuted but he was electrocuted in the presence. he
had been working there for 10-12 days and was appointed by
contractor Rajeev Jhanji but he cannot tell name of other work
who used to work at the said site. He has correctly identified the
accused present in the court.
10.1. Dhamender (CW1) was cross examined by the Ld.
APP as he was resiling from previous statement wherein he has
deposed that he is illiterate and on 22.04.2003 he was working at
the said hospital. He again said that he does not remember the
exact date and place and denied the suggestion that the date was
22.04.2003 . He has further deposed that it was morning time and
Paras had directed to him to bring pipe at downstairs. He was
confronted with his statement Mark X2 but he denied the
suggestions that electric wire being used in the welding was short
and that he and Paras told accused several times to change the
same but accused did not change them and incident could have
been avoided if the same had been changed by the accused. he
has denied the suggestion of being won over by the accused.
10.2. In his cross examination Dhamender (CW1) by the
counsel of the accused has deposed that he is 31 years old and
cannot calculate what his age was in 2003, he had not read his
Digitally signed
by ANMOL statement as he is illiterate and Nayab Court had got refreshed his
ANMOL NOHRIA
Date:
NOHRIA 2025.08.01
14:33:16
+0530FIR No. 110/2003 State vs. Rajeev Jhanji PS-Seelampur Page No. 8 of 29
memory by him reading the statement. No one has told him to
identify the accused prior to his deposition before the court. He
has not brought his ID card but has one ID card in the name of
Tun Tun Baitha and he had come to Delhi at an early age and
might not have brought his ID. He came in the year 2003 and
worked for 15 days and went to his native village and no ID prof
was prepared in Delhi in his name and he is not residing in Delhi.
He cannot tell in which year his ID Card was prepared but as per
ID Card same was prepared in the year 2005, no register
regarding attendance of labour was maintained at the site of
working and he does not know the name of the company where
he was working and had not seen any paper of the company, he
does not know the name of the person with whom he was
working and cannot tell whether accused was the contractor who
had appointed him there and he cannot tell who was supervising
the site. He had not visited the PS and his signatures were
obtained on the plain paper but he cannot tell how many he had
signed but his signatures were obtained at the construction site by
the police but he does not remember the date. He has denied the
suggestion that he is deposing falsely and that he was not
working at the site on the relevant time. Court observation has
been made during his cross examination that witness has
Digitally signed
by ANMOL produced ID card mentioned in his name to be Tun Tun Baitha
ANMOL NOHRIA
Date:
NOHRIA 2025.08.01
14:33:19
+0530FIR No. 110/2003 State vs. Rajeev Jhanji PS-Seelampur Page No. 9 of 29
and in court question upon his contradiction qua his appointment
he has stated that he was brought there by Vinod but does not
remember by whom he was appointed.
11. The rest of the prosecution have supported the case
of the prosecution and proved the investigation as well as
documents mentioned in the table above.
12. Thereafter, before the start of defence evidence, in
order to allow the accused to personally explain the incriminating
circumstances appearing in evidence against him, separate
statement of the accused was recorded without oath under
Section 313 CrPC (read with Section 281 CrPC). The accused
stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the
present case and has never worked with the company but on the
date of incident he was doing construction work at Andrewsganj
by N.N. & Co. and was informed the incident by his uncle and
had gone to check the same. Pursuant thereto, the accused stated
that he does wish to lead defence evidence.
13. In his defense evidence accused examined officials
of EPFO as DW1 and DW2 to show that he was never employed
Digitally signed
by ANMOL with the said company, who brought documents from Ex.
ANMOL NOHRIA
Date:
NOHRIA 2025.08.01
14:33:18
+0530
FIR No. 110/2003 State vs. Rajeev Jhanji PS-Seelampur Page No. 10 of 29
DW1/A to Ex.DW1/F and Ex. DW2/A. he has further examined
bank officials as DW3 who have brought Ex. DW3/A to show
that cheque of EPFO in terms of evidence of the EPFO Officials
was encashed in the account of the accused.
