Bangalore District Court
Girinagar P.S vs A1 Pradeep Kumara Alias Pradi on 3 December, 2025
KABC010081362023
IN THE COURT OF LXVII ADDL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH.No.68)
PRESENT
SMT.RASHMI.M.
BA.LL.B., LL.M.
LXVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
Dated this the 3rd day of December 2025.
S.C.No.491/2023
COMPLAINANT: State by
Girinagar Police,
Bengaluru.
(By learned Public Prosecutor)
.Vs.
ACCUSED : 1. Pradeep Kumar @ Pradhi,
S/o.Puttegowda,
Aged about 22 years,
R/of. Opp. Bus-stop,
Near Mandya Wines,
Krishnappa Layout,
Hosakerehalli,
Banashankari 3rd Stage,
Bengaluru.
2. Jayarama @ Rama,
S/o.Veeraiah,
Aged about 30 years,
R/of. Opp. Bus-stop,
Near Mandya Wines,
2 S.C.No.491/2023
Krishnappa Layout,
Hosakerehalli,
Banashankari 3rd Stage,
Bengaluru.
3. Puttaswamy,
S/o.Doddachikkalingaiah.
...... (Split-up)
4. Suresh Babu.B.V.
Aged about 50 years,
R/at.No.54, 11th Main Road,
Chandra Nagar,
Kumaraswamy Layout,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri.M.K.R., Advocate for
accused Nos.1, 2 & 4)
Date of commission of offence : 8.09.2019
Date of report of offence : 8.09.2019
Date of arrest of the
accused Nos.1 to 4 : ----
Date of release of the
accused : ----
Period of imprisonment -----
undergone by the accused :
Name of the complainant : Sri..Chandraiah
Date of commencement 12.06.2024
of trial :
Date of closing of evidence : 16.05.2025
Charges framed : Under Sections 279, 333 and
353 of IPC and under Sections
180, 146 and 197 of IMV Act.
Opinion of the court : The Accused No.1 is convicted
for the offences punishable
under Sections 279, 333 and
353 of IPC.
The Accused No.4 is convicted
for the offences punishable
under Sections 180, 146 and
196 of IMV Act.
3 S.C.No.491/2023
The accused No.2 is acquitted
for the offences punishable
under Sections 279, 333 and
353 r/w. Section 34 of IPC.
JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector of Girinagar Police Station, Bengaluru has filed the charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 4 for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 279, 333 and 353 r/w. Section 34 of IPC under Sections 180, 146 and 196 of IMV Act.
2. The learned Magistrate after complying with the provisions under Section 207 Cr.P.C., has committed the case against the accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 under Section 209 of Cr.P.C., to the Court of Hon'ble Prl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru by splitting up the case against the accused No.3, as the alleged offences are exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. After committal of the case, the case is made over to this court for trial in accordance with law.
3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:
It is the case of the prosecution that on 8.09.2019 at about 3-15 a.m., while C.Ws.1 and 2 were on beat duty in front of S.R.Petrol Bunk, Hosakerehalli Kerekodi Road, within the limits of Girinagar Police Station, Bengaluru, the accused Nos.1 to 3 came in a TVS XL 2 wheeler bearing 4 S.C.No.491/2023 No.KA-05-AG-3613 by triple riding in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger to human life and were screaming, at that time C.W.1 out of suspicion gave signal to stop their vehicle, but the accused No.1 did not stop the vehicle and dashed against C.W.1 and fled from the place with the vehicle , resulting which C.W.1 fell down and sustained grievous injury on his right leg, thereby the accused had voluntarily obstructed the C.W.1 and C.W.2 being public servants in discharging their official duty. Further the accused No 4 being the owner of TVS XL 2 wheeler bearing No.KA-05-AG-3613 did not have valid insurance in respect of the said vehicle and had given the said vehicle to accused No.1 who at the time of riding it did not possess valid driving license. Thereby the accused are alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 279, 333 and 353 r/w. Section 34 of IPC and under Sections 180, 146 and 196 of IMV Act.
4. On securing the presence of the accused Nos.1, 2 and 4, my learned predecessor has framed the charge against them for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 333 and 353 r/w. Section 34 of IPC and under Sections 180, 146 and 196 of IMV Act. The accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The case was posted for prosecution 5 S.C.No.491/2023 evidence. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined 8 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 8 and got marked 16 documents from Exs.P.1 to 16 After closure of the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the statement of accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., was recorded. The accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 have denied the incriminating evidence stated against them. The accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 have chosen not to adduce any defense evidence on their behalf.
5. Heard the arguments.
6. The points raised for determination are as under :
1. Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that on 8.09.2019 at 3-15 a.m., the accused No.1 was riding the TVS XL 2 wheeler bearing No.KA-05-AG-3613 at high speed in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life along with the accused Nos.2 and split-up accused No.3 as pillion riders and thereby the accused No.1 has committed an offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC ?
2. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the alleged date, time and place, the accused No.1 along with the accused Nos.2 and split-up accused No.3 as the pillion riders, drove the TVS XL 2 wheeler bearing No.KA-05-AG-3613 at a high speed and even though C.W.1 made a signal to stop the vehicle, the accused No.1 6 S.C.No.491/2023 dashed against him voluntarily grievous hurt to C.W.1 who was public servant so as to deter him from discharging his official duty and thereby the Accused Nos.1 and 2 have committed an offence punishable under Section 353 r/w. Section 34 of IPC ?
3. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the alleged date, time and place, the accused No.1 along with the accused Nos.2 and split-up accused No.3 as the pillion riders of the TVS XL 2 wheeler bearing No.KA-
05-AG-3613 at a high speed and even though C.W.1 made a signal to stop the vehicle, the accused No.1 dashed against C.W.1 voluntarily caused grievous hurt to C.W.1 who was a public servant on duty and thereby the Accused Nos.1 and 2 have committed an offence punishable under Section 333 r/w. Section 34 of IPC ?
4. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the alleged date, time the accused No.4 being the owner of the TVS XL 2 wheeler bearing No.KA-05- AG-3613 did not have valid insurance in respect of the said vehicle and had given the vehicle to accused No.1 who at the time of riding it did not possess valid driving license and thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 180, 146 and 196 of IMV Act ?
