Bangalore District Court
State By Indiranagar Traffic Police vs Suhas.G.Bhat S/O on 31 August, 2015
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
TRAFFIC COURT - VI, BENGALURU CITY.
C.C. No.1578/2013
Dated: This the 31st day of August, 2015.
Present: Smt.Lavanya H.N., B.Sc.,LL.B
P.O. of MMTC-VI, Bengaluru.
Complainant : State by Indiranagar Traffic Police
Station.
V/s
Accused : Suhas.G.Bhat S/o
late.Gururaj.L.Bhat,
21 years, R/at # 35,
10th Main, 14th Cross,
Malleshpalya, Thippasandra Post,
Bengaluru-75.
JUDGMENT
Police Inspector of Indiranagar Traffic Police