Bangalore District Court
State By R.T. Nagar Traffic vs Shivaraj Joshi on 23 January, 2020
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
TRAFFIC COURT - VI, BENGALURU CITY.
C.C. No.2995/2019
Dated : This the 23rd day of January, 2020.
Present : Smt. Triveni Iragar, M.Com, LL.B
P.O. of MMTC-VI, Bengaluru.
Complainant : State by R.T. Nagar Traffic
Police Station
V/s
Accused : Shivaraj Joshi
S/o Ramachandra Joshi,
Aged about 37 years,
#21, SNS Villa,
Levelly Road,
Bengaluru - 560 001.
>
1. Date of commission of : 16.01.2019
offence
2. Date of report of offence : 16.01.2019
3. Name of Complainant : Guruprasad
4. Date of recording : 18.06.2019
evidence.
5. Date of closing evidence : 18.12.2019
6. Offence complained of : U/Sec.279 and 304(A)
of I.P.C. and Sec.134(A
& B) R/w Sec.187 of
M.V. Act.
7. Opinion of the Judge : Accused found guilty
2 C.C.2995/2019
JUDGMENT
Police Inspector of the R.T. Nagar Traffic Police Station has filed charge sheet against the accused in crime No.6/2019 for the offences punishable U/Sec.279 and 304(A) of I.P.C. and Sec.134(A & B) R/w Sec.187 of M.V. Act.
The facts of prosecution case in brief are as under :
2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 16.01.2019 at 8.00 a.m. accused being the driver of car bearing registration No.KA-03-MS-4599 drove the same on Bengaluru-Ballary road towards Macry Circle to Yalahanka in rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and near Baptist hospital hit to the C.W.2's husband Sri.Prasanna Kumar's two wheeler bearing registration No.KA-04-HH-5527 on right side.
Due to the impact two wheeler rider Sri.Prasanna Kumar fell on road and sustained grievous injuries on head, leg and hands. Further with the help of the public injured shifted to the CMI hospital and on 24.01.2019 at 1.30 a.m on failure of the treatment he succumbed to the injuries. Further after the accident after the accident 3 C.C.2995/2019 accused did not provided medical treatment to the injured and he has not informed about the accident to the nearest police station. Thereby the accused has committed offences punishable U/Sec.279 and 304(A) of IPC and Sec.134(A & B) R/w Sec.187 of M.V. Act.
3. After submission of charge sheet, this Court has took cognizance for the offence punishable U/Sec.279 and 304(A) of IPC and Sec.134(A & B) R/w Sec.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 and 304(A) of IPC and Sec.134(A & B) R/w Sec.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.
4 C.C.2995/20195. In order to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt, the prosecution has got examined witnesses as PW.1 to 7 and got marked the documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12.
6. 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 led 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.
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 16.01.2019 at 8.00 a.m. accused being the driver of car bearing registration No.KA-03-MS-4599 drove the same on Bengaluru-Ballary road towards Macry Circle to Yalahanka in rash and negligent manner so as to endanger 5 C.C.2995/2019 human life and near Baptist hospital hit to the C.W.2's husband Sri.Prasanna Kumar's two wheeler bearing registration No.KA-04-HH-
5527 on right side, thereby the accused has committed offence U/s 279 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on above mentioned date and time of accident two wheeler rider Sri.Prasanna Kumar fell on road and sustained grievous injuries on head, leg and hands and with the help of the public injured shifted to the CMI hospital and on 24.01.2019 at 1.30 a.m on failure of the treatment he succumbed to the injuries, thereby the accused has committed the offence punishable U/s 304(A) of IPC ?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that after the accident he did not provided medical treatment to the injured, thereby the accused has committed the offence punishable under section 134(A) R/w Sec. 187 of IMV Act?
4. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that after the accident he did not informed about the accident to the nearest police station, thereby the accused has committed the offence punishable 6 C.C.2995/2019 under section 134(B) R/w Sec. 187 of IMV Act?
