Bangalore District Court
State By Madivala Traffic vs George P Raju on 16 April, 2018
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
TRAFFIC COURT - VI, BENGA CITY.
C.C. No.7161/2017
Dated: This the 16th day of April, 2018
Present: Smt.Triveni Iragar, M.Com, LL.B
P.O. of MMTC-VI, Bengaluru.
Complainant : State by Madivala Traffic
Police Station, Bengaluru.
V/s
Accused : George P Raju
S/o Varghese Raju,
Paramel House,
Kayam Kulam City,
Halapi District,
Alappuzha,
Kerala.
>
1 Date of commission of : 11.07.2017
offence
2 Date of report of offence : 11.07.2017
3 Name of Complainant : Seema Sulthana
4 Date of recording : 15.12.2017
evidence.
5 Date of closing evidence : 31.01.2018
6 Offence complained of : U/Sec.279, 304(A) of
IPC and Sec.134(B)
R/w 187 of M.V. Act
7 Opinion of the Judge : Accused has not found
guilty
2 C.C.7161/2017
JUDGMENT
Police Inspector of Madivala Traffic Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.81/2017 for the offence punishable U/Sec.279, 304(A) of IPC and Sec.134(B) R/w 187 of M.V. Act.
2. The facts of prosecution case in brief are as under :
The accused being the rider of motor cycle bearing registration No.KL-24-H-7109 on 11.07.2017 at 6.00 p.m. drove the vehicle on Hosuru Main Road, near Roopenaagrahara, near Sri Lakshmi Venkateshwara Temple from north side Bommanahally towards south side Silk Board in rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and hit to the pedestrians who were crossing road from east to west, from Giriyas showroom to bus stop near Laxmi Venkateswara Temple. Due to the impact both pedestrian fell down and one of the women Smt. Shakila sustained grievous injuries on her head and Kum.Seema Sulthan sustained simple injuries on her hands. She shifted pedestrian Shakila to the hospital by the accused and public through auto and after the lapse of 6 days Smt. Shakila succumbed to the injuries in the hospital. Thereby the accused has 3 C.C.7161/2017 committed the offence punishable U/Sec.279, 304(A) of IPC and Sec.134(B) R/w 187 of M.V. Act.
3. After submission of charge sheet, this Court took cognizance for the offence punishable U/Sec.279, 304(A) of IPC and Sec.134(B) R/w 187 of M.V. Act and registered in criminal register and issued summons to the accused prior to that the accused has been produced before the open Court in crime stage, he has got enlarged on bail.
4. The copies of the prosecution papers were furnished to the accused as per section 207 of Cr.P.C. Substance of accusation for the offence punishable U/Sec.279, 304(A) of IPC and Sec.134(B) R/w 187 of M.V. Act was recorded read over and explained to the accused in the language best known to him for which the accused has not guilty and made defense.
5. In order to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt, the prosecution has got examined 6 witnesses as PW.1 to 6 and got marked the documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11.
4 C.C.7161/20176. After the evidence of prosecution, the Statement of the accused was recorded U/s 313 of Cr.P.C and he was explained with the incriminating circumstances that had appeared against him in the evidence of prosecution. But the accused has denied all the allegation made against him and he has not leaded any defense evidence.
7. Heard the arguments on both the side and perused the materials on record.
8. The following points arise for the determination of the Court.
i. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused being the rider of motor cycle bearing registration No.KL-24-H-7109 on 11.07.2017 at 6.00 p.m. drove the vehicle on Hosuru Main Road, near Roopenaagrahara, near Sri Lakshmi Venkateshwara Temple from north side Bommanahally towards south side Silk Board in rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and hit to the pedestrians who were crossing road, thereby the accused has committed offence U/s 279 of IPC?
5 C.C.7161/2017ii. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place of accident the pedestrian Smt.Shakila sustained grievous injuries and she succumbed to the injuries on 17.07.2017, thereby the accused has committed the offence punishable U/s 304 (A) of IPC ?
iii. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that after the accident he did not inform about the accident to the nearest police station, thereby the accused has committed the offence punishable under section 134(B) R/w Sec. 187 of IMV Act?
iv. What order ?
9. My findings on the above said point are as follows :
POINT NO.1 : In the negative
POINT NO.2 : In the negative
POINT NO.3 : In the negative
POINT NO.4 : As per the final order for
the following:
REASONS
POINT NOS.1 AND 2 :
10. In support of the prosecution case the
prosecution has examined 6 witnesses as PW-1 to 6 and document got marked Ex.P.1 to 11. P.W.1, 3, 4 and 5 6 C.C.7161/2017 are independent witnesses and P.W.2, 6 are the Investigation Officers.