5. What Order ?
7 S.C.No.491/20237. My findings on the above points are as under :
POINT No.1 - Affirmative, POINT No.2 - Affirmative with respect to Accused No.1, Negative with respect to Accused No.2 ;
POINT No.3 - Affirmative with respect to Accused No.1, Negative with respect to Accused No.2 ;
POINT No.4 - Affirmative, POINT No.5 - As per final order, for the following :
REASONS
8. POINT Nos.1 TO 4 : Since all these points are interconnected to each other, they have been taken up together for discussion in order to avoid the repetition of facts.
9. It is the case of the prosecution that on 8.09.2019 at about 3-15 a.m., while C.Ws.1 and 2 were on beat duty in front of S.R.Petrol Bunk, Hosakerehalli Kerekodi Road, within the limits of Girinagar Police Station, Bengaluru, the accused Nos.1 to 3 came in a TVS XL 2 wheeler bearing No.KA-05-AG-3613 by triple riding in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger to human life and were screaming, at that time C.W.1 out of suspicion gave signal to stop their vehicle, but the accused No.1 did not stop the vehicle and dashed 8 S.C.No.491/2023 against C.W.1 and fled from the place with the vehicle, resulting which C.W.1 fell down and sustained grievous injury on his right leg, thereby the accused had voluntarily obstructed the C.W.1 and C.W.2 being public servants in discharging their official duty. Further the accused No 4 being the owner of TVS XL 2 wheeler bearing No.KA-05-AG-3613 did not have valid insurance in respect of the said vehicle and had given the said vehicle to accused No.1 who at the time of riding it did not possess valid driving license. Thereby the accused are alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 279, 333 and 353 r/w. Section 34 of IPC and under Sections 180, 146 and 196 of IMV Act.
10. P.W.1-Sri.Chandraiah has stated that between 8- 30 p.m., to 8-30 a.m., he along with C.W.2 were deputed on beat duty in Hosakerehalli. While they were on duty in front of S.L.N.Koli Shop at about 3-15 a.m., on 8.09.2018, about 3 people came on a TVS XL 2 wheeler at a high speed and they were screaming. As he got suspicious about them, he made a signal for them to stop the vehicle, but they did not stop, but instead they drew the 2 wheeler at a very high speed and suddenly they came and dashed against him, resulting which he fell down and sustained injuries on his right side of the body and on his left hand. Then C.W.2 shifted him in a private vehicle to HOSMAT hospital where he was given first aid. He stated that 9 S.C.No.491/2023 the riders of the 2 wheeler with an ill-intention had committed the alleged offences. On 8.09.2018 at 2-10 p.m., he gave his statement (Ex.P.1) to the police in the presence of the Doctor and he has signed the statement as per Ex.P.1(a). He stated that the TVS XL 2 wheeler bearing No.KA-05-HG-3613 dashed against him and went away from the spot. They had prevented them from discharging their official duty. He has identified 3 accused persons present before the court. He has identified one of the accused as a rider and another as a pillion rider, but stated that another accused is not present before the court. While the third accused who is present before the court is the owner of the vehicle.
In his cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, he has denied the suggestion that he along with C.W.2 were not deputed on duty to the said place on 7.09.2019 at 9-00 p.m. He has denied the suggestion that 3 people cannot travel on TVS XL 2 wheeler. He has denied the suggestion that 3 people who were coming on TVS XL 2 wheeler were not screaming. He has denied the suggestion that TVS 2 wheeler did not come at a high speed and has not dashed against him. He has denied the suggestion that as he was in pain, he was not in a condition to dictate the contents of the statement which was not written by him. He stated that he has given the statement before 10 S.C.No.491/2023 the Doctor. It is elicited that even though 2 wheeler had dashed against his right leg, but he has not stated in the complaint as to which leg it had dashed. He admitted that even though he has stated in his examination in chief that he had sustained injury on his knee and hand, but has not stated the same in his complaint. He admitted that no police came from the Police Station to the place of incident till he was there. It is elicited that when he got admitted to A.V.Hospital, the police personnels and police officers had come to the hospital. He has denied the suggestion that his statement was not recorded in HOSMAT hospital where he was undergoing treatment. He stated that on 9.09.2019 they wrote down his statement. It is elicited that after the incident, he was in rest for 4 months and then reported to the duty. He has denied the suggestion that he has signed his complaint in Girinagar Police Station. He has denied the suggestion that no incident had occurred as stated in the complaint. He has denied the suggestion that no one had prevented him from performing his official duty. He has denied the suggestion that no one had assaulted him. He has denied the suggestion that he had not seen the accused at the place of incident and he is seeing them for the first time in the court. He has denied the suggestion that he sustained injuries by falling down from the vehicle. He has denied the suggestion that he has given a false complaint and is 11 S.C.No.491/2023 deposing falsely before the court.
11. P.W.2-Sri.Chandrashekar, Head Constable has stated that on 7.09.2019 he was deputed on duty at 8- 00 p.m. On 8.09.2019 in the early morning hours of 3.15 a.m., on Kerekodi Main Road, near SR Petrol Bunk in front of S.L.V.Chicken Shop when he along with C.W.1 were on duty, at that time 3 unknown people came on TVS XL bearing No.KA-05-H-3613 and they were screaming, out of suspicion C.W.1 asked them to stop the vehicle by making a signal, but they negligently came at a high speed and intentionally dashed against the leg of C.W.1, resulting which C.W.1 sustained leg injury and fracture. Thereafter those people ran away from the spot. C.W.1 had fallen down, was shouting out of pain, he then informed the same to the SHO and shifted C.W.1 to the nearby A.V.Hospital and then shifted to HOSMAT Hospital in an ambulance. He stated that C.W.1 had sustained fracture of one leg and other leg was injured. On the same day between 2-30 to 3-15 p.m., C.W.12 conducted the spot mahazar (Ex.P.2) at the place shown by him. On the same day C.W.12 deputed him and C.W.11 to trace the accused and on the same day at 5-00 p.m., they received the information that the accused were near Mandya Wines situated in Krishnappa Layout, so he along with C.W.11 immediately went to the spot and apprehended the accused. On enquiry they came to their names as 12 S.C.No.491/2023 Pradeep and Jayaraj. They then brought the accused persons along with their vehicles and produced before C.W.12 at 6-00 p.m. He stated that the accused No.1- Pradeep Kumar was riding the vehicle. He has identified the accused No.2 before the court. While the identity of accused Nos.1 and 4 are not disputed by the advocate for accused. He stated that due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused, they obstructed C.W.1 from performing his official duty.