5. What order ?
9. My findings on the above said point are as follows :
POINT NO.1 : In the Affirmative
POINT NO.2 : In the Affirmative
POINT NO.3 : In the Negative
POINT NO.4 : In the Affirmative
POINT NO.5 : As per the final order for
the following:
REASONS
POINT NOS.1 TO 4 :
10. In order to prove the guilt of the accused prosecution has examined witnesses as PW-1 to 7 and document got marked Ex.P.1 to 12.
11. P.W.1 deposed that he received the accident information over phone call and person who has met with an accident is his brother. After receiving pone call on 16.01.2019 at 8.10 a.m that brother was met with an accident he was admitted to Aster hospital. When he reached to the Aster hospital in ICU he found that his brother was unconscious stage. Later he had information from eye witness that his brother was proceeding from 7 C.C.2995/2019 Macry Circle to Yalahanka in his two wheeler bearing registration No.KA-04-HH-5527 at same time in front of Bapitst hospital one Honda car bearing registration No.KA-03-MS-4599 has driven by the car driver and dashed to his brother's two wheeler. Due to that his brother fell down and received grievous injuries. Thereby, based upon the information collected by him he has lodged complaint against the offending car driver. After filing of the complaint police have took him to the accident spot at 10.30 a.m. and conducted spot mahazar n his presence and also prepared rough sketch and took his signature. He identified the signature in spot mahazar as well as complaint. Later on 24.01.2019 on failure of the treatment his brother succumbed to the injuries in the hospital at 1.30 a.m. Accordingly he has given his statement to the police. Even he has identified three photos of the offending car and his brother's two wheeler. He also identified the offending car driver before the Court.
12. In the cross examination by the defence counsel taken the contention that the complaint hand writing is not belongs to him and there is correction at the line No.2 and 11 of the complaint and he has not 8 C.C.2995/2019 endorsed near that correction is admitted by this witness. He denies suggestion that hand writing in complaint is not belongs to him. He also admits that he was not an eye witness to the incident. As this witness was not present in the accident spot remaining other cross examination material are not relevant as he is not competent witness to believe his version as per case of the prosecution. Other question imposed to this witness by the defence counsel are not related to the case. The corrections done in the complaint are not relevant facts to prove the guilt of the accused.
13. Further, P.W.2 is eye witness to the incident, he deposed that on 16.01.2019 at 8.00 a.m. he was proceeding from Macry Circle to Yalahanka in his two wheeler, near Baptist hospital one two wheeler bearing registration No.KA-04-HH-5527 going in his front at the same movement one car bearing registration No.KA-03- MS-4599 overtook his two wheeler in rash and negligent manner and dashed to the two wheeler which was moving in his front from back side. Due to that the two wheeler rider lost his control fell down and received injuries on head, legs and hands. Later on along with the offending car driver he took the injured to the Aster 9 C.C.2995/2019 hospital and he found the I.D. card in the pocket of the victim. Through that I.D. Card he informed about the accident to the victim's family members. He has given his statement about the accident. He also identified the accused before the Court.
14. In the cross examination by the defence counsel he deposed that he witnessed the accident personally but there was not difficulty for him to lodge the complaint but he has not lodged the complaint. He has given his statement at 10.30 a.m. He also deposed that it is true that he has not stated in his statement that the offending car has overtook his two wheeler. Not stating a thing and state it in chief does not contracts his chief. He also deposed that it is not possible for him to depose the exact speed of the car. He also admits that the time of the accident was peak hour, during that time there will be heavy traffic and he also deposed that it is not possible for any person to drive the vehicle in speed manner. Further he deposed that there was only 10 feet distance to the offending two wheeler and his two wheeler and the accident road was 40 feet road and it is two way road and even there is divider in that road. Further he deposed that approximately at the distance of 30 feet 10 C.C.2995/2019 from the divider the accident has took place. Further he deposed that it is normally not possible for any person to observe what happening in the front of the car when he was moving back side of the car. He also admits that the two wheeler had right handle and right body got scratches and the damages which were caused to the two wheeler are caused in the front of the two wheeler. Further he admits that if any two vehicle has been hit from front to any other vehicle from the back side normally such two wheeler will have the damages as mentioned in the IMV report. He also admits that he helped the victim on humanitarian ground. He denies suggestion that he has not stated about he has seen the offending car driver in the accident spot. He denies suggestion that this accident has happened on the fault of the two wheeler rider.
