New Delhi, Sep 29 A Delhi court has acquitted two employees of a hotel in Connaught Place of negligence charges in a 2020 fire incident which caused injuries to hotel guests, saying the prosecution failed to prove any specific negligent act against them.
Judicial Magistrate Charan Salwan was hearing a case against the accused, Basudev Singh Dadwal and Rohit Arora, both executive-level employees of the Park Hotel, against whom the Connaught Place police station had registered an FIR under IPC Sections 285 (negligent conduct with fire or combustible matter) and 337 (causing hurt by a rash or negligent act).
According to the prosecution, the two accused had kept telecommunication and electric wires, alleged to be combustible material, at the hotel without taking sufficient precaution against the danger to human life.
The negligence of the officials, the prosecution claimed, caused simple hurt to five guests, including two foreign nationals, during a fire breakout at the hotel on February 15, 2020.
In an order dated September 16, the court said the mere occurrence of a fire is not enough to attract IPC Section 285, and the prosecution must prove the particular act or omission that amounted to negligence, and how the combustible material was handled, stored or maintained to create danger.
It found no cogent evidence that either accused personally kept or possessed the material in the manner the section contemplates for being a penal offence.
On the allegation that Dadwal was responsible for safety as director (engineering), the court said, "Designation or administrative responsibility by itself cannot automatically establish the commission of a criminal offence."
It said the prosecution has not brought on record the appointment letter, service agreement, written delegation of responsibility or any other document establishing the precise duties of either accused concerning the alleged faulty electrical wiring.
"Notably, the Electrical Inspector's evidence does not support the prosecution's theory of negligent electrical installation… The Investigating Officer (IO) also admitted that the report recorded that the exact cause of fire could not be ascertained," the court said.
Regarding the injury to one of the hotel guests, the court said that "proof of injury is not equivalent to proof of criminal negligence".
It said that the injured guest did not witness the accused persons committing any negligent act, and had merely expressed his opinion that the fire occurred due to negligence of hotel staff or authorities.
Such an opinion, without evidence establishing the specific negligent act attributable to the accused, cannot by itself establish criminal liability, the court said.
It said, "The prosecution has therefore failed to establish the necessary causal link between the alleged negligence of the accused persons and the injuries suffered by the complainant (hotel guest)."
The court also said the "investigation was not properly conducted".
These lapses included the allegedly combustible wires not being seized, photographs relied upon having no date or time, non-collection of Dadwal's appointment letter, even though the prosecution relied on his designation to fix responsibility, non-examination of hotel employees and security staff, and the inspector's report not ascertaining the cause of the fire.
"In my considered opinion, these circumstances, taken cumulatively, create a substantial and reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's theory that the fire and resulting injuries were the consequence of a specific negligent act or omission attributable to the accused persons," the magistrate said.
He said that criminal liability cannot be imposed merely because an accused happened to occupy a managerial or supervisory position at the relevant establishment.
The prosecution must establish the particular act or omission attributable to that person and demonstrate the requisite causal connection between such act or omission and the consequence, the magistrate said.
He said that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that either of the accused persons committed any rash or negligent act or omission and that the injuries suffered by the hotel guests were caused by any rash or negligent act attributable specifically to them.
The magistrate accordingly acquitted both accused of all charges.
