Bangalore District Court
State By Adugodi Traffic Police Station vs Venugopalraj R. S/O.Raju S on 14 August, 2015
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE TRAFFIC
COURT - VI, BENGALURU CITY.
C.C. No.2425/2014
Dated: This the 14th day of August, 2015
Present: Smt.Lavanya H.N., B.Sc.,LL.B.,
P.O. of MMTC-VI, Bengaluru.
Complainant : State by Adugodi Traffic Police Station
V/s
Accused : Venugopalraj R. S/o.Raju S.
Aged about 36 year,
R/at No.07, Anjineya Temple Road,
J.C.Nagar, Bangalore.
JUDGMENT
Police Inspector of Adugudi Traffic Police Station filed charge sheet alleging that, the accused has committed the offences punishable under sections 279 and 304 (A) of IPC and section 134(A & B) r/w 187 of IMV Act.
2. The facts of prosecution case in brief are as under :
On 15.02.2014 at about 5.00 am within the jurisdiction of Adugudi Traffic Police Station, the accused being the driver of Taxi Car No.KA-01-C-6866 drove it on Hosur-Lashkar road from UCO Bank junction towards Adugudi junction in a high speed and negligent manner so as to endanger human life, in 2 C.C.No.2425/2014 front of Adogudi Police Station dashed against pedestrian by name Sri.K.Kenchaiah while he was crossing the road as a result of which the pedestrian fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries and he succumbed to the injuries on 18.03.2014. It is further case of the prosecution that the accused did not provide medical aid to the injured and he did not intimate the same to the nearest police station. Thereby, the accused has committed the offences as stated supra.
3. After Completion of Investigation, I.O. has filed charge sheet against the accused. Thereafter cognizance was taken of the offences punishable under sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC and section 134(A & B) r/w 187 of IMV Act and process has been issued to the accused. Accused appeared through counsel in pursuance of process and got enlarged himself on bail.
4. Charge Sheet copies have been furnished to the accused in compliance of Section 207 of Cr.P.C.
5. Substance of accusation has been read over and explained to the accused, who pleads not guilty and claims to be tried. Hence, the case is posted for Prosecution evidence.
3 C.C.No.2425/20146. In order to establish its case Prosecution has examined five witnesses as PW.1 to 5 and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to 13 and closed its side.
7. Statement U/s 313 of Cr.P.C. is recorded. All the incriminating evidence appearing against the accused has been read over and explained to the accused, who denied the same. But, he did not choose to lead defense evidence.
8. I have heard the arguments and perused the materials available on record, following points arise for consideration.
1) Whether prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that on 15.02.2014 at about 5.00 am within the jurisdiction of Adugudi Traffic Police Station, the accused being the driver of Taxi Car No.KA-01-C-6866 drove it on Hosur-Lashkar road from UCO Bank junction towards Adugudi junction in a high speed and negligent manner so as to endanger human life, in front of Adugudi Police Station dashed against pedestrian by name Sri.K.Kenchaiah while he was crossing the road and thereby, the accused has committed the offence punishable U/s 279 of IPC ?
2) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that as a result of above said accident, the pedestrian died which is not amounting to culpable homicide and thereby the accused has committed the offence punishable U/s 304(A) of IPC ?4 C.C.No.2425/2014
3) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that after the accident the accused did not inform about the accident to the nearest police station and he did not provide medical aid to the injured and thereby the accused has committed the offence punishable under section 134(A & B) r/w 187 of IMV Act ?
4) What Order ?
9. My findings to the above points are as under :
Point No. 1 & 2 : In the Negative, Point No. 3 : In the affirmative, Point No. 4 : As per final order for the following ;
REASONS POINT Nos.1 and 2 :
10. Since these points are interlinked with each other, they are taken up together for consideration in order to avoid repetition, as here under.
In this case the prosecution has examined five witnesses as PW-1 to 5. PW-1 and 3 are eye witnesses. PW-2 is wife of deceased has deposed death of deceased pedestrian. PW-4 and 5 are Investigation Officers.
11. It is to be noted here that initially, the Sub-Inspector of Adugodi Traffic police i.e, PW-4 has registered case based upon complaint at Ex.P.9 lodged by deceased pedestrian who is victim of the accident for the offence punishable under 5 C.C.No.2425/2014 section 279 and 337 of IPC and section 134(A & B) r/w 187 of IMV Act. As he succumbed to injuries on 18.03.2014 the charge sheet has been filed for the offences punishable under section 279 and 304(A) of IPC and section 134(A & B) r/w 187 of IMV Act.
12. PW-1 who is eye witness as well as spot-mahazar witness has deposed that on 15.02.2014 at about 5.00 am when he was sipping tea in tea shop which is opposite to bus stop of Audugodi Police quarters the accused being the driver of car bearing its No.KA-01-C-6866 came from Electronic city towards MG Road dashed against pedestrian while he was crossing the road as a result of which this accident took place. He has further deposed that he has not seen how the car was driven. He has further deposed that he has put signature to Spot-mahazar at Ex.P.1 in police station.
13. As PW-1 has not supported the case of the prosecution, he has been treated as hostile witness at the request of leaned APP. Though he has been subjected to cross-examination, nothing has been elicited from his mouth which supports the case of the prosecution.
14. PW-3 who is stated to be eye witness has deposed that on 15.02.2014 at about 5.00 am when he was sipping tea in Bakery which is opposite to bus stop of Audugodi the driver 6 C.C.No.2425/2014 of car bearing its No.KA-01-C-6866 came from Check-post in a high speed dashed against pedestrian while he was crossing the road as a result of which he fell down on the road and sustained injuries to his head. The accused went away from the spot with his vehicle. He has further deposed that he did not see the driver of the offending car. He has further deposed that on same day between 4.30 pm and 5.30 am the police have conducted spot inspection at accident place in his presence and drawn spot mahazar at Ex.P.1.