In his cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, he has denied the suggestion that on 7.09.2017 he along with C.W.1 were not deputed for 24th to 30th beat. It is elicited that in the early morning hours of 3-15 a.m., the petrol bunk situated at the place of incident was closed. He admitted that very few people were walking on the road. He has denied the suggestion that he has not stated the number, colour of the TVS XL 2 wheeler. He has denied the suggestion that 3 people cannot travel on a TVS XL 2 wheeler. He has denied the suggestion that the accused was not coming at a high speed. He has denied the suggestion that it is false that C.W.1 had asked the accused to go slowly, but they had dashed against C.W.1. It is elicited that as soon as incident occurred, C.W.1 was shouting out of pain, so he went to help him instead of chasing the accused. It is elicited that after he informed the incident to the Police Station, the police did not come to 13 S.C.No.491/2023 the spot, but they had visited the hospital. He has denied the suggestion that no such incident had occurred, but C.W.1 had fallen down from a 2 wheeler and sustained injuries. It is elicited that on 8.09.2018 C.W.12 has given oral orders to trace the accused and the 2 wheeler. It is elicited that there was CCTV camera at the place of incident. It is elicited that they had apprehended the accused at Hosarakerehalli Mandya Wines situated at a distance of 4 to 4-30 kms., from their Police Station. He has denied the suggestion that the accused Nos.1 and 2 were apprehended from their house. It is elicited that they did not conduct mahazar at the place where they apprehended the accused. It is elicited that on 8.09.2019 at about 2-00 p.m., he had been to the Police Station, from there he had gone for the spot mahazar. He has denied the suggestion that he signed the spot mahazar in the Police Station. He has denied the suggestion that the spot mahazar was not conducted between 2-30 to 3-15 p.m. He has denied the suggestion that as C.W.1 is their station police personnel, so even though he has not witnessed the incident, he is deposing falsely to help C.W.1. He has denied the suggestion that he is seeing the accused for the first time before the court and had not seen them anywhere else.
12. P.W.3-Sri.Muniraju, A.S.I., has deposed about recording the statement of injured at HOSMAT Hospital 14 S.C.No.491/2023 in the presence of the Doctor between 1-45 to 2-00 p.m. He then produced the statement (Ex.P.1) before c.W.12 and has signed it as per Ex.P.1(b).
In his cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, it is elicited that he was given a written direction to record the statement of the injured nor he had intimated the doctors in writing. It is elicited that he does not remember the Ward Number and bed number of the injured. He also does not know the name of the duty doctor and nurse who treated the injured. He has denied the suggestion that even though he admitted that he has not recorded the statement of the injured, he is deposing falsely before the court.
13. P.W.4-Dr.Nrupathunga.K.K. has deposed that on 8.09.2019 at 5-15 a.m., the injured police by name Chandraiah was brought to their hospital for treatment by police personnel by name Shiva Kumar with a history that on 8.09.2019 at 3-30 a.m., near S.R.Petrol bunk when a suspicious 2 wheeler was being stopped, it dashed against the injured and before bringing the injured to their hospital, he was given first aid at A.V.Hospital. In this regard, he has issued wound certificate (Ex.P.3) and MLC (Ex.P.4). He has reiterated that the injuries stated in wound certificate (Ex.P.3). He has stated that if a person is dashed by a 2 wheeler then the said injuries can be caused.
In his cross examination by the learned advocate for 15 S.C.No.491/2023 the accused, it is elicited that he along with other Doctor have treated the injured. He has denied the suggestion that if a person has a fall on a hard surface or object, he may sustain the injuries as stated by him in the Wound Certificate.
14. P.W.5-Dr.Puneeth.M. has deposed that on 8.09.2019 C.W.1 was admitted in their hospital for treatment. C.W.10 had come to the hospital to obtain the statement of the injured and he had given the opinion that the injured is in a condition to give statement. C.W.10 recorded the statement of C.W.1 in his presence. He then signed 2 pages of the statement (Ex.P.1) as per Exs.P.1(c) and (d). He stated that when the injured was on duty, he tried to stop a two wheeler which was going in suspicious manner and when the injured tried to stop it, the vehicle dashed against him causing injuries, for which he was undergoing treatment in their hospital.
In his cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, he has denied the suggestion that C.W.1 was not admitted in their hospital for treatment. He has denied the suggestion that the statement of C.W.1 was not taken by C.W.10 in his presence in the hospital. He has denied the suggestion that he signed the statement which was prepared in the Police Station.
16 S.C.No.491/202315. P.W.6-Sri.Sunil Kaddi, P.S.I., has deposed that on 8.09.2019, C.W.12 had deputed him along with C.W.12 to trace the accused and 2 wheeler bearing No.KA-05- HG-3613. At about 5-00 p.m., they traced the accused at Mandya Wines, Krishnappa Layout, Hosakerehalli. They came to know that the name of the accused was Pradeep Kumar and Jayakumar. They then produced the two accused along with vehicle before the Investigating Officer at 6-00 p.m., and gave a report (Ex.P.5). He has identified the accused persons before the court.
In his cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, he has denied the suggestion that he had not apprehended the accused along with the vehicle and he is deposing falsely before the court. He has denied the suggestion that he is seeing the accused for the first time before the court.
16. P.W.7-Sri.C.A.Siddalingaiah, Retired Police Inspector has deposed about receiving the case file from C.W.12 on 10.05.2020. On completion of investigation, he has filed the charge sheet on 18.05.2020.
In his cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, he has denied the suggestion that he has filed a false charge sheet against the accused.
