Bangalore District Court
State By Basavanagudi Traffic P.S vs Gururaj P on 11 March, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
TRAFFIC COURT - IV, BANGALORE
PRESENT: SMT. LATHA DEVI G.A. BAL., LLB., LLM.
MMTC - IV, BANGALORE
DATED : THIS THE 11th DAY OF MARCH 2016
C.C. NO.3409-2015
COMPLAINANT: State by Basavanagudi Traffic P.S.
VS.
ACCUSED: Gururaj P.,
Age: 22 years,
No.409, Lakshmidevingara,
Laaggere,
Belagavi city
Permanent Address:
Banakere (V),
Buddikere (PO)
Channarayapattana Taluk
Hassan
(Represented by Sri Y.G.J. adv.)
***
JUDGEMENT
The Sub-Inspector of Basavanagudi traffic police station has filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/s.279 & 338 of IPC.
2 C.C.No.3409-152. THE CASE OF THE PROSECUTION IS:
That on 13-02-2015 at about 7.30 a.m., the accused being the driver of T.T. bearing registration No.KA-53/A-1214, within the jurisdiction of Basavanagudi traffic police station had driven his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner on Vanivilas road, from east to western direction and the accused had dashed against C.W.1's motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-20/L-2231 which was proceeding from the opposite direction in front of KFC at Rangarao road junction. As a result of accident C.W.1's right leg sustained grievous injuries, thereby the accused is alleged to have committed the offences punishable U/s.279 & 338 of IPC.
3. The accused had appeared before the court and has obtained bail. Prosecution documents were furnished to the accused. The court had framed the plea against the accused for the offence punishable U/s.279 & 338 of IPC. The same was read over and explained to the accused in Kannada language known to accused. The accused has pleaded not guilty and has claimed to be tried.
3 C.C.No.3409-154. In order to prove the guilt of the accused the prosecution has examined three witnesses as P.W.1 to 3 and 6 documents have been marked as Ex.P.1 to 6 on its behalf.
5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused was recorded U/s.313 of Cr.P.C. and the accused was explained about the incriminating circumstances that have appeared against him in the evidence of the prosecution, but the accused has denied all the allegations made against him and not chose to adduce defence evidence on his behalf.
6. Heard both the sides.
7. The points that arise for my determination are as under:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 13-02-2015 at about 7.30 a.m., the accused being the driver of T.T. bearing registration No.KA-
53/A-1214, within the jurisdiction of Basavanagudi traffic police station had driven his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner on Vanivilas road, from east to western direction and the accused had dashed against C.W.1's motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-20/L-2231 which was proceeding from the opposite direction in 4 C.C.No.3409-15 front of KFC at Rangarao road junction, thereby the accused is alleged to have committed an offence punishable U/s.279 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution further proves that on the above stated date, time and place the accused being the driver of the said vehicle, while driving his vehicle from east to western direction and the accused had dashed against C.W.1's motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-20/L-2231 which was proceeding from the opposite direction in front of KFC at Rangarao road junction. As a result of accident C.W.1's right leg sustained grievous injuries, thereby the accused is alleged to have committed an offence punishable U/s.338 of IPC.?
3. What order?
8. My findings on the above said points are as under:
1. POINT NO.1: IN AFFIRMATIVE
2. POINT NO.2: IN AFFIRMATIVE
3. POINT NO.3: AS PER FINAL ORDER For the following REASONS
9. POINT No.1 & 2: These points are inter related, hence they are taken up together for common discussion.
5 C.C.No.3409-1510. THE CASE OF THE PROSECUTION IS:
That on 13-02-2015 at about 7.30 a.m., the accused being the driver of T.T. bearing registration No.KA-53/A-1214, within the jurisdiction of Basavanagudi traffic police station had driven his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner on Vanivilas road, from east to western direction and the accused had dashed against C.W.1's motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-20/L-2231 which was proceeding from the opposite direction in front of KFC at Rangarao road junction. As a result of accident C.W.1's right leg sustained grievous injuries, thereby the accused is alleged to have committed the offences punishable U/s.279 & 338 of IPC.
11. The learned APP has submitted that the prosecution has placed sufficient material before the court to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. On the other hand the counsel for the accused has submitted that the prosecution has failed to place any convincing material before the court to prove the guilt of the accused.