15. P.W.3 is one more eye witness to the incident, he deposed the same facts as similar to the P.W.2. This witness has also helped the injured shifting to the hospital and he was present in the accident spot for the spot mahazar on the same day at 10.30 a.m. Even this witness identified the accused before the Court and photos of the offending car as well as two wheeler. In the 11 C.C.2995/2019 cross examination the similar questions were imposed to this witness also as if P.W.2. In addition to that one more suggestion was made to this witness that on which side the car had damages, whereas, this witness deposed that the car had damages on the left side. He also denies all the suggestion that the accident has happened on the fault of the two wheeler rider. Later on he submits that after reaching to the hospital he returned back to the police station there was stayed for 5-10 minutes after spot mahazar at accident spot he went away.
16. P.W.4 is IMV Inspector, he deposed as per the investigation conducted by him on the both the vehicles and he has issued the report. In the cross examination only one question was imposed to this witness that he has not mentioned the timings of the request received by him in his report and another question was if any two wheeler comes in high speed and gets dashed to the car from the back side, then two wheeler will have the damages on the front portion as if which are mentioned in the IMV report. Even case is having damages on front left fender and front left rear fender scratch damages. That means car has moved by rubbing to the two wheeler.
12 C.C.2995/201917. P.W.5 is Investigation Officer who has conducted partly investigation. P.W.7 is one more Investigation Officer who has completed the investigation and filed charge sheet against the accused. P.W.5 and 7 have deposed as per the investigation conducted by him and they have denied all the suggestions made to them in the defence counsel cross examination.
18. P.W.6 is offending vehicle owner, who has received notice U/Sec.133 of M.V. Act and given the reply to the said notice.
19. On perusal of the evidence of the all the witnesses, the P.W.2 and 3 are the eye witnesses of the incident. The accident has done by the offending to the two wheeler in the main road at the distance of 30 feet from the divider, that means the car was moving on the road at the left side. Both the witnesses have deposed that the car has been overtook the vehicles of the P.W.2 and 3 and dashed to the deceased two wheeler. But in the cross examination of the P.W.4 the defence counsel has tried to prove that the two wheeler rider himself has drew his vehicle in rash and negligent manner and 13 C.C.2995/2019 dashed to the car on back side. But on perusal of the vehicle report which is marked as Ex.P.6 there is no any such damages to the car from the back side. Based upon the damages caused to the two wheeler in such serious cannot be imagined that the car could also had damages on the back side at least dent but there is no any such damages on the back side of the car, it cannot be assumed and presumed that the two wheeler went and dashed to the car from back side.
20. Moreover, P.W.2 and 3 both have deposed that offending car has been overtook them and dashed to the deceased two wheeler. In the cross examination P.W.2 and 3 the defence counsel has tried to establish that the car has been coming from the back side of the P.W.2 and 3, because of that reason it is not possible for them to depose the speed of the car. No doubt prior to overtook the two wheeler of P.W.2 and 3 the car may be on back side but when the car went and dashed to the deceased two wheeler the offending car has overtook the two wheeler of the P.W.2 and 3. Thereby, it cannot be determined that the both P.W.2 and 3 cannot depose the observation of rash and negligent driving of the car because when accident has happened it in front of the 14 C.C.2995/2019 P.W.2 and 3. Hence, it cannot be denied that the P.W.2 and 3 have not observed the speed of the car at the time of accident. Further the two wheeler had damages more than offending car, may be after the accident the two wheeler rider has fell down and due to the force of the accident the two wheeler got number of damages and the car being the four wheeler which cannot fell down and it will be have the only simple damages as well as limited damages. More over as P.W.2 and 3 have deposed that the car has been went and dashed to the two wheeler from back side and P.W.3 also deposed that the car has got scratch to the two wheeler from its left side and it is right side of the two wheeler and it is corroborated with the Ex.P.6 as well as photos produced by the prosecution in Ex.P.3. Wherein, both the vehicle have got scratch damages on the left side of the car and right side of the two wheeler where both have been came into contact with each other. Other then this the defence counsel has not made any efforts to disprove the allegation made by the prosecution against the accused. The defence counsel has not made any efforts to contradict any of the chief of the P.W.2 and 3. The question imposed to the all the witnesses are formal questions nothing has been elicited from the mouth of the all the witnesses in contradiction.