14. I have heard the learned APP for the State and
learned counsel for the accused at length. I have also given my
thoughtful consideration to the material appearing on record.
15. It is argued by the learned APP for the State that that
all the ingredients of the offence are fulfilled in the present case
and the State has duly proved its case. He has argued that the
police officials have deposed about the investigation and other
witnesses have proved the link of the accused to the machine
which is the cause of the incident. The medical record is not
denied by the defence. As such, it is prayed that the accused be
punished for the said offence.
16. Per contra, learned counsel for the accused has
argued that the State has failed to establish its case beyond
reasonable doubt. It is argued that the prosecution has failed to
prove the offence beyond any reasonable doubt and there is no
Digitally signed
by ANMOL direct evidence in this case. It is further argued that all the
ANMOL NOHRIA
Date:
NOHRIA 2025.08.01
14:33:16
+0530FIR No. 110/2003 State vs. Rajeev Jhanji PS-Seelampur Page No. 11 of 29
witnesses of the prosecution have turned hostile and there is
nothing on record to link the accused with the alleged crime. It is
further submitted that accused has duly proved that during the
said period he was employed with some other company and as
such it cannot be establish that accused was the contractor of the
said side where the incident occurred. As such, it is prayed that
the accused be acquitted for the said offence.
17. The essential ingredients which the Prosecution is
required to prove to establish the guilt of accused beyond
reasonable doubt for offence punishable under Section 304A IPC
are as under :
“1) There must be death of the person in
question;
2) that the accused must have caused such
death; and
3) that such act of the accused was rash or
negligent and that it did not amount to
culpable homicide.”
18. In Rathnashalvan vs. State of Karnataka : AIR 2007
SC 1064, the Apex Court observed that:
“5. Section 304A applies to cases where
there is no intention to cause death and no
knowledge that the act done in all
Digitally signed
by ANMOL probability will cause death. The provision
ANMOL NOHRIA
Date:
NOHRIA 2025.08.01
14:33:19
+0530FIR No. 110/2003 State vs. Rajeev Jhanji PS-Seelampur Page No. 12 of 29
is directed at offences outside the range of
Sections 299 and 300 IPC. The provision
applies only to such acts which are rash
and negligent and are directly cause of
death of another person. Negligence and
rashness are essential elements under
Section 304A. Culpable negligence lies in
the failure to exercise reasonable and
proper care and the extent of its
reasonableness will always depend upon
the circumstances of each case. Rashness
means doing an act with the consciousness
of a risk that evil consequences will follow
but with the hope that it will not.
Negligence is a breach of duty imposed by
law. In criminal cases, the amount and
degree of negligence are determining
factors. A question whether the accused’s
conduct amounted to culpable rashness or
negligence depends directly on the
question as to what is the amount of care
and circumspection which a prudent and
reasonable man would consider it to be
sufficient considering all the circumstances
of the case. Criminal rashness means
hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with
the knowledge that it is dangerous or
wanton and the further knowledge that it
may cause injury but done without any
intention to cause injury or knowledge that
it would probably be caused.
6. As noted above, “Rashness” consists in
hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with
Digitally signed
by ANMOL the knowledge that it is so, and that it may
ANMOL NOHRIA
Date:
NOHRIA 2025.08.01
14:33:17
+0530FIR No. 110/2003 State vs. Rajeev Jhanji PS-Seelampur Page No. 13 of 29
cause injury. The criminality lies in such a
case in running the risk of doing such an
act with recklessness or indifference as to
the consequences. Criminal negligence on
the other hand, is the gross and culpable
neglect or failure to exercise that
reasonable and proper care and precaution
to guard against injury either to the public
generally or to an individual in particular,
which, having regard to all the
circumstances out of which the charge has
arisen it was the imperative duty of the
accused person to have adopted.