17 S.C.No.491/202317. P.W.8-Sri.Prasanna Kumar.K.N., P.S.I., has stated that on 8.09.2019 he had deputed C.Ws.1 and 2 to vehicle inspection night duty at Hosakerehalli, near Kerekodi. When they were inspecting the vehicles, C.Ws.1 and 2 noticed that a 2 wheeler bearing No.KA- 05-HG-3613 with 3 people coming at a high speed. C.Ws.1 and 2 prevented the said vehicle from going forward to inspect it. But its rider without stopping the vehicle went forward and dashed against C.W.1 and fled away from the spot. C.W.1 was admitted to HOSMAT Hospital by C.W.2 and same was intimated to the station. Also they received MLC (Ex.P.4) from the hospital. C.W.10 recorded the statement (Ex.P.1) of C.W.1 in the hospital. On recording the same, he registered the FIR (Ex.P.6). On the same day in the presence of panchas, he conducted the mahazar (Ex.P.2). On the same day, C.Ws.2 and 11 produced the accused Nos.1 and 2 before him along with a report (Ex.P.5) on the same day between 6-15 to 7-00 p.m., he seized the TVS XL vehicle bearing No.KA-05-HG-3613 in the Police Station under seizure mahazar (Ex.P.7). He has identified the photos of the vehicle (Exs.P.9 and 10). On the same day, he recorded the voluntary statement of the accused Nos.1 & 2 and they failed to furnish the RC and Insurance of the 2 wheeler before him. He has recorded the statements of C.Ws.4 to 10 and eye witness (C.W.3). On 29.11.2019 he received the Wound Certificate (Ex.P.3). On 6.12.2019 the RTO inspected 18 S.C.No.491/2023 the vehicle as per the requisition dated:28.11.2019 (Ex.P.12) and gave the report (Ex.P.13). On 5.03.2020, he received the 'B' Extract (Ex.P.15) from RTO, Jayanagar, Bengaluru. He has also furnished the copy of the 2 pages of station house diary (Ex.P.16). He has identified the accused before the court. The accused No.4 was not present and the learned advocate for accused No.4 submitted no objection regarding his identify.
In his cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, he has denied the suggestion that he had not deputed C.Ws.1 and 2 for duty. It is elicited that he has not verified as to who is the owner of 2 wheeler. He admitted that the accused are not the owners of the 2 wheeler. He admitted that he was not able to trace and find out as to who were the 3 people travelling on the 2 wheeler. He has denied the suggestion that TVS XL 2 wheeler is a small vehicle, it is not possible for 3 people to travel on it. It is elicited that even though there is only one seat in the said 2 wheeler, but 3 people had travelled in it, but he does not know as to how they did it. He has denied the suggestion that he has received a false complaint and registered a false case. He has denied the suggestion that C.W.2 has not given the statement that Pradeep Kumar was riding the 2 wheeler. He has denied the suggestion that he has created all the documents in 19 S.C.No.491/2023 this case and is deposing falsely before the court.
18. On considering the oral and documentary evidence placed before the court, it is at first necessary to note that there are 4 accused persons in the present case. It is alleged that the accused No.1 was the rider, accused No.2 and split-up accused No.3 were the pillion riders. While the accused No.4 being the owner of 2 wheeler had given the vehicle without Insurance to the accused No.1 who was not having D.L. to ride the vehicle on the alleged day.
19. Identification of accused No 1 and accused No. 2 :
At first it is necessary to observe as to whether the prosecution has placed convincing evidence regarding the identity of the accused persons. On referring to the evidence of C.W.1, he has stated that out of 3 accused present before the court , one was rider, other was the pillion rider and another is the owner of the vehicle and the other accused is not there. While C.W.2 has specifically stated that the accused No.1 was riding the 2 wheeler and he can identify the accused. On the day of evidence, the accused No.1 was not present before the court and the learned advocate for accused had filed exemption for his absence before the court and there was no dispute regarding the identity of accused no 1. While C.W.2 has specifically identified the accused 20 S.C.No.491/2023 No.2 Jayaram. Also at the time of investigation he has arrested the accused by name Pradeep and Jayaram i.e.,accused Nos.1 and 2.
20. In view of the aforesaid evidence placed before the court, it can be safely said that the prosecution has placed convincing evidence to show that the accused No.1 was the rider of the 2 wheeler and the accused No.2 was one of the two pillion riders on the alleged day of incident.
21. Defense of the accused that C.W.1 and C.W.2 were not on duty at the alleged place:
It is the specific contention of the prosecution that on 7.09.2019 between 8-30 p.m., and 8-30 a.m., C.Ws.1 and 2 were deputed for duty on Hosakerehalli Main Road, Kerekodi. Here itself it is pertinent to note that on the date of giving evidence i.e., on 12.06.2024, C.W.1 was a A.S.I. But on the alleged date of incident in 2019, he was Head Constable (HC 5956), which is evident from his evidence and from the charge sheet. While C.W.2 was Head Constable at the time of evidence on 12.11.2024. But C.W.2 was Police Constable (P.C.No.13946) in 2019 which is forthcoming from his evidence and from the charge sheet.
22. The alleged incident had occurred in the early morning hours at 3.15 a.m., on 8.09.2019. From the 21 S.C.No.491/2023 said timings one can safely come to a conclusion that the roads would be deserted and shops would be closed. While C.W.3 has been cited as an eye witness to the incident. But even after issuance of proclamation, the presence of C.W.3 was not secured by the prosecution. Hence C.W.3 was dropped.
23. In the absence of independent eye witnesses that has occurred to early morning hours of 3.15 a.m., it is necessary to refer to the certified copy of 2 pages of Station House Diary (Ex.P.16) where in the entry dated it is written that on 7.09.2019 20-30, HC-5956 and PC- 13946 were deputed for duty from 24 th to 30th beat. Ex.P.16 was furnished before the court by C.W.12/P.W.8. In his cross examination, other than mere suggestion to the effect that it is a created document. But nothing elicited in the evidence of PW8 to prove that ExP16 is a fabricated document. Even otherwise on perusal of ExP16 it can be safely said that there is no over writing or nothing on the face of it which will raise doubt regarding the authenticity of the said document and entries in it. Hence it can be safely said that C.Ws.1 and 2 were deputed on duty for 24 th and 30th beat. It is not the contention of the accused that Hosakerehalli Kerekodi does not come under 24th and 30th beat or it does not come under the jurisdiction of Girinagar Police Station. Hence it can be safely said that the prosecution has placed convincing evidence before the 22 S.C.No.491/2023 court to establish that C.Ws.1 and 2 were on duty on the alleged spot on the alleged date and time.