11. P.W.1 is the victim as well as complainant and eye witness to the accident. She deposed that deceased Shakila is her Aunt. On 11.07.2017 at 6.00 p.m. they were returning to their home from Roopenaagrahara Lakshmivenkateshwara temple while crossing the road at that time one bike bearing registration No.KL-24-H-7025 drown by the rider in rash and negligent manner from Bommanahalli instead of showing to stop the bike rider came and hit them. Due to that impact they fell down and sustained injuries and with the help of the public offending vehicle rider and she shifted her Aunt Shakila to St. John hospital for treatment there police took her statement of complaint. Further she identified the complaint and her signature on that. The complaint got marked as Ex.P.1 and signature of the witness got marked as Ex.P.1(a). Another document was confronted to the witness she deposed that she has signed the document at the accident spot and it has been got marked as Ex.P.2 and signature marked as Ex.P.2(a). Further she deposed that her Aunt expired after 6 days of the accident in hospital and she has informed to the 7 C.C.7161/2017 police about the death of the deceased Shakila. Further she deposed that the road which they are crossing had zebra crossing lines. 5 photos confronted to the witness, she deposed that those photos are of accident spot and offending vehicle. All the photos got marked as Ex.P.3. On looking all the photos witness deposed that the offending vehicle number is correct as it appears in photos and she wrongly mentioned it in her chief earlier. She identifies the person who has hit the deceased Shakhila as accused in the Court.
12. The witness has been cross-examined by the A.P.P. with the suggestion that along with the deceased Shakila she was crossing road near Giriyas show room to Lakshmi Narasimhaswamy Temple bus stop as they were intended to go to the bus stop. This suggestion was admitted by the witness. Another suggestion was made to the witness that on the accident day at 7.00 to 7.30 p.m. spot mahazara was conducted by the Investigation officer at her presence and hand sketch map was prepared along with the C.W.2, she has signed the spot mahazara.
8 C.C.7161/201713. Cross-examination was made by the accused counsel. In the cross-examination the accused counsel suggested that the accident road contains 3 feet divider and over that divider plants were planted and the accident road is main road and it is busy road. These suggestions were admitted by the P.W.1. Further suggestion was made that she has not observed the vehicle prior to the accident, this suggestion was also admitted by the witness. She also admits that deceased Shakila was crossing the road behind her. Further she admits that any person while crossing the road prior to entering into the road should observe the vehicle moving on the road to cross it. She also admits that after the accident offending vehicle rider also fell down by himself, she denies the suggestion that the accident was not happened on the fault of the accused. Further she deposed that C.W.2, 3 and 4 are friends of her uncle and C.W.2 to 4 directly came to the hospital on the phone call made by her. She also admits that she has singed Ex.P.1 and 2 both in the hospital itself.
14. P.W.2 is Investigation Officer. He deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 11.07.2017 at 7.10 p.m. he recorded the statement of complaint from C.W.1 and 9 C.C.7161/2017 registered case in Crime No.87/2017 and F.I.R. and complaint submitted to the Court and his higher officer. FIR got marked as Ex.P.10 and signature of the witness in marked as Ex.P.10(a) and Ex.P.1(b). On the same day at 7.30 to 8.30 p.m. he visited spot along with HC 8854 and Panchas C.W.1 and 2 and prepared spot mahzara and rough sketch and spot mahazara got marked as Ex.P.2 and his signature marked as Ex.P.2(b) and rough sketch marked as Ex.P.11 and his signature marked as Ex.P.11(a). Further he shifted offending vehicle bearing No.KA-24-H-7109 from accident spot to police station and on the same day he recorded the statement of C.W.2 to 4. Further he deposed that on the next day of the accident accused appeared before the station and after arrest procedure he released on station bail and on the same day he issued Sec.133 of M.V act notice i.e. ex.P.4 to the vehicle owner and received notice reply i.e. Ex.P.5 and signature of the witness marked as Ex.P.4(a) and Ex.P.5(a) respectively. Further he transferred case file to the C.W.14 for further investigation.
15. P.W.2 witness has been cross examined by the accused counsel. In the cross-examination he deposed that in the accident spot there is no electric signal and 10 C.C.7161/2017 road divider had 6 to 8 feet width and on the divider plantation are made. Further he denies that on sudden entry of the pedestrian accident had happened and accident happened not on the fault of the accused. Further he denies that he registered false case and he deposed false evidence to help the deceased family.