13. Section 304A which deals with
unintentional death caused by doing any
rash or negligent act of the offender. The
applicability of this Section is limited to
rash or negligent acts which cause death
but fall short of culpable homicide
amounting to murder or culpable homicide
not amounting to murder. To bring an
offence within the ambit of Section 304A,
the prosecution is required to bring on
record that the act was done by an accused
and the death was caused due to rash and
negligent act.
19. In other words, to seek conviction of the accused
under the charged Sections, cogent evidence has to be led to
establish “rashness”/”negligence” on the part of the accused.
“A rash act is primarily and over-hasty act
Digitally signed
and is thus opposed to a deliberate act, but
by ANMOL
ANMOL NOHRIA
Date:
NOHRIA 2025.08.01
14:33:16
+0530FIR No. 110/2003 State vs. Rajeev Jhanji PS-Seelampur Page No. 14 of 29
it also includes an act which, though it may
be said to be deliberate, is yet done without
due deliberation and caution. In rashness
the criminality lies in running the risk of
doing an act with recklessness or
indifference to consequences.” (Page no.
321 Ratan Lal & Dhiraj Lal, The Indian
Penal Code 28th Edition Reprint 2002).
Further, a negligent act “involves
blameworthy heedlessness on the part of
the accused which a normal prudent man
exercising reasonable care and caution
ought to avoid”. (Page no. 322 Ratan Lal
& Dhiraj Lal, The Indian Penal Code 28th
Edition Reprint 2002). Either of these
ingredients have to be proved by
affirmative evidence and cannot be
presumed res ipsa loquitur. Reliance is
placed upon State of Karnataka Vs. Satish
(1998) 8SCC 493″
20. The gravamen of the offence under Section 304A
IPC is the act of the accused, done with “rashness” or
“negligence”. The IPC does not define either of these terms.
However, the ambit of these terms has now been settled by
judicial pronouncements of superior courts. In Empress of India
vs. Idu Beg ILR (1881) 3 All 776 the term “rashness” was
interpreted to mean commission of an act with indifference or
recklessness towards the consequences of such act. The Hon’ble
Digitally signed
by ANMOL
ANMOL NOHRIA
Date:
NOHRIA 2025.08.01
14:33:18
+0530
FIR No. 110/2003 State vs. Rajeev Jhanji PS-Seelampur Page No. 15 of 29
Apex Court in the case of Rathnashalvan vs. State of Karnataka
(2007) 3 SCC 474 has observed, inter alia, as under-:
“7. …. Culpable negligence lies in the
failure to exercise reasonable and proper
care and the extent of its reasonableness
will always depend upon the
circumstances of each case. Rashness
means doing an act with the consciousness
of a risk that evil consequences will follow
but with the hope that it will not.
Negligence is a breach of duty imposed by
law. In criminal cases, the amount and
degree of negligence are determining
factors. A question whether the accused’s
conduct amounted to culpable rashness or
negligence depends directly on the
question as to what is the amount of care
and circumspection which a prudent and
reasonable man would consider it to be
sufficient considering all the circumstances
of the case. Criminal rashness means
hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with
the knowledge that it is dangerous or
wanton and the further knowledge that it
may cause injury but done without any
intention to cause injury or knowledge that
it would probably be caused.
8. As noted above, “rashness” consists in
hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with
the knowledge that it is so, and that it may
cause injury. The criminality lies in such a
case in running the risk of doing such an
Digitally signed
by ANMOL act with recklessness or indifference as to
ANMOL NOHRIA
Date:
NOHRIA 2025.08.01
14:33:15
+0530FIR No. 110/2003 State vs. Rajeev Jhanji PS-Seelampur Page No. 16 of 29
the consequences. Criminal negligence on
the other hand, is the gross and culpable
neglect or failure to exercise that
reasonable and proper care and precaution
to guard against injury either to the public
generally or to an individual in particular,
which, having regard to all the
circumstances out of which the charge has
arisen it was the imperative duty of the
accused person to have adopted.”