24. Defense of the accused that it is not possible for 3 people to travel in TVS XL 2 wheeler.
Further it is the specific defense of the accused that is is not possible for 3 people to travel in TVS XL vehicle, which is a small vehicle. In the cross examination of P.W.8, it is suggested that it is not possible for 3 people to travel in a single seater TVS vehicle as seen from the photos (Exs.P.9 and 10). Also same suggestion is made during the cross examination of C.Ws.1 and 2. While all the 3 witnesses have denied the same.
25. Further taking note that the accused have not disputed their identity before the court, it can be safely said that mere denial by the accused that 3 people cannot travel on a TVS XL 2 wheeler cannot by itself go to establish that they were not riding the 2 wheeler.
26. Further it is necessary to refer to the photos of the 2 wheeler (Exs.P.9 and 10). Even though in the photo (Ex.P.9) it appears that there is a small seat.But in the photo (Ex.P.10) of the same 2 wheeler, it is evident that it has a long seat and 3 people can sit on it. It is not the contention of the accused that Exs.P.9 and 10 23 S.C.No.491/2023 are photos of 2 different vehicles. Hence mere denial cannot go to disprove the case of the prosecution that 3 people were traveling on the TVS XL vehicle on the alleged date, time and place.
27. Offence under Section 279 of IPC In the present case accused are alleged to have committed the offence under section 279 of IPC. In this regard it is at first necessary to to give a finding as to whether prosecution proves that accused has committed the offence punishable under section 279 of IPC .At first it is necessary to refer to section 279 of IPC which reads as under:
"Whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on any public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both".
28. From the plain reading of Section 279 of IPC it can be safely said that only the driver or the rider of the vehicle can be punished for the offence under Section 279 of IPC for rash and negligent driving so as to endanger human life. As such the question is whether 24 S.C.No.491/2023 Accused no 1 being the rider of 2 wheeler has committed offence under Section 279 of IPC.
29. In the evidence of C.W.1, he has stated that the accused drove the 2 wheeler at a very high speed and suddenly they came and dashed against him, resulting which he fell down and sustained injuries on his right side of the body and on his left hand. The said evidence of C.W.1 has been corroborated by the evidence of CW2 who was with C.W.1 on duty at the said place. But the it is the defense of the accused that C.W.1 has not stated the same specific injuries in his complaint Ex.P.1.
30. On perusal of the complaint (Ex.P.1), it is observed that CW1 has stated the manner in which the incident had taken place, also he has stated that when he asked to stop the rider of the 2 wheeler intentionally ignored his direction and increased the speed of the vehicle and dashed against his leg resulting which he collapsed. The complaint is in a nature of the statement of the injured recorded by the police in the presence of the doctor on the same day of the incident at 2.10 p.m., in the hospital.
31. Only because C.W.1 has just stated that 2 wheeler hit his leg not mentioning which leg and nature of injuries sustained by him in the complaint is a not ground to disregard his evidence. CW1 after having 25 S.C.No.491/2023 sustaining fractures and injuries as mentioned in the Wound Certificate (ExP3) he will naturally be in pain and shock and one cannot expect him to state in his complaint as to where he sustained injuries and nature of injuries. If he had done so then it would have raised suspicion regarding the authenticity of the complaint. Even otherwise the complaint is expected to give basic details of the incident and not the exact details of the injuries and medical findings thereafter given to the injured.
32. Also the evidence of C.W.1 is supported by the evidence of C.W.2, who was on duty along with C.W.1. In the cross examination of C.W.1 and C.W.2, nothing has been elicited to prove that accused No.1 was not the rider of the TVS 2 wheeler or he was not riding the 2 wheeler in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life.
33. Also it is the specific case of the prosecution the Accused No.1 was not having driving license on the alleged date to ride a a two wheeler. The accused No.1 has not disputed the same, nor he has furnished his driving license before the court to contradict the contention taken by the prosecution .
34. In view of the discussion made supra it is held that prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt 26 S.C.No.491/2023 that accused No1 has committed offense punishable under section 279 of IPC.
35. Offence under section 333 and 353 of IPC:
As discussed supra it is specific case of the prosecution that on 8.09.2019 at about 3-15 a.m., while C.Ws.1 and 2 were on beat duty in front of S.R.Petrol Bunk, Hosakerehalli Kerekodi Road, within the limits of Girinagar Police Station, Bengaluru, the accused Nos.1 to 3 came in a TVS XL vehicle bearing No.KA-05-AG- 3613 by triple riding in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger to human life and were screaming, at that time C.W.1 out of suspicion gave signal to stop their vehicle, but the accused did not stop the vehicle and dashed against C.W.1 and fled from the place with the vehicle , resulting which C.W.1 fell down and sustained grievous injury on his right leg, thereby the accused had voluntarily obstructed the CW1 and CW2 being public servants in discharging their official duty.
36. In this regard it is at first necessary to refer to Sections 333 and 353 of IPC which reads as under
Section 333 of IPC: Voluntarily causing grievous hurt to deter public servant from his duty-
Whoever voluntarily causes grievous hurt to any person being a public servant in the discharge of his duty as such public servant, or with 27 S.C.No.491/2023 intent to prevent or deter that person or any other public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by that person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 353 IPC : Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty--
"Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."
37. From reading of Section 333 of IPC it is can safely said that to commit offence under Section 333 of IPC, the accused should have voluntarily causing grievous hurt to deter public servant from his duty. While Section 353 of IPC is attracted when it is proved 28 S.C.No.491/2023 that accused assaulted or used criminal force on a public servant with an intent to prevent the public servant from discharging his official duty as such public servant.
38. In view of Sections 333 and 353 of IPC, it is necessary to note that in the present case as discussed supra the prosecution has proved by placing convincing evidence that CW1 and CW2 whereon official duty at the alleged place and time. Also it is proved that accused no 1 and 2 along with split up accused no3 where doing triple riding in a TVS XL 2 wheeler bearing No.KA-05-AG-3613. Also it is held that prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused no1 has committed offense under section 279 of IPC .
