Bangalore District Court
State By Jayanagar Traffic P.S vs ) Umesha B.M on 29 September, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
TRAFFIC COURT - IV, BANGALORE
PRESENT: GAYATHRI.S.KATE, B.com.,LLB.,
MMTC - IV, BANGALORE
DATED : THIS THE 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018
C.C.No.16768/2017
COMPLAINANT: State by Jayanagar Traffic P.S.
VS.
ACCUSED: 1) Umesha B.M.,
S/o. Munivenkatappa,
Age: 24 years,
R/at Badamakamahalli village,
Bangarpet Taluk,
Kolar
1. The date of commission of 27-10-2017
the offence
2. The offences complained of U/s.279 & 338 of IPC and
Sec.115 R/w.177 of M.V.Act.
3. Plea of the accused and his Pleaded not guilty
examination
4. Opinion of the judge Conviction
5. State represented by Learned APP
6. Accused defence by Sri N.M. Parameswara
7. Date of order 29-09-2018
***
2 C.C.No.16768/17
JUDGEMENT
The Police Sub-Inspector of Jayanagar Traffic police station has filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/s.279 & 338 of IPC and Sec.115 R/w.177 of M.V.Act.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 27-10-2017 at about 2.30 a.m. in the early morning the accused being the driver of Tata Vinger Van bearing registration No.KA-05/AF-5227 drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner as to endanger human life on Jayanagar 3rd Block, Canara Bank junction. While so driving his vehicle in a one way road, in the opposite direction he dashed from front against the Car bearing registration No.KA- 04/AA-4933 which was proceeding in the said road in the same junction. Due to the impact of accident the vehicle was fell on right side and the passenger of the Vinger Car Kumari Shruti sustained grievous injuries on her right ear, thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable U/s.279 & 338 of IPC and Sec.115 R/w.177 of M.V.Act.
3. This court took the cognizance of the offence and the accused was provided with the copies of the 3 C.C.No.16768/17 charge sheet. When plea was read over to the accused, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined 1 witness out of 10 witnesses as P.W.1 and marked 8 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8. Further the accused counsel filed a memo stating that the examination of C.W.1 to C.W.9 may be given up with consent.
5. The statement of the accused as provided U/s.313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded and when the incriminating evidence appearing against the accused was read over to him, he offered no explanation. The points that arise for consideration are:
6. The point that arise for my determination is as under:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 27-10-2017 at about 2.30 a.m. in the early morning the accused being the driver of Tata Vinger Van bearing registration No.KA-
05/AF-5227 drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner as to endanger human life on Jayanagar 3rd Block, Canara Bank junction. While so driving his vehicle in a one way road, in the opposite direction he dashed from front against the Car bearing registration 4 C.C.No.16768/17 No.KA-04/AA-4933 which was proceeding in the said road in the same junction. Due to the impact of accident the vehicle was fell on right side and the passenger of the Vinger Car Kumari Shruti sustained grievous injuries on her right ear, thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable U/s.279 & 338 of IPC, Sec.115 R/.177 of M.V.Act?
2. What order?
7. My answer to the above points are as under:
1. POINT No.1: IN THE AFFIRMATIVE
2. POINT No.2: AS PER THE FINAL ORDER For the following REASONS
8. POINT No.1: It is the case of the prosecution that on 27-10-2017 at about 2.30 a.m. in the early morning the accused being the driver of Tata Vinger Van bearing registration No.KA-05/AF-5227 drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner as to endanger human life on Jayanagar 3rd Block, Canara Bank junction. While so driving his vehicle in a one way road, in the opposite direction he dashed from front against the Car bearing registration No.KA- 04/AA-4933 which was proceeding in the said road in the same junction. Due to the impact of accident the vehicle was fell on right side and the passenger of 5 C.C.No.16768/17 the Vinger Car Kumari Shruti sustained grievous injuries on her right ear, thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable U/s.279 & 338 of IPC and Sec.115 R/w.177 of M.V.Act.
9. C.W.10 examined as P.W.1 he deposed that on 30-10-2017 at about 6.30 p.m. C.W.1 lodged a complaint. Upon the said complaint he registered FIR under crime No.409/2017 punishable U/s.279 & 337 of IPC, Sec.115 R/w.177 of M.V.Act. He visited the accident spot and drawn Spot Mahazar and rough sketch on the spot. He recorded statement and re-statement of the eye witnesses and other witnesses. Issued 133 notice to owner of the vehicle and received reply to the said notice. He submitted requisition to RTO officer to conduct IMV inspection. Accordingly received IMV report from the IMV officer. Received the wound certificate from the doctor who treated the injured. After the completion of the investigation he has submitted the Charge Sheet to this Hon'ble Court against the accused in the said case.
6 C.C.No.16768/1710. Among the witnesses examined by the prosecution C.W.10 - P.W.1 is the I.O.
11. With the consent of accused counsel C.W.1 to C.W.9 are given up. On the other hand the learned APP has not objected the consent given by the accused counsel.
12. The learned APP argued that accident was occurred only due to the fault of the accused that he drove the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. In that regard, C.W.10 who is none other than the I.O. has supported the prosecution case. Therefore, he prays for convict the accused for the said offences.
13. In a road traffic accident cases first the prosecution has to prove the rash and negligent driving of the accused. In order to prove this fact the case in hand the prosecution fully depend upon the evidence of C.W.8 who is none other than the I.O. of this case who deposed about the accident. On the other hand the accused has not disputed the fact that he was the driver of the said vehicle on the day of the accident. Here itself it is pertinent to note that while recording 313 statement the accused has not 7 C.C.No.16768/17 offered any explanation and P.W.1 has not been cross-examined. As such it can be safely said that the accused does not dispute the fact that the accident had occurred due to his rash and negligent driving. In view of the discussion made supra, this court considered view that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed an offence punishable U/s.279 & 338 of IPC and Sec.115 R/w.177 of M.V.Act. Hence for the above discussion I answer point No.1 IN AFFIRMATIVE.
14. POINT No.2: In view of the above discussions and findings I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting U/s.255(2) of Cr.P.C. the accused is convicted for the offences punishable U/s.279 & 338 of IPC and Sec.177 of M.V.Act.
The accused shall pay a fine of
Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable
U/s.279 of IPC.
The accused shall pay a fine of
Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable
U/s.338 of IPC.
The accused shall pay a fine of Rs.100/- for the offence punishable U/s.177 of M.V.Act.8 C.C.No.16768/17
In total the accused shall pay a fine of Rs.2,100/- on default he shall undergo S.I. for a period of 30 days.
The bail bond and surety bond of the accused shall stands cancelled after the appeal period.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court this the 29TH day of September 2018).
(GAYATHRI.S.KATE) MMTC - IV, BANGALORE.
ANNEXURE
1) LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
P.W.1: Prabhakar
2) LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1: Complaint Ex.P.2: FIR Ex.P.3: Spot Mahazar Ex.P.4: Rough sketch Ex.P.5: 133 notice Ex.P.6: Reply Ex.P.7: IMV Report Ex.P.8: Wound certificate
3) LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE ACCUSED:
NIL
4) LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE ACCUSED:
NIL (GAYATHRI.S.KATE) MMTC - IV, BANGALORE.