Bangalore District Court
State By Chamarajpet Traffic P.S vs ) Lokesha @ Lokesha on 15 March, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
TRAFFIC COURT - IV, BANGALORE
PRESENT: GAYATHRI.S.KATE, B.com.,LLB.,
MMTC - IV, BANGALORE
DATED : THIS THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH 2018
C.C.No.3553/2017
COMPLAINANT: State by Chamarajpet Traffic P.S.
VS.
ACCUSED: 1) Lokesha @ Lokesha
S/o. Eraiah,
Age: 33 years,
Token No17030,
20th Depot, B.M.T.C.,
Banashankari
Bengaluru
1. The date of commission of 12-01-2017
the offence
2. The offences complained of U/s.279 & 338 of IPC and
Sec.115 R/w.177 of M.V.Act.
3. Plea of the accused and his Pleaded not guilty
examination
4. Opinion of the judge Conviction
5. State represented by Learned APP
6. Accused defence by Sri M.R. Nagabhushana
7. Date of order 15-03-2018
***
2 C.C.No.3553/17
JUDGEMENT
The Police Sub-Inspector of Chamarajpet Traffic police station has filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/s.279 & 338 of IPC and Sec.115 R/w.177 of M.V.Act.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 12-01-2017 at about 2.10 p.m. the accused being the driver of B.M.T.C. bus bearing registration No.KA- 57/F-403 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner as to endanger human life on Kondajji Basappa Road. While so driving his vehicle in the opposite direction he dashed against the motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-04/JF-7347 while he taking a left turn at K.R. Road, near Prof Shivashankar circle. Due to the impact of accident C.W.1 fell down along with motor cycle and sustained grievous injuries on his right hand, thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable U/s.279 & 338 of IPC and Sec.115 R/w.177 of M.V.Act.
3 C.C.No.3553/173. Cognizance was taken by perusing the prosecution papers and materials, the accused on receipt of summons appeared before the court and got himself enlarged on bail. On the said date the prosecution papers were furnished to the accused as per Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. and substance of accusation in the form of plea was read over and explained to him, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. During the course of trial the prosecution has examined 5 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.5 and got marked 10 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10. The statement of accused as per Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded the accused had no explanation and he denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he has chosen to lead the defence evidence.
5. Heard arguments on both sides and perused the records carefully.
6. The point that arise for my determination is as under:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 12-01-2017 at about 2.10 p.m. the accused being the driver of B.M.T.C. bus bearing 4 C.C.No.3553/17 registration No.KA-57/F-403 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner as to endanger human life on Kondajji Basappa Road, thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable U/s.279 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place the accused being the driver of the said vehicle, drove his vehicle in the above said manner. While so driving his vehicle in the opposite direction he dashed against the motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-04/JF-7347 while he taking a left turn at K.R. Road, near Prof Shivashankar circle. Due to the impact of accident C.W.1 fell down along with motor cycle and sustained grievous injuries on his right hand, thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable U/s.338 of IPC and Sec.115 R/w.177 of M.V.Act?
3. What order?
7. My answer to the above points are as under:
1. POINT No.1: IN THE AFFIRMATIVE
2. POINT No.2: IN THE AFFIRMATIVE
3. POINT No.3: AS PER THE FINAL ORDER For the following REASONS
8. POINT No.1 and 2: For the sake of convenience and to avoid repetition of facts, these points are taken up for common discussion to have brevity.
5 C.C.No.3553/179. It is the case of the prosecution that on 12-01-2017 at about 2.10 p.m. the accused being the driver of B.M.T.C. bus bearing registration No.KA- 57/F-403 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner as to endanger human life on Kondajji Basappa Road. While so driving his vehicle in the opposite direction he dashed against the motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-04/JF-7347 while he taking a left turn at K.R. Road, near Prof Shivashankar circle. Due to the impact of accident C.W.1 fell down along with motor cycle and sustained grievous injuries on his right hand, thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable U/s.279 & 338 of IPC and Sec.115 R/w.177 of M.V.Act.
10. The prosecution has examined complainant as P.W.1, eye witnesses are examined as P.W.2 and P.W.3, mahazar witness is examined as P.W.4, C.W.5 to C.W.8 being the doctor, IMV officer were given up with the consent by the learned counsel for the accused and the Investigating officer is examined as P.W.5.
6 C.C.No.3553/1711. The following ingredients are required to establish to prove the offences U/s.279 & 338 of IPC.
The accused drove his vehicle on public way. The accused drove his vehicle either in rash or negligent manner so as to endanger human life. Grievous hurt to any person in question.
12. In order to prove the contents of the complaint, the complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and reiterated the contents of complaint. He has deposed that on 12-01-2017 at about 2.10 p.m. he was moving in his motor cycle bearing registration No.KA- 04/JE-7347 in K.R. Road at that time one BMTC bus bearing registration No.KA-57/F-403 came in rash and negligent manner and has dashed against his vehicle. Due to the impact of accident he sustained grievous injuries to his right hand and right waist. He was taken to hospital in 108 ambulance by general publics. By the fault of the accused, i.e. B.M.T.C. bus driver the said accident had occurred. The accused present before the court was the driver of the offender vehicle on the day of accident. Since he had sustained grievous injuries to his right hand, he has put his thumb impression to the complaint, Ex.P.1.
