Bangalore District Court
State By P.S.I vs Suraj on 29 September, 2015
THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE TRAFFIC
COURT - V, BANGALORE.
PRESENT : RANGEGOWDA C.
B.A.L. LLB.
M.M.T.C - V, BANGALURU.
DATED THIS 29th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015
C.C.No.9253 - 2014
COMPLAINANT : STATE BY P.S.I
HEBBAL TR. P.S.
BANGALORE.
// VS //
ACCUSED : SURAJ.,
S/O.MARUTHI S. SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
NO.310, SHABARI NAGARA LAYOUT,
R.K.HEGADE NAGARA,
BANGALORE.
JUDGEMENT
This is a case registered against the accused on the basis of the charge sheet submitted by the P.S.I. Hebbal Tr. P.S. alleging the offences punishable u/Sec. 279 and 338 of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution nutshell as follows:
That on 19.04.2014 at about 11.30 a.m., the accused being driver of the motorcycle bearing its registration No.KA-50-Q-6535 2 C.C.No.9253 - 2014 drove the same in the rash and negligent manner near Veerannanapalya fly over, on service road, so as to endanger the human life and dashed to the pedestrian. Because of the accident, the pedestrian fell down and sustained grievous injuries.
On the basis of the complaint lodged by the C.W.1, the P.S.I has registered the case against the driver of the motorcycle bearing its registration No.KA-50-Q-6535 alleging offences u/Sec.279 and 337 of IPC. After completion of the investigation P.S.I. has submitted the charge sheet against the accused alleging offence u/Sec. 279 and 338 of IPC.
3. After filing of the charge sheet it is noticed that the accused was released on police bail. After perusal of the charge sheet cognizance of the above said offence taken against the accused and case is registered. Thereafter presence of the accused is secured by issuing process. Accused was released on bail. Copies of the prosecution papers supplied to the accused. Substance of the accusation framed and read over to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried. His plea recorded accordingly.
4. Thereafter the prosecution in order to prove the accusation leveled against the accused has got examined five witness 3 C.C.No.9253 - 2014 as P.W.1 to 5 and in the evidence of the prosecution Ex.p.1 to 7 documents are got marked.
5. Though, NBW was issued to CW.5 on many occasions, but the police have failed to secure the presence of witness. Hence, by rejecting the prayer of learned APP CW.5 is dropped. CW.6 reported to be dead.
6. After completion of the evidence of the prosecution statement of the accused as required u/Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. is recorded. The accused has denied the incriminating evidence in the prosecution evidence. The accused did not choose to adduce defence evidence.
7. Heard Learned APP and Learned counsel for the accused. Perused the materials and evidence on record.
8. The following points arises for my determination;
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that on 19.04.2014 at about 11.30 a.m., the accused being driver of the motorcycle bearing its registration No.KA-50-Q-6535 drove the same in the rash and negligent manner near Veerannanapalya fly over, on service road and dashed to the pedestrian and thereby the accused committed the offences punishable u/Sec. 279 of the IPC?
4 C.C.No.9253 - 2014
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that because of the accident the pedestrian fell down and sustained grievous injuries and thereby the accused committed the offences punishable u/Sec.338 of the IPC?
3. What order ?
9. After hearing both sides and after appreciation of the evidence placed on record my findings on the above said points are as under:
Point No.1: In the NEGATIVE;
Point No.2: In the NEGATIVE;
Point No.3: As per final order
for the following:
:REASONS:
10. POINT NO.1 and 2 : Since these points are inter
connected with each other, hence taken together for consideration in order to avoid repetition.
11. In this case, the doctor who treated the injured is examined as PW.1, the injured is examined as PW.2, mahazar witness is examined as PW.3, I.O who registered the case and filed charge sheet is examined as PW.4 and another eye witness is examined as PW.5. Though, NBW was issued to CW.5 on many occasions, but the 5 C.C.No.9253 - 2014 police have failed to secure the presence of witness. Hence, by rejecting the prayer of learned APP CW.5 is dropped. CW.6 reported to be dead.
12. The PW.1 has deposed in respect of injuries sustained by the injured as per Ex.P.1. The PW.3 has deposed that police have conducted mahazar in his presence as per Ex.P.3. But in the cross- examination by learned counsel for the accused PW.3 has deposed that he don't know what is written in the mahazar. The PW.4 - I.O has deposed in respect of registration of the case, drawing of mahazar on the spot and filing of charge sheet after completion of the investigation. In the cross-examination by learned counsel for the accused PW.4 has deposed that he has no documents to show that injured was in a drunken state at the time of accident. The PW.4 further deposed that there was no zebra crossing on the place of accident. The PW.4 has specifically admitted that since the pedestrian has attempted to cross the road, where there is no zebra crossing, accident as occurred.