39. Further in the evidence of the injured C.W.1 and C.W.2 who was on patrol duty along with C.W.1 they have specifically deposed that 2 accused came in a 2 wheeler in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed screaming and when C.W.1 made a signal asking them to stop intentionally they without slowing down dashed against the leg of C.W.1 and fled away without stopping the vehicle. Also from the Wound Certificate (Ex.P.3) it can be safely safely said that C.W.1 has sustained fracture of the right leg and suffered from grievous injury. Also in the cross examination of C.W.1 and C.W.2, nothing has been elicited by the accused so as to 29 S.C.No.491/2023 establish that the act of the accused was not voluntary.
40. Further it is a settled position of law that reliable evidence from injured eyewitnesses is a crucial part of the prosecution's case, and its weight should not be diminished due to the lack of non-police witnesses. The presence of independent witnesses is not an indispensable requirement for the prosecution's case.
41. In this regard it is pertinent to refer to the decision reported in (2023 SCC OnLine SC 355),Balu Sudam Khalde and Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:
"26. When the evidence of an injured eye-witness is to be appreciated, the under-noted legal principles enunciated by the courts are required to be kept in mind:
(a) The presence of an injured eye-witness at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are material contradictions in his deposition.
(b) Unless, it is otherwise established by the evidence, it must be believed that an injured witness would not allow the real culprits to escape and falsely implicate the accused.
(c) The evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary 30 S.C.No.491/2023 value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly.
(d) The evidence of injured witness cannot be doubted on account of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor contradictions.
(e) If there be any exaggeration or immaterial embellishments in the evidence of an injured witness, then such contradiction, exaggeration or embellishment should be discarded from the evidence of injured, but not the whole evidence.
(f) The broad substratum of the
prosecution version must be
taken into consideration and
discrepancies which normally
creep due to loss of memory with
passage of time should be
discarded."
42. Further in Manjit Singh .Vs. State of Punjab.
(2019) 8 SCC 529, it is observed and held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that "reliable evidence of injured eyewitnesses cannot be discarded merely for reason that no independent witness was examined".
43. In the decision in Surinder Kumar .Vs. State of Punjab (2020) 2 SCC 563, it is observed and held 31 S.C.No.491/2023 by Hon'ble Supreme Court that "merely because prosecution did not examine any independent witness, would not necessarily lead to conclusion that the accused was falsely implicated".
44. In State of H.P. .Vs. Pardeep Kumar (2018) 13 SCC 808, it is observed and held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that "the examination of the independent witnesses is not an indispensable requirement and such non-examination is not necessarily fatal to the prosecution case".
45. In view of the aforesaid decisions, it can be safely said that absence of the testimony of independent eye witnesses is not a ground to disregard the evidence of the injured CW1 and CW2 who was along with him. Also at early morning hours of 3.15 am one cannot expect an natural independent public eye witness to be present on a main road.
46. Also it is not the prosecution case that people from the surrounding locality gathered at the time of the incident. P.Ws.1 and 2 have been cross-examined at length by the counsel for the accused, but nothing has been elicited except a minor discrepancies. Moreover, the lengthy cross examination of a witness may invariably result in contradictions. But these contradictions are not always sufficient to discredit a witness.
32 S.C.No.491/202347. Even otherwise the very act of the accused not stopping the vehicle after dashing against C.W.1 clearly goes to show that the accused No.1 intentionally dashed against C.W.1 so as to prevent him to performing his official duty when he made a signal for them to stop the vehicle.
48. The role of Accused No. 2 and split-up Accused No.3.
As per the prosecution, the accused No.1 was the rider of the 2 wheeler, while the accused No.2 and split-up accused No.3 were the pillion riders of the 2 wheeler bearing No.KA-05-HG-3613 on the alleged day of incident. The Accused Nos.1 and 2 along with split up split-up accused No.3 are alleged to have committed the offence punishable under Sections 333 and 353 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
49. As discussed supra it observed that from the evidence of C.W.1 and C.W.2, it can be safely said that accused have committed the offences punishable under Sections 333 and 353 of IPC.
50. On considering the evidence of the injured (C.W.1) and C.W.2 who was along with C.W.1, they have stated that the rider and 2 pillion riders with an ill- intention without stopping the vehicle when signaled by C.W.1 dashed against C.W.1 and fled from the place.
33 S.C.No.491/2023But nowhere in the evidence placed before the court, the prosecution has brought out that the accused No.1 had dashed against C.W.1 as per the instructions or say of the pillion riders. Also it can be safely said that the prosecution has no where brought out in the evidence placed before the court that the Accused No.1 had dashed against C.W.1 and the pillion riders asked not to stop or they asked the Accused No.1 to do so.
51. The burden is upon the prosecution to prove that the Accused No.2 being the pillion rider along with split- up accused No.3 had common intention in causing voluntary hurt to C.W.1 when the Accused No.1 dashed his 2 wheeler against him. Merely because all the accused were screaming when they were riding the 2 wheeler does not amount to common intention. Even other wise the accused No.2 along with split-up accused No.3 was a pillion rider.
52. It is not brought out in the evidence as to whether he was the first or 2nd pillion rider. Also when the Accused No.1 dashed against C.W.1 one cannot expect a pillion rider to jump and prevent the incident as the vehicle. In the absence of convincing evidence it is held that prosecution has failed to prove that Accused No.2 along with split up accused No.3 being pillion riders had common intention and have committed offence under section 333 and 353 r/w. Section 34 of IPC.
34 S.C.No.491/202353. But from the discussion made supra it held that prosecution has placed convincing evidence before the court to prove that Accused No.1 being the rider of the TVS XL 2 Wheeler bearing No.KA-05-AG-3613 had dashed against the police personnel (C.W.1) who was on duty and voluntarily caused grievous hurt to him and prevented him from performing his official duty and thereby the Accused No.1 has committed the offences punishable under Sections 333 and 353 of IPC.
54. THE OFFENCE AGAINST THE ACCUSED No.4:
It is the specific case of the prosecution that the accused No.4 being the owner of TVS XL 2 wheeler bearing No.KA-05-AG-3613 did not have valid insurance in respect of the said vehicle and had given the said vehicle to the Accused No.1 who at the time of riding it did not possess valid driving license. Thereby the accused No.4 is alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 180, 146 and 196 of IMV Act.
