RAJU SULTANIA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been preferred against the order dated 13.12.2014 passed by 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Case No.100 of 2014, whereby the Additional Sessions Judge has framed charge against the Applicant for an offence punishable under Section 304 / 34 IPC.

(2.) Facts of the case, in brief, are that the Applicant is a partner of a firm, namely, R.G. Builder and the said firm is engaged in the business of construction and development of residential and commercial buildings. The said firm proposed a multi storey residential building at Sirgitti, Bilaspur in the name of Galaxy Apartment. For that work, the said firm through the Applicant entered into an agreement with co-accused Satish Sonwani on 17.10.2013. As per the prosecution case, on the east side of site of Galaxy apartment, there was a wall constructed by the railways in the direction of north-south measuring about 60 feet in length and allegedly between the site of the Galaxy Apartment and the wall of the railways, both the accused persons, i.e., the Applicant and co-accused Satish Sonwani dumped sand upto the height of the wall of the railways. On 4.6.2014, two labours namely Jankibai and Santoshibai by putting a ladder on the said wall were dumping the stored sand to the other side of the wall. Suddenly, the wall constructed by the railways collapsed as a result of which the above named two labours died. A report was made to the police by one Kripashankar Sharma. On the basis of said report, offence was registered and on completion of the investigation, a charge- sheet was filed against the Applicant as well as against co-accused Satish Sonwani for offence punishable under Section 304 / 34 IPC. Vide the impugned order dated 13.12.2014, the Additional Sessions Judge framed charge against the Applicant and co- accused Satish Sonwani under Section 304 / 34 IPC. Thus, this revision by Applicant Raju Sultania.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant submitted that the ingredients for constitution of offence under Section 304 IPC are not available against the Applicant. Even if the case of the prosecution is accepted in totality, at the best, the Applicant can be prosecuted for the offence under Section 304A IPC not under Section 304 IPC. It was further submitted that no role was played by the Applicant in dumping the sand at the abovementioned place nor did he play any role in dumping the said sand to the other side of the wall. According to the clauses of the agreement dated 17.10.2013, co-accused Satish Sonwani was to arrange labours and get the work of construction etc. executed. Therefore, the Applicant cannot be implicated in the case for the act done by co- accused Satish Sonwani.