13. The PW.2 the injured witness has deposed that when he was crossing the road near mariyannanakere and when he was crossing the 3rd road, a vehicle came and dashed to him. Because of 6 C.C.No.9253 - 2014 the accident, his left leg fractured. The PW.2 has deposed that he has not seen the vehicle which caused the accident and he has also not seen the driver of the said vehicle. In the cross-examination by learned APP the PW.2 has admitted the suggestion that the two wheeler bearing No.KA.50.Q.6530 as caused the accident and at the time of accident, the accused who is present in the court was driving the two wheeler. In the cross-examination by learned counsel for the accused PW.2 has deposed that he was crossing the road by climbing over the road divider and PW.2 admits that there was no zebra crossing on the place of accident. The PW.2 further deposed that he don't know from which side the vehicle came and dashed him. The PW.2 further admitted that he don't know the person who caused the accident. The PW.2 specifically admitted that on that day in the morning, he has consumed 90ML alcohol.
14. The PW.5 is an eye witness as per the case of the prosecution, who has deposed that when the pedestrians were crossing the road, a two wheeler came and dashed to him. Because of the accident, pedestrian sustained fracture of left leg. The PW.5 has identified the rider of the two wheeler which caused the accident. In the cross-examination by learned counsel for the accused PW.5 has 7 C.C.No.9253 - 2014 deposed that since the accused was wearing helmet he could not saw the accused.
15. In this case, the evidence of I.O - PW.4 and the injured - PW.2 clearly indicates that on the place of accident, there was no zebra crossing and PW.2 has admitted that he had consumed 90ML alcohol in the morning. As per the case of the prosecution the accident has occurred at 11.30 p.m. Though, PW.5 has deposed that the accused was present in the court was the rider of the two wheeler which caused the accident, but in the cross-examination admits that since the rider of the two wheeler wearing helmet, he has not seen the face of the rider of the two wheeler. Therefore, the evidence of PW.5 cannot be considered as to identification of the accused. As admitted by PW.2 in his evidence, he had consumed alcohol, therefore certainly he should be under the influence of alcohol at 11.30 p.m. The evidence of record clearly indicates that PW.2 under the influence of alcohol attempted to cross the main road by climbing over the road divider where there was no zebra crossing. While the pedestrians crossing the road where there is no zebra crossing, they should carefully cross the road by observing the vehicles coming from both the sides. In this case, the evidence on record clearly indicates that the PW.2 injured has attempted to cross the road where there was no 8 C.C.No.9253 - 2014 zebra cross under intoxication of alcohol. Therefore, this court has come to the conclusion that prosecution has failed to the prove the accusation leveled against the accused under section 279 and 338 of I.P.C beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, Point No.1 and 2 are answered in the NEGATIVE.
16. Point No.3: For forgoing discussion and findings on point No.1 and 2, following order is passed:
ORDER Exercising powers u/Sec.255 (1) of the Cr.P.C., accused is hereby acquitted for the offences punishable u/Ss. 279 and 338 of the IPC.
The bail bond of the accused stands cancelled. (The judgment dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, transcribed and typed by him and corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this 29th day of September 2015) (RANGEGOWDA C.) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, TRAFFIC COURT- V, BANGALORE.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION:
P.W.1 Dr.P.N.Prakash.
P.W.2 Mariya Lorence.
9 C.C.No.9253 - 2014
P.W.3 George.
P.W.4 M.Palaksha.
P.W.5 John.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION Ex.P.1 Wound Certificate.
Ex.P.1(a) Signature. Ex.P.2 Complaint. Ex.P.2(a) Signature. Ex.P.3 Mahazar. Ex.P.3(a) Signature. Ex.P.4 Sketch. Ex.P.5 & 6 Notice & Reply u/Sec. 133 of M.V.Act. Ex.P.7 I.M.V Report. Ex.P.1(b) to 3(b) 4(a) to 7(a) Signature of PW.4.
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR ACCUSED:
NIL (RANGEGOWDA C.) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, TRAFFIC COURT- V, BANGALORE.