21. Similar observations were made by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Sushil Ansal vs. CBI (2014) 6 SCC
173. The standard of negligence was discussed in the said case,
by observing, inter alia, as under :-
“58. In the case of “negligence” the courts
have favoured a meaning which implies a
gross and culpable neglect or failure to
exercise that reasonable and proper care
and precaution to guard against injury
either to the public generally or to an
individual which having regard to all the
circumstances out of which the charge
arises, it may be the imperative duty of
the accused to have adopted. Negligence
has been understood to be an omission to
do something which a reasonable man
guided upon those considerations which
ordinarily regulate the conduct of human
affairs, would do, or doing something
which a prudent and reasonable person
Digitally signed
by ANMOL would not do. Unlike rashness, where the
ANMOL NOHRIA
Date:
NOHRIA 2025.08.01
14:33:17
+0530FIR No. 110/2003 State vs. Rajeev Jhanji PS-Seelampur Page No. 17 of 29
imputability arises from acting despite the
consciousness, negligence implies acting
without such consciousness, but in
circumstances which show that the actor
has not exercised the caution incumbent
upon him. The imputability in the case of
negligence arises from the neglect of the
civil duty of circumspection.”
22. The Prosecution also has to establish beyond
reasonable doubt that the direct and proximate cause of grievous
injury/death of the victim was the rash and negligent act by the
accused.
23. The identity of the accused as to the person
responsible for taking due care or doing the rash and negligent
act has also to be cogently established beyond reasonable doubts.
24. Before proceedings further it becomes pertinent to
mention the Supreme Court judgment of Mohammed Aynuddin
Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2000) 7 SCC 72 , wherein Supreme
Court has observed that:
“8. The principle of res ipsa loquitor is only a
rule of evidence to determine the onus of
proof in actions relating to negligence. The
said principle has application only when the
Digitally signed
by ANMOL nature of the accident and the attending
ANMOL NOHRIA
Date:
NOHRIA 2025.08.01
14:33:19
+0530FIR No. 110/2003 State vs. Rajeev Jhanji PS-Seelampur Page No. 18 of 29
circumstances would reasonably lead to the
belief that in the absence of negligence, the
accident would not have occurred and that the
thing which caused injury is shown to have
been under the management and control of the
alleged wrong doer.
9. A rash act is primarily an over hasty act. It
is opposed to a deliberate act. Still, a rash act
can be a deliberate act in the sense that it was
done without due care and caution. Culpable
rashness lies in running the risk of doing an
act with recklessness and with indifference as
to the consequences. Criminal negligence is
the failure to exercise duty with reasonable
and proper care and precaution guarding
against injury to the public generally or to any
individual in particular.”
25. With the back ground of above discussion, this
Court now proceeds to appreciate the evidence brought on record
by the Prosecution.
26. Perusal of the record and prosecution evidence
shows that all the public witnesses examined by the prosecution
in order to link the accused as the contractor of the site under
construction where the incident stated to have occurred have
been declared hostile by the prosecution and have been cross
Digitally signed
examined by the Ld. APP.
by ANMOL
ANMOL NOHRIA
Date:
NOHRIA 2025.08.01
14:33:18
+0530
FIR No. 110/2003 State vs. Rajeev Jhanji PS-Seelampur Page No. 19 of 29
27. Hence, it become necessary to discuss the
evidentiary value of hostile witness at this juncture and it is
pertinent to note that under Indian law, the evidence of hostile
witnesses is not discarded completely. The legal maxim, “false
in uno false in ombnibus” is not applicable in India. With respect
to the evidentiary value of hostile witness, it was observed by the
Apex Court in the case of Rohtash Kumar vs. State of Haryana
(2013) 14 SCC 434, as under:-
“25. It is a settled legal proposition that
evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be
rejected in toto, merely because the
prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and
cross examined him. The evidence of such
witnesses cannot be treated as effaced, or
washed off the record altogether. The same can
be accepted to the extent that their version is
found to be dependable, upon a careful
scrutiny thereof.”