55. Here itself, I would like to refer Sections 180, 146 and 196 of IMV Act.
Section 180 of IMV Act reads as under :
Section 180 of the Motor Vehicles Act deals with the offense of allowing an unauthorized person to drive a vehicle. It penalizes the owner or person in charge of a vehicle if they permit someone who is not qualified to drive (i.e., does 35 S.C.No.491/2023 not have a valid driving license as per Section 3 or Section 4 of the Act) to operate the vehicle. The punishment can be imprisonment for up to three months, a fine of up to ₹5,000/- or both.
Section 146 of IMV Act reads as under :
Section 146 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, mandates that it is illegal to use a motor vehicle in a public place without a valid policy of insurance that covers third-party risks. This provision makes it a punishable offense to drive an uninsured vehicle, with penalties including fines and imprisonment.
Section 190 of IMV Act reads as under :
Section 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act mandates a penalty for driving a vehicle without valid third-party insurance, as required by Section
146. The penalties for the first offense include imprisonment for up to three months, a fine of ₹2,000, or both. Subsequent offenses carry a higher penalty of imprisonment for up to three months, a fine of ₹4,000/- or both.
56. On plain reading of Sections 180, 146 and 196 of IMV Act, it can be safely said that the aforesaid Sections are pertaining to not having valid insurance for the vehicle and for having uninsured vehicle to a person without driving license by the owner of the vehicle.
36 S.C.No.491/202357. On considering the oral and documentary evidence placed before the court, it is pertinent to note that the accused No.4 has not placed any evidence before the court to prove that he was not the owner of the TVS motorcycle bearing No.KA-05-HG-3613.
58. The prosecution has placed before the court the 'B' Register Extract (Ex.P.5) wherein the owner of the TVS motorcycle bearing No.KA-05-HG-3613 is shown as Mr.Suresh Babu.B.V. It is nowhere suggested during the cross examination of the Investigating Officer that the said Suresh Babu.B.V. is not the accused No.4 and the accused No.4 has nothing to do with the vehicle.
59. Here itself it is pertinent to note that in the complaint, FIR and in all the prosecution documents, TVS 2 wheeler No. is shown as KA-05-HG-3613, only in the charge sheet, the number is shown as KA-05-AG- 3613, which can be safely said to be a typographical error. Hence the said error is not fatal to the case of the prosecution.
60. Further the accused No.4 has nowhere suggested in the cross examination of prosecution witnesses that the vehicle number is KA-05-AG-3613 and not KA-05- HG-3613. As such it can be safely said that the prosecution has placed convincing evidence to prove that the accused No.4 was the owner of the TVS XL 2 wheeler bearing No.KA-05-AG-3613.
37 S.C.No.491/202361. Further it is not the contention of the accused No.4 that he had not given his two wheeler to accused Nos.1 to ride. Also nothing has been suggested to that effect during the cross examination of prosecution witnesses.
62. Also it is alleged that on the date of incident, TVS XL 2 wheeler bearing No.KA-05-AG-3613 was not having Insurance. The burden is upon the owner/accused No.4 to prove that as on the date of incident, his vehicle had insurance. To prove the same, the accused No.4 has not furnished the insurance of TVS 2 wheeler bearing No.KA-05-AG-3613 as on the date of incident. Hence, it can be safely said that the vehicle was not having insurance.
63. It is the specific allegation of the prosecution that the accused No.1 was riding the 2 wheeler without having Driving License on the date of accident. Also it is observed that the accused No.1 has not furnished the D.L. The only defense taken by the accused is that 3 people cannot travel on the TVS 2 wheeler. The accused No.1 has chosen not to furnish his D.L., to contradict the case of the prosecution. Hence it can be safely said that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused No.4 being the owner of TVS XL 2 wheeler did not have insurance as on 8.09.2019. Also he had given his uninsured TVS XL 2 38 S.C.No.491/2023 wheeler bearing No.KA-05-AG-3613 to the accused No.1 to ride who was not having a driving license, thereby the accused No.4 committed the offences punishable under Sections 180, 146 and 196 of IMV Act.
64. In view of the discussion made supra, it is held that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that on 8.09.2019 at 3-15 a.m., the Accused No.1 was riding TVS XL 2 wheeler bearing No.KA-05-AG- 3613 in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger the human life and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC.
65. Further the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that on 8.09.2019 at 3-15 a.m., the Accused No.1 being the rider of TVS XL 2 wheeler bearing No.KA-05-AG-3613 had driven it at high speed and dashed against C.W.1-a Police personnel on duty causing grievous hurt and thereby deterring him from discharging his official duty and thereby the Accused No.1 has committed the offences punishable under Sections 333 and 353 of IPC.
66. It is held that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the Accused No.4 being the owner of TVS XL 2 wheeler bearing No.KA-05-AG-3613 was not having valid insurance for his 2 wheeler as on 8.09.2019 and had given the uninsured vehicle to the 39 S.C.No.491/2023 Accused No.1 to ride, who was not having a valid driving license and thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 180, 146 and 196 of IMV Act.
67. Further it is held that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the Accused No.2 being the pillion rider has committed the offences punishable under Sections 333 and 353 r/w. Section 34 of IPC. Accordingly, the Point No.1 and 4 are answered in the Affirmative. While the Point Nos.2 and 3 are answered in the Affirmative with respect to the Accused No.1 and Negative with respect to the Accused No.2.
68. POINT No.5: In view of my findings on Point Nos.1 to 4 as above, I proceed to pass the following :
ORDER Acting under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C. the Accused No.1 is convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 333 and 353 of IPC.
Acting under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C. the Accused No.4 is convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 180, 146 and 196 of IMV Act.
40 S.C.No.491/2023Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. the Accused No.2 is acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 333 and 353 r/w. Section 34 of IPC.
The bail bond and surety bond of the accused No.2 stands cancelled, subject to appeal.
To hear regarding sentence.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-II directly on Computer, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 3 rd day of November 2025) (RASHMI.M) LXVII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
ORDER REGARDING SENTENCE Heard the learned advocate for accused Nos.1 and 4, the learned Public Prosecutor on the question of sentence to be imposed on the Accused Nos.1 and 4.