16. P.W.3 deposed that deceased Shakila is wife of his friend. On 11.07.2017 at 6.15 p.m. he was going from Koramangala on his two wheeler. His friend called him over phone and intimated about the accident. He went to the accident spot on information through the phone call and he saw that deceased Shakila had grievous injuries on her head and C.W.1 has simple injuries and public were shifted injured persons to the hospital by auto. Later on it came to his knowledge on enquiry that the accused has drove his vehicle in rash and negligent manner and hit pedestrians who were crossing the road. He deposed the number of the offending vehicle as KL-24-H-71 and he don't know the remaining number. Further he deposed that on the same day at 7 to 7.30 p.m. the police have conducted spot mahazara in his presence and signature of the witness got marked as Ex.P.2(c.) 11 C.C.7161/2017
17. In the cross examination by the A.P.P. suggestion was made to the witness that he has not went to the accident spot after receiving the phone call but the accident has happened in his front when he was going on his vehicle. This suggestion was denied by the witness and the vehicle number was deposed to the witness as KL-24-H-7109, he admits the number as true. Further he deposed that he saw the accused while shifting the injured to the hospital he admitted it and he also admits that at the time of conducting spot mahazara, rough sketch map was also prepared. He also admits that the offending vehicle was drown by the accused at the time of accident. 5 photos were confronted to the witness; he identified them as accident spot and offending vehicle photos. He also denies the suggestion made by the APP that he is falsely stating that he went to the accident spot after receiving phone call in order to help the accused.
18. The witness has been cross-examined by the accused counsel and he deposed that he don't know the contents of the Ex.P.2. He don't know were Ex.P.2 has been prepared and Ex.P.2 is not prepared in his presence.
12 C.C.7161/201719. P.W.4 he deposed that on 1.07.2017 at 6.00 p.m. he was traveling with C.W.4 on two wheeler from Bommanahalli to Silk Board as pillion rider, near Lakshmi Venkateshwara Temple, two ladies were crossing the road on zebra crossing. At that time one vehicle bearing registration No.KL-21-H-7109 which was moving in front of his two wheeler drove it in very rash and negligent manner and hit to two pedestrian ladies. Impact of that both the ladies were fell down and sustained injuries. Out of that one lady had grievous injury over head and another lady had simple injury and public shifted injured to the hospital by auto. Further he deposed that he can identify the offending vehicle as well as accused. Witness identified the 5 photos i.e. Ex.P.3 as accident spot and offending vehicle photos and he also identifies the accused.
20. In the cross examination made by the accused counsel witness admits that accident road is main road, main road had divider and over divider heighted plants were planted. He admits the plantation but he denies that he has not observed the plants heights. On questioning how many ladies were crossing the road witness replied that two ladies were crossing the road 13 C.C.7161/2017 and he has not observed the ladies prior to the accident. He also not observed about the sides from which side to which side the pedestrian were crossing the road. Further he deposed that prior to him 15 - 20 members were gathered at the accident spot and he reached accident spot within 10-12 seconds. Further he deposed that he has not observed the brake mark of the two wheeler on the road. He also admits that P.W.2 is his relative. He also admits that he, C.W.4 and C.W.2 are the relatives. He denies the suggestion that after receiving phone call of accident, he reached the hospital and it has been deposed by the P.W.1.
21. P.W.5 deposed that on 11.07.2017 at 6.00 p.m. he was proceeding from Garebavipalya to Vilson Garden with C.W.3 on two wheeler at Bommanahally near Lakshmi Venkateshwara Temple bus stop two ladies were crossing the road at that time one two wheeler bearing registration No.KL-24-H-7109 came in rash and negligent manner and hit those two pedestrians. Impact of that both the ladies fell down and sustained grievous injuries and the accused has shifted the injured to the hospital by auto. Further he identifies accused as well as 14 C.C.7161/2017 offending vehicle and witness identifies the Ex.P.3 which is confronted to him.
22. Witness P.W.5 has cross-examined by the accused counsel. In the cross-examination he identifies the accident road is main road and it has divider and divider had plantation but he deposed that he has not observed the plantation over divider. Further he deposed that reached the accident spot after 10-12 minutes prior to his reaching 15-20 public were gathered. Further he deposed that he is unable to say about who was front and who was back among two ladies while crossing the road. He has not observed brake mark of the two wheeler at the accident spot on the road. Further he deposed that he is unable to speak that there is no any fault of the accused in the accident. Further he deposed that C.W.8 as become known to him after the accident.