28. A careful scrutiny of testimony of PW 1 shows that
he has specifically named the accused to be the contractor of the
site with specific allegations that the welding machine belonged
to the accused, however, he has denied any fault being there in
the said machine or the contents of his statement Mark A
Digitally signed
whereby suggestions were given to him qua the damaged
by ANMOL
ANMOL NOHRIA
Date:
NOHRIA 2025.08.01
14:33:16
+0530FIR No. 110/2003 State vs. Rajeev Jhanji PS-Seelampur Page No. 20 of 29
condition of the machine or request made by him to the accused
to get the same repaired.
29. Further, scrutiny of testimony of PW4 shows that he
has not deposed anything qua the accused being the contractor of
the site but has only stated that he was working under supervision
of Jitender Verma for company namely N.N. Jha and he has
failed to identify the accused despite being specifically shown by
the Ld. APP and has also denied the suggestion the accused was
the contractor of the said site. He has further deposed nothing
qua the condition of the machine but has admitted that the
deceased Paras had died due to electrocution while working on
the welding machine. He has further denied any suggestions
given by the Ld. APP qua the negligence in work of the accused.
30. Naveen Jhanji (PW5) has also not deposed anything
qua the accused or even the incident and has further denied the
suggestion that shuttering work of the site was given to the
accused. Thus, he has deposed nothing incriminating against the
accused in the present matter.
31. Dhamender (CW1) who is also one of the workers
Digitally signed
by ANMOL has specifically name the accused as the contractor in his
ANMOL NOHRIA
Date:
NOHRIA 2025.08.01
14:33:15
+0530FIR No. 110/2003 State vs. Rajeev Jhanji PS-Seelampur Page No. 21 of 29
examination in chief but has also deposed that he was never
present at the spot when the incident occurred though he was
present at the site. In his cross examination he has denied
suggestions by the Ld. APP qua the bad condition of the said
machine or the negligence on the part of the accused with respect
to the same. Further in his cross examination he has admitted that
Tun Tun Baitha and has also produced ID card with respect to
the same with the admissions that there is no ID proof of him
with the name of Dhamender and that no attendance register was
maintained at the site. Interstitingly, he is not aware about any
other worker or location of the site and he is not even aware as to
the name of the company for which he was working. Further in
his cross examination he has denied the accused being the
contractor of the site or singing any documents but having signed
plain paper at the instance of the police.
32. To summaries the discussion above, the witness
PW1 despite being declared hostile has identified the accused to
be the contractor of the site with the assertion that the said
machine belong to him but PW4 and PW5 despite cross
examination by the state, have not identified the accused as being
contractor of the said site or the owner of the machine. The
Digitally signed
by ANMOL testimony of CW1 is itself under the cloud as a reasonable doubt
ANMOL NOHRIA
Date:
NOHRIA 2025.08.01
14:33:19
+0530FIR No. 110/2003 State vs. Rajeev Jhanji PS-Seelampur Page No. 22 of 29
has been caste upon the identity of CW1. Thus, it is only the
testimony of PW1 which implicates the accused as the contractor
and owner of the machine from which the deceased stated to
have died.
33. However, further perusal of the testimony of PW1
shows that he has not raised any allegation qua the condition of
the machine despite the cross examination by Ld. APP and thus
his testimony only incriminates the accused qua his identity but
not his negligence with respect to the machine.
34. The other public witness PW3 has only deposed qua
the death of the deceased due to electric shop from a machine but
has never stated that it was the same machine that belong to the
accused or about the condition of the same or about the fact that
the incident occurred in front of him rather he has stated that he
was operating crane at that time.