6 C.C.No.3409-1512. P.W.1 Punith is the complainant and the injured has stated in his evidence that on 13-02- 2015 at about 7.20 a.m. he was returning from MES school and was proceeding towards his house at Veerabhadra Nagar in a two wheeler bearing registration No.KA-20/L-2231 and was proceeding from national college towards ashram on Vanivilas road, near Rangarao junction road one T.T. vehicle bearing registration No.KA-53/A-1214 came from opposite side i.e., from ashrama towards national college in a rash manner and dashed against two wheeler from front. In the said accident P.W.1 fell down on the road and sustained injuries on the right leg and sustained grievous injuries. That the driver of the T.T. without providing medical aid to the injured had ran away from the spot of offence. That the public had taken the injured to the Bnashankari Udhbhav hospital. That P.W.1 had given oral complaint in the hospital.
13. In the cross-examination P.W.1 states that he had signed the complaint which had the matter written by the police. Further states that he had read the contents of complaint and had signed 7 C.C.No.3409-15 subsequently. P.W.1 denies that T.T. had not caused accident to P.W.1. Further denies that P.W.1 did not had consciousness when the police had came to hospital. P.W.1 denies that as he was in the bed rest for three months in the hospital. Hence he could not go police station. That P.W.1 had seen the accused on the spot of offence.
14. P.W.2 Sukesh is the eye witness has supported the case of the prosecution as in line with P.W.1 he states that his vehicle was behind the two wheeler which had met with an accident that in the said accident P.W.1 had sustained injuries on the right leg. Further states that police had conducted mahazar on the date of accident which had at 2.30 p.m. on the spot of offence.
15. In the cross-examination P.W.2 states that P.W.2 is a holder of diploma in mechanical branch that his area of operation extends from mysore road to bidadi. That his address is Gowripalya of Micolayout. That in order to go to mysore road target he was proceeding till bidadi. In order to go to the said duty P.W.2 to had to sign the attendance in the 8 C.C.No.3409-15 office and had to proceed to the work as a schedule in the field. P.W.2 states that he was a pillion rider and had seen the accident which was caused by the T.T. to the two wheeler. P.W.2 denies that he had not seen the accident and states that he had signed the mahazar on the spot of offence that police had taken about one hour to draw the mahazar. P.W.1 being the injured P.W.2 being the eye witness and P.W.3 being the mahazar witness have supported the case of the prosecution, the offence of P.W.1 & 2 reveals the fact that due to rash and negligent act of accused accident had occurred. P.W.2 & 3 have supported the case of the prosecution in drawing the mahazar.
16. P.W.3 Ashwin is the mahazar witness has stated in his evidence that on 13-02-2015 at about 2.30 p.m. police had conducted the mahazar on the spot of offence and had signed the mahazar on the spot of offence.
17. In the cross-examination P.W.2 states that he knows the contents of mahazar, that he had signed the mahazar on the spot of offence and denies that he had signed the mahazar in the police station.
9 C.C.No.3409-1518. In the present case the accused advocate has consented to mark IMV report and wound certificate. Hence APP has prayed to drop C.W.5 & 6 the prayer of the APP has been accepted and C.W.5 & 6 have been dropped, in view marking of the documents with the consent of the accused advocate.
19. In the present case from the above said evidence and discussion made it reveals rash and negligent act of the accused in causing the accident and injuries to the injured. Hence I am of the opinion that prosecution has proved its case. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
20. POINT No.3: In view of the above discussions and findings I proceed to pass the following ORDER Accused is convicted U/s.255(2) of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable U/s.279 & 338 of IPC.
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.
10 C.C.No.3409-15
In total the accused shall pay fine of Rs.2,000/- in default the accused shall undergo S.I. for a period of 30 days.
The bail bond and surety bond shall stand cancelled after the appeal period is over.
The accused person is set at liberty.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her corrected, revised and signed then pronounced by me in the open court this the 11th day of March 2016).
(SMT. LATHA DEVI G.A.) MMTC - IV, BANGALORE.
ANNEXURE
1) LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
P.W.1: Punith P.W.2: Ashwin P.W.3: Sukesh
2) LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1: Complaint Ex.P.2: Spot Mahazar Ex.P.3: IMV Report Ex.P.4: Wound Certificate Ex.P.5: 133 notice Ex.P.6: Reply
3) LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE ACCUSED:
NIL
4) LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE ACCUSED:
NIL (SMT. LATHA DEVI G.A.) MMTC - IV, BANGALORE.