15 C.C.2995/2019The defence counsel have also not tried to deny the happening of the accident and rash and negligent driving of the driver.
21. Hence, on perusal of the chief and cross examination of the P.W.2 and 3 as well as rough sketch, wherein accident has taken place at the distance from the 30 feet from the divider and also there is no any such major correction in the complaint which was contention taken by the defence counsel as one of the major ground the correction which have been done in the complaint are not with respect to the any vehicle number or accident place nothing it is of person who was helped the victim taking to the hospital and name of the hospital has been corrected. Name of the hospital has been corrected and name of person who are helped to the victim is not material to denied the chief of the P.W.1.
22. On going through the Ex.P.6 it is proved by the prosecution that there is negligence on the part of the car driver, due to his rash and negligent driving death of Prasanna Kumar who was brother of C.W.1 was caused.
16 C.C.2995/201923. P.W.2 deposed in his chief that accused has helped to shifting victim to the hospital. Thereby, offence U/Sec.134(A) R/w 187 does not attracts to the accused as he was tried to provide treatment of the victim. Hence, there is none of the reasonable doubt has been created in the mind of the Court by the defence counsel against case of the prosecution for the offence punishable U/Sec.279 and 304(A) of IPC and Sec.134(B) R/w Sec.187 of M.V. Act. Thereby, the accused has committed the offences and he convicted for the offences punishable U/Sec.279 and 304(A) of IPC and Sec.134(B) R/w Sec.187 of M.V. Act. Hence, the point No.1, 2 and 4 are answered in the affirmative and point No.3 answered in the negative.
24. POINT No.5 : For the reasons and discussions made above, I proceed to pass the following :
ORDER Acting U/Sec.255 (2) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 accused is hereby convicted for the offences punishable Under Sec.279 and 304(A) of Indian Penal Code and 17 C.C.2995/2019 Sec.134 (B) R/w Sec.187 of Indian Motor Vehicle Act.
The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for the period of one month and further sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for the period of 15 days for the offence punishable U/Sec.279 of Indian Penal Code.
Further, the accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for the period of six months and further sentenced to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only), in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for the period of two months for the offence punishable U/Sec.304(A) of Indian Penal Code.
Further, the accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for the period of one month and further sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred Only) in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo 18 C.C.2995/2019 simple imprisonment for the period of one month for the offence punishable U/Sec.134 (B) R/w Sec.187 of Indian Motor Vehicle Act.
Accused has to pay total fine of Rs.11,500/- (Rupees Eleven Thousand and Five Hundred only).
All the main sentences run concurrently. All the default sentences run concurrently.
Issue free copy of this judgment to the accused forthwith.
The bail 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 23rd day of January 2020) (TRIVENI IRAGAR) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, TRAFFIC COURT- VI, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION:
PW-1 : Guruprasad PW-2 : Niranjan Adiyar 19 C.C.2995/2019 PW-3 : Sathish Kumar PW-4 : Sudhakar M.N. PW-5 : Narayanappa T PW-6 : Vivek Anand PW-7 : Firoz Khan LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION :
Ex.P1 : Complaint Ex.P2 : Spot Mahazara Ex.P3 : 3 Photos Ex.P4 : Inquest Mahazar Ex.P5 : P.M. Report Ex.P6 : IMV report Ex.P7 : FIR Ex.P8 : Rough Sketch Ex.P9 : Sec.133 of M.V Act Notice Ex.P10 : Sec.133 of M.V Act notice reply Ex.P11 : Indemnity Bond Ex.P12 : Death Memo
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR ACCUSED:
NIL.
P.O. OF MMTC- VI, BENGALURU. 20 C.C.2995/2019