35. Interestingly, the said machine was seized by the IO
vide seizure memo Ex. PW9/A but the same has never been
brought to the court for identification or to prove the fact that
certain defect i.e. loose wires or broken wires existed in the same
Digitally signed
by ANMOL which led to electrocution of the deceased. No photograph of the
ANMOL NOHRIA
Date:
NOHRIA 2025.08.01
14:33:18
+0530FIR No. 110/2003 State vs. Rajeev Jhanji PS-Seelampur Page No. 23 of 29
same has also been placed on record to show the condition of the
machine despite the fact that PW9 in his cross examination has
admitted that photographs of the spot area were captured by the
Delhi police in his presence. It is also noteworthy that no
mechanical inspection of the said machine has been conducted
and no such report has been placed before the court which would
prove the conduct/negligence of the accused.
36. In a criminal trial, the burden on the prosecution is
beyond reasonable doubt. The reasonable doubt is a rule of
caution laid down by the Courts of Law in respect of assessing
the evidence in criminal cases. In Awadhi Yadav v. State of
Bihar, (1971) 3 SCC 116 at page 117, Hon’ble Supreme Court
has observed that:
“Before a person can be convicted on the
strength of circumstantial evidence, the
circumstances in question must be
satisfactorily established and the proved
circumstances must bring home the offence
to the accused beyond reasonable doubt. If
those circumstances or some of them can be
explained by any other reasonable
hypothesis then the accused must have the
benefit of that hypothesis. But in assessing
the evidence imaginary possibilities have no
Digitally signed
by ANMOL
ANMOL NOHRIA
Date:
NOHRIA 2025.08.01
14:33:17
+0530FIR No. 110/2003 State vs. Rajeev Jhanji PS-Seelampur Page No. 24 of 29
place. What is to be considered are ordinary
human probabilities.”
37. In State of Haryana v. Bhagirath, (1999) 5 SCC 96 :
1999 SCC (Cri) 658 : 1999 SCC OnLine SC 577 at page 99
Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that:
“But the principle of benefit of doubt belongs
exclusively to criminal jurisprudence. The
pristine doctrine of benefit of doubt can be
invoked when there is reasonable doubt
regarding the guilt of the accused. It is the
reasonable doubt which a conscientious
judicial mind entertains on a conspectus of the
entire evidence that the accused might not
have committed the offence, which affords
the benefit to the accused at the end of the
criminal trial. Benefit of doubt is not a legal
dosage to be administered at every segment of
the evidence, but an advantage to be afforded
to the accused at the final end after
consideration of the entire evidence, if the
Judge conscientiously and reasonably
entertains doubt regarding the guilt of the
accused. It is nearly impossible in any
criminal trial to prove all the elements with a
scientific precision. A criminal court could be
convinced of the guilt only beyond the range
of a reasonable doubt. Of course, the
expression “reasonable doubt” is incapable of
definition. Modern thinking is in favour of the
Digitally signed
view that proof beyond a reasonable doubt is
by ANMOL
ANMOL NOHRIA
Date:
NOHRIA 2025.08.01
14:33:15
+0530FIR No. 110/2003 State vs. Rajeev Jhanji PS-Seelampur Page No. 25 of 29
the same as proof which affords moral
certainty to the Judge.”
38. Thus, from the discussion above it can be concluded
that the evidence brought on record by the prosecution to though
establishes certain link between the accused and the machine
from which death of the deceased is stated to have occurred but
the prosecution has failed to establish the negligence on part of
the accused with respect to the said machine so as to bring the act
of the accused under the definition of criminal negligence. As
discussed above, for rashness the criminality lies in running the
risk of doing an act with recklessness or indifference to
consequences and a negligent act involves blameworthy
heedlessness on the part of the accused which a normal prudent
man exercising reasonable care and caution ought to avoid.
Either of these have to be proved by positive evidence. The proof
of the prosecution cannot be discharged by presumptions.Ergo,
the prosecution has failed to prove any negligence on part of the
accused for securing a conviction and the benefit of doubt must
be given to the accused.