It is submitted that the accused No.1 is innocent and has no criminal antecedents. He stated that he hails from a poor family having elderly parents and minor children and he is the sole earning member of his family. Hence requested the court to release him or show leniency in awarding sentence and the court may impose only fine to the accused No.1.
41 S.C.No.491/2023While the learned advocate for accused No.4 has submitted that the offences under Sections 180, 146 and 196 of IMV Act, the punishment is imposition of fine or imprisonment. Hence submitted that the nominal fine be imposed upon accused No.4.
On the other hand the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the accused No.1 has submitted that the accused No.1 is convictred for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 333 and 353 of IPC. He has furnished the copy of document from ICJS Website stating that a criminal case is registered against the accused No.1 in Thalakadu Police Station. Hence he is an habitual offender. The punishment for the offence under Section 279 of IPC is imprisonment of either description which may extend to 6 months or with fine which may extend to Rs.1,000/- or with both. While for the offence under Section 333 of IPC, it is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. Further for the offence under Section 353 of IPC the punishment is imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. Hence the learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that maximum imprisonment and fine should be imposed on accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 333 and 353 of IPC.
42 S.C.No.491/2023With respect to the accused No.4, the learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that Rs.5,000/- is a fixed amount of fine which has to be imposed for the offence under Section 180 of IMV Act and Sections 146 and 196 of IMV Act, the fine is total of Rs.2,000/-. Hence the accused No.4 shall be ordered to pay a fine of Rs.7,000/-, in default he shall undergo imprisonment.
In view of the submission made by both the sides, it is pertinent to note that the offences alleged against the accused No,4 are punishable under Sections 180, 146 and 196 of IMV Act. The IMV Act with recent Central Government Amendment states that fine of Rs.5,000/- has to be imposed for the offence punishable under Section 180 of IMV Act. Further with respect to the offences under Sections 146 and 196 of IMV Act, the accused No.4 has to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- i.e., the accused No.4 shall pay a total fine of Rs.7,000/- and on default, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
Further with respect to accused No.1, he has committed the offences punishable under Sections 279, 333 and 353 of IPC. Taking note that the accused No.1 has no criminal antecedents, but due to the said incident C.W.1 had sustained grievous injuries. Hence it is just and proper to impose imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC.
43 S.C.No.491/2023Further taking note that due to rash and negligent driving, the accused No.1 had dashed against C.W.1 voluntarily causing grievous injury and thereby prevented C.W.1 from performing his official duty. Hence this court is of the considered view that it is just and proper to impose imprisonment of 3 years and fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 333 of IPC. Also it is just and proper to impose imprisonment of 1 year and fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 353 of IPC.
In view of the discussion made supra and also taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of this case, I proceed to pass the following sentence to the Accused Nos.1 and 4.
ORDER The Accused No.1is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of SIX MONTHS and shall pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for ONE MONTH for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC.
The Accused No.1 is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of THREE YEARS and shall pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default he shall further 44 S.C.No.491/2023 undergo simple imprisonment for a period of ONE MONTH, for the offence punishable under Section 333 of IPC.
The Accused No.1 is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of ONE YEAR and shall pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of ONE MONTH, for the offence punishable under Section 353 of IPC.
All the sentences shall run concurrently.
Further the Accused No.4 is sentenced pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of ONE MONTH, for the offence punishable under Section 180 of IMV Act.
Further the Accused No.4 is sentenced pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of ONE MONTH, for the offence punishable under Sections 146 and 196 of IMV Act.
The bail bonds and surety bonds of the Acused Nos.1 and 4 stand cancelled.
45 S.C.No.491/2023Free copy of the judgment shall be given to the Accused Nos.1 and 4.
(RASHMI.M) LXVII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for prosecution:
P.W.1 Chandraiah P.W.2 Chandrashekar.M. P.W.3 Muniraju.R. P.W.4 Nrupathunga.K.K. P.W.5 Dr.Puneeth.M. P.W.6 Sunil Kaddi P.W.7 C.A.Siddalingaiah P.W.8 Prasanna Kumar.K.N.
List of documents exhibited for prosecution:
Ex.P.1 Complaint
Ex.P.1(a) Signature of P.W.1
Ex.P.1(b) Signature of P.W.3
Ex.P.1(c) Signature of P.W.5
Ex.P.1(d) Signature of P.W.5
Ex.P.1(e) Signature of P.W.8
Ex.P.2 Mahazar
Ex.P.2(a) Signature of P.W.2
Ex.P.2(b) Signature of P.W.8
Ex.P.3 Wound Certificate
Ex.P.3(a) Signature of P.W.4
Ex.P.3(b) Signature of P.W.8
Ex.P.4 MLC Register Extract
Ex.P.4(a) Signature of P.W.4
Ex.P.4(b) Signature of P.W.8
46 S.C.No.491/2023
Ex.P.5 Report of P.W.6
Ex.P.5(a) Signature of P.W.6
Ex.P.5(a) Signature of P.W.8
Ex.P.6 F.I.R.
Ex.P.7 Seizure Mahazar
Ex.P.7(a) Signature of P.W.8
Ex.P.8 Property Form
Ex.P.8(a) Signature of P.W.8
Ex.P.9 Photo of the vehicle
Ex.P.10 Photo of the vehicle
Ex.P.11 Requisition to HOSMAT Hospital
Ex.P.11(a) Signature of P.W.8
Ex.P.12 Requisition
Ex.P.12(a) Signature of P.W.8
Ex.P.13 Report
Ex.P.13(a) Signature of P.W.8
Ex.P.14 Requisition to furnish 'B' Extract of the
vehicle
Ex.P.14(a) Signature of P.W.8
Ex.P.15 'B' Extract of the vehicle
Ex.P.15(a) Signature of P.W.8
Ex.P.16 Certified copy of Station Diary
List of Material Objects produced and got marked for production:
-Nil-
List of witnesses examined and documents exhibited for accused:
-Nil-
(RASHMI.M) LXVII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
Digitally signed by RASHMI RASHMI M Date:
M 2025.12.03
16:39:09
+0530