23. P.W.6 is Investigation Officer. He deposed that he received case file from C.W.13 and on 17.07.2017 he received death memo i.e. Ex.P.9 from Abhaya Hospital and requested the Court to insert 304(A) of IPC and recorded the restatement of C.W.1 and on the same day he visited the St.John hospital and in the 15 C.C.7161/2017 presence of C.W.5 to 8 conducted inquest i.e. Ex.P.6 and after completion of the post mortem i.e. Ex.P.7 dead body handed over to the deceased family members. On 18.07.2017 after taking indemnity bond released offending vehicle to the C.W.9. On 25.07.2017 he received IMV report i.e. Ex.P.8. Further he identifies the Ex.P.3 photos and deposed in that place there is no any signal but there is board as drove the vehicle slowly. On 28.07.2017 after completion of the investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused.
24. Accused counsel has cross-examined P.W.6. In the cross-examination accused counsel made suggestion to the witness that the accident took place on sudden entry of the pedestrian on the road. The very accident has happened due to the fault of the car driver and the very suggestion is denied by the witness. Further suggestion was that he is deposing false evidence with an intention to compensate the deceased family and the very suggestion is denied by the witness.
25. P.W.1 deposed that in the Cross-examination that P.W.1, 4 and 5 are the friends of her uncle, by that it appears that P.W.3, 4 and 5 were established witness 16 C.C.7161/2017 and they are not an eye witness as well as spot accident local witnesses. Further P.W.1 deposed that she has shown hand to the accused to stop the vehicle she deposed this statement in her chief, but she has not narrated this crucial aspect in her complaint. By that it is not proved by the prosecution that the accused has shown his negligence in spite of signal has been given to the accused as to stop by the P.W.1. Further P.W.3 deposed that he had phone call from his friend with the news of accident he reached to accident spot by that it shows that he is not an eye witness and he is hear say witness. Further P.W.4 deposed that he is the pillion rider of C.W.4, both of them not deposed about the accident took place in their presence and they does not speak anything about ladies who were crossing the road who was first and who was second person crossing the road. None of the witnesses has not deposed anything about the accident spot, because the prosecution has produced two photos those shows the accident spot in two photos accident spot has been shown in 2 different places. In first photo accident spot showed from near to the divider and in second photo was accident spot was showed at the end of the road and none of the witness has deposed anything about the ladies were proceeding 17 C.C.7161/2017 from which direction to which direction. By that there is bout with respect to accident spot. The prosecution has showed in the spot mahazara that accident had happened near divider, it is not corroborated by the any of the witnesses by examination in chief. Hence, the accident spot has doubt. On the ground of benefit of doubt given to the accused and the burden on the prosecution has not proved by the prosecution the accused is entitle to be acquitted. Hence, point No.1 and 2 are answered in the negative.
.
26. POINT NO.3 : It is further case of the prosecution that after the said accident the accused did not intimated about the accident to the nearest police station as provided U/Sec.134(B) R/w Sec.187 of M.V. Act. When the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/s 279 of IPC, and the prosecution has not placed any material evidence regarding the intimation of accident to the police station and the prosecution have not raised question to any witness about the not informing to the police. Hence, this Court has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused has committed the offences punishable U/Sec.134 (B) R/w Sec.187 of M.V. Act as the none of the 18 C.C.7161/2017 witnesses have deposed evidence on the above section and prosecution has not raised the same point as a defense. Therefore, the accused is entitled for acquittal for the offences punishable U/Sec.134 (B) R/w Sec.187 of M.V. Act. Hence, point No. 3 is answered in the Negative.
27. POINT No.4 : For the reasons and discussions made above, I proceed to pass the following :
ORDER Acting U/Sec.255 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, accused is acquitted for the offences punishable U/Sec.279 and 304 (A) of I.P.C., and Sec.134 (B) R/w Sec.187 of I.M.V. Act.
Bail bond and surety bond of the accused stands cancelled.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript computerized by her, revised corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 16th day of April 2018) (TRIVENI IRAGAR) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, TRAFFIC COURT- VI, BENGALURU.19 C.C.7161/2017
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION:
PW-1 : Seema Sulthan, PW-2 : Chandraiah T.N PW-3 : Imran Khan PW-4 : Shivaprasad PW-5 : Bhaskar PW-6 : R.M. Puttamadaiah LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION :
Ex.P1 : Complaint Ex.P2 : Spot Mahzara Ex.P3 : 5 Photos Ex.P4 : Sec.133 of M.V Act Notice Ex.P5 : Sec.133 of M.V Act reply Ex.P6 : Inquest Report Ex.P7 : P.M. report Ex.P8 : IMV report Ex.P9 : Death memo Ex.P10 : FIR Ex.P11 : Rough Sketch
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR ACCUSED: NIL.
P.O. OF MMTC- VI, BENGALURU.20 C.C.7161/2017 21 C.C.7161/2017