7 C.C.No.3553/1713. C.W.2 is examined as P.W.2 and C.W.3 is examined as P.W.3 are the eye witnesses and have deposed that on 12-01-2017 at about 2.00 p.m. they were going at Shivshankar circle, at that time one BMTC bus dashed against motor cycle belonging to C.W.1, C.W.1 sustained grievous injuries to his right hand and right waist. By the fault of the BMTC bus driver the accident had occurred. The accused present before the court was the driver of the offender BMTC bus.
14. C.W.4 is the P.W.4 is the mahazar witness who has deposed that the police has drawn mahazar Ex.P.2 on accident spot and he has put his signature to mahazar Ex.P.2 on the accident spot and he know the contents of the mahazar Ex.P.2.
15. C.W.9 is examined as P.W.5 is the I.O. who has clearly supported the prosecution and has not given a single admission in cross-examination by counsel for accused.
16. C.W.5 to C.W.8 were given up with the consent of learned counsel for the accused. C.W.7 is doctor who has given wound certificate Ex.P.6 stating that 8 C.C.No.3553/17 the complainant, injured P.W.1 has sustained grievous injuries in the said accident.
17. C.W.8 is IMV officer who has given his IMV report Ex.P.5 stating that brake system of the offender vehicle is in good condition and accident has not occurred due to any mechanical defect.
18. However C.W.5 to C.W.8 being official witnesses i.e., C.W.5 and C.W.6 are other witnesses, C.W.7 is doctor who treated the injured, C.W.8 is IMV officer were given up with consent of learned counsel for accused. This shows that the accident is not disputed by the defence. But the main contention of the defence was that the said accident on the day of accident was not committed by the accused and his vehicle. His vehicle and himself were wrongly implicates in the said offence by the prosecution. In order to disprove the allegations made by the prosecution against accused, the accused subjected the P.W.1 to P.W.4 for cross-examination.
19. Therefore, in the absence of denial the statement made in the chief examination would stand unshaken which indicates to the guilt of the accused. These are the materials which incriminate 9 C.C.No.3553/17 the accused. Unless those incriminating circumstances are denied by the accused by way of suggestions the prosecution cannot be accepted to have proved its case. Therefore these witnesses during their chief examination have deposed in corroboration with the allegations made against the accused.
20. On hearing arguments on both the sides and on perusal of oral and documentary evidence on record, it clearly shows that the accused has not denied specifically by suggesting to the prosecution witnesses that he was not the driver of the offender vehicle and no reasonable doubt is created in the mind of the court in this aspect. Apart from this even if the accused has denied that does not create lacuna in the case of the prosecution as the testimony of P.W.2 is corroborated by P.W.1 and supported by documentary evidence.
21. On going through the oral and documentary evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4 it can safely be held that accused was driving the offender vehicle on the day of accident. It is also not in dispute that the road in question where accident took place is a public road. IMV report Ex.P.5 discloses that accident is not due 10 C.C.No.3553/17 to the mechanical defect of the offender vehicle. However the accused has denied all the incriminating evidence that was raised against him.
22. The prosecution has to prove the very ingredients of alleged offences, i.e., identification of accused, the said accused must have drove the offender vehicle in rash and negligent manner and the said offender vehicle must have been involved in the accident. If either of the one of the ingredient is not fulfilled by the prosecution then benefit of doubt would give raise to acquittal of accused in consequence. The law is very much clear that unless contrary is proved, the accused is to be treated as innocent.
23. It is well settled principles of law that once prosecution proved alleged facts there to onus shift on accused to disprove the same and prove his defence. In the present case the prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt.
24. Therefore as discussed above the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly I answer point No.1 and 2 IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
11 C.C.No.3553/1725. POINT No.3: In view of the above discussions and findings I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting U/s.255(2) of Cr.P.C. the accused is convicted for the offences punishable U/s.279 & 338 of IPC and Sec.177 of M.V.Act.
The accused shall pay a fine of
Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable
U/s.279 of IPC.
Further the accused shall pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable U/s.338 of IPC.
Further the accused shall pay a fine of Rs.100/- for the offence punishable U/s.177 of M.V.Act.
In total the accused shall pay fine of Rs.2,100/- on default he shall undergo S.I. for a period of 30 days.
His bail bonds and surety bonds shall stand cancelled after the appeal period.
The office is directed to furnish copy of the judgment free of cost to the accused forthwith.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court this the 15th day of March 2018).
(GAYATHRI.S.KATE) MMTC - IV, BANGALORE.12 C.C.No.3553/17
ANNEXURE
1) LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
P.W.1: Vishal Srishail Hubbali P.W.2: Zareen Vargis P.W.3: Nishanth Chetan P.W.4: Rakshith P.W.5: Wazir Saheb
2) LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1: Complaint Ex.P.2: Spot Mahazar Ex.P.3: 133 notice Ex.P.4: Reply Ex.P.5: IMV Report Ex.P.6: Wound certificate Ex.P.7: FIR Ex.P.8: Rough sketch Ex.P.9: Log sheet
3) LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE ACCUSED:
NIL
4) LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE ACCUSED:
NIL (GAYATHRI.S.KATE) MMTC - IV, BANGALORE.