15. PW-2 who is wife of deceased has deposed that her husband met with an accident in Bangalore. He has been admitted in Victoria Hospital for four days. Thereafter, he has been discharged from the hospital. As per the instruction of the doctor treatment has been given in Bidadi Hospital. But, after one month of accident her husband succumbed to injuries.
16. PW-4 and 5 are Investigation Officers have deposed with regard to investigation.
17. PW-1, 3 to 5 have been subjected to cross- examination by the defense. The accused has not denied the accident. But, it is specific defense of the accused that this accident is due to negligent act of the pedestrian as deceased pedestrian entered the road suddenly without seeing the 7 C.C.No.2425/2014 approaching vehicles on the road but, not due to rash and negligent driving of the accused.
18. In this case Inquest, PM report, IMV Report, notice issued under section 133 of IMV Act and its reply have not been denied by the defense. It is not in dispute that the injured pedestrian died in the road accident. It is also not in dispute that the road in question where accident took place is public road.
19. Further, it is not the defense of the accused that this accident is due to mechanical defect of the aforesaid Tipper lorry. As has already been noticed the Ex.P.6, IMV Report has not been denied by the defense, wherein it could be seen that IMV Inspector has expressed his opinion that the accident is not due to any mechanical defect of the aforesaid offending car. From this it could also be said that this accident is not due to mechanical defect of the aforesaid offending car. Now, only question remains before the court is whether this accident is due to rash and negligent driving of the accused or not.
20. In this case PW-1 and 3 are material witnesses. It is the case of the prosecution that this accident took place while deceased pedestrian was crossing the road. PW-3 in his examination-in-chief has deposed that the driver of the 8 C.C.No.2425/2014 offending car came in high speed and caused the accident while pedestrian was crossing the road.
21. PW-1 in his examination-in-chief it self has deposed that he did not see how the car was driven. Therefore, his evidence is not helpful to the case of the prosecution. Further, PW- 3 in his cross-examination has deposed that he had gone to place of accident after 2 minutes of the accident. He has further deposed that he did not see the car and pedestrian prior to accident. From this it could be said that he did not witness how the accident took place. Therefore, his version in his examination-in-chief that the car was coming in high speed can not be acceptable. Hence, his evidence is not helpful to the case of the prosecution.
22. The testimonies of the PW-1 to 5 would not suffice to hold that due to rash and negligent act of the accused the accident in question took place. It is no doubt that deceased Sri.K.Kenchaiah died in road traffic accident. However, in view of the aforesaid reasons the benefit of doubt should be given to accused. Hence, it is held that the prosecution has failed to prove that this accident due to rash and negligent driving of accused. Hence, Point No.1 and 2 are answered in the Negative.
9 C.C.No.2425/2014POINT No.3 :
23. It is further case of the prosecution that after the said accident the accused did not inform about the accident to the nearest police station and he did not arrange for medical treatment to the injured and thereby, accused has committed the offences punishable under section 134(A & B ) read with 187 of IMV Act.
24. In this case PW-1 has deposed that the accused has come to the place of accident to help the pedestrian whereas PW-3 has deposed that after the accident the accused fled away from the spot. As per section 134(A) of IMV Act, the accused has to provide medical aid to the injured. But, he has failed in discharging his duty which is imposed in law. Therefore, it is held that the accused has committed the offence punishable under section 134(A) r/w 187 of IMV Act.
25. As per section 134(B) of the IMV Act it is the duty of the driver of the offending vehicle to inform about the accident to the nearest police station. It is not the defense of the accused that he himself informed about the accident to the nearest police station as required under section 134(B) of IMV Act. From this it could be said that the accused has not informed about the accident to police station as required under section 134(B) of IPC and further he has not given explanation why he has not informed about the accident to the 10 C.C.No.2425/2014 nearest police station. Hence, accused has committed the offence punishable under section 134(B) read with section 187 of IMV Act. In view of aforesaid discussion point No.3 is answered in the affirmative.
Point No.4:
26. In view of findings on point No.1 to 3, this Court proceeds to pass following:
ORDER Exercising powers under section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. accused is acquitted for the offences punishable U/s 279 and 304 (A) of IPC.
Acting U/s 255 (2) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, accused is convicted of the offence punishable U/s 134(A & B) r/w 187 of IMV Act.
The accused is sentenced for the offences punishable under section 134 (A & B) read with 187 of IMV Act to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to pay the fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 30 days.
11 C.C.No.2425/2014The bail bond executed by the accused shall stand cancelled.
(Directly typed on laptop, revised, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this 14th day of August, 2015.) (Smt.Lavanya H.N.) P.O. OF MMTC-VI, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the prosecution :
PW-1 : K.Manjunath, PW-2 : Marasamma, PW-3 : Arun, PW-4 : Narasimaharaje Arasu, PW-5 : A.V.Laxminarayana.
Documents Exhibited for the prosecution:
Ex.P1 : Spot Mahazar, Ex.P2 : Statement of PW-1, Ex.P3 : Statement of PW-3, Ex.P4 : Inquest, Ex.P5 : PM Report, Ex.P6 : IMV Report, Ex.P7 : Notice issued u/s 133 of IMV Act, Ex.P8 : Reply to Ex.P.6, Ex.P9 : Complaint, Ex.P10 : FIR, Ex.P11 : Hand Sketch, Ex.P12 : Opinion of doctor, Ex.P13 : Report. 12 C.C.No.2425/2014 Witness examined for the defense : Nil. Documents exhibited for the defense : Nil.
Material object got marked in this case: Nil.
P.O of M.M.T.C, Bengaluru City.