39. Francis Wharton, a celebrated writer on criminal law
Digitally signed
by ANMOL in the United States has quoted from judicial pronouncements in
ANMOL NOHRIA
Date:
NOHRIA 2025.08.01
14:33:15
+0530FIR No. 110/2003 State vs. Rajeev Jhanji PS-Seelampur Page No. 26 of 29
his book Wharton’s Criminal Evidence (at p. 31, Vol. 1 of the
12th Edn.) as follows:
“It is difficult to define the phrase ‘reasonable
doubt’. However, in all criminal cases a
careful explanation of the term ought to be
given. A definition often quoted or followed is
that given by Chief Justice Shaw in the
Webster case. He says: ‘It is not mere possible
doubt, because everything relating to human
affairs and depending upon moral evidence is
open to some possible or imaginary doubt. It is
that state of the case which, after the entire
comparison and consideration of all the
evidence, leaves the minds of the jurors in that
consideration that they cannot say they feel an
abiding conviction to a moral certainty of the
truth of the charge.”
40. In the treatise The Law of Criminal Evidence
authored by H.C. Underhill it is stated (at p. 34, Vol. 1 of the 5th
Edn.) thus:
“The doubt to be reasonable must be such a one
as an honest, sensible and fair-minded man
might, with reason, entertain consistent with a
conscientious desire to ascertain the truth. An
honestly entertained doubt of guilt is a
reasonable doubt. A vague conjecture or an
inference of the possibility of the innocence of
the accused is not a reasonable doubt. A
reasonable doubt is one which arises from a
Digitally signed
consideration of all the evidence in a fair and
by ANMOL
ANMOL NOHRIA
Date:
NOHRIA 2025.08.01
14:33:19
+0530FIR No. 110/2003 State vs. Rajeev Jhanji PS-Seelampur Page No. 27 of 29
reasonable way. There must be a candid
consideration of all the evidence and if, after
this candid consideration is had by the jurors,
there remains in the minds a conviction of the
guilt of the accused, then there is no room for a
reasonable doubt.”
41. In view of the discussion above, the onus to prove
negligence and rashness was upon the prosecution and the
prosecution has failed establish and facts or circumstances,
wherein it can be shown that the electrocution of the deceased
had occurred due to the negligence or omission to take care of
the accused. Ergo, the rashness and the negligence has not been
established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
Consequently, the Prosecution has not been able to establish
beyond reasonable doubt that the direct and proximate cause of
grievous injuries or death of the victim was the rash and
negligent act of the accused, therefore, accused Rajeev Jhanji S/o
Rajender Jhanji is found not guilty in the present case and
resultantly, he stands acquitted in the present case.
42. Bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused stands
discharged. Original be returned to rightful owner after
cancellation of endorsement. Superdarinama, if any, hereby
stands cancelled.
Digitally signed
by ANMOL
ANMOL NOHRIA
Date:
NOHRIA 2025.08.01
14:33:17
+0530
FIR No. 110/2003 State vs. Rajeev Jhanji PS-Seelampur Page No. 28 of 29
43. Accused persons are directed to furnish bonds in the
sum of Rs.10,000/- with a surety of like amount u/S 437A Cr.P.C
and is directed to be present before the Ld. Appellate Court as
and when directed.
44. This judgment contains 29 pages. This judgment has
been signed and pronounced by the undersigned in open court.
45. Let a copy of the judgment be uploaded on the
official website of District Courts, Karkardooma forthwith.
File be consigned to record room after due
compliance.
Announced in the open (ANMOL NOHRIA)
Court on 01st August, 2025 JMFC-02/NE/KKD COURTS
Digitally signed
by ANMOL
ANMOL NOHRIA
Date:
NOHRIA 2025.08.01
14:33:19
+0530
FIR No. 110/2003 State vs. Rajeev Jhanji PS-Seelampur Page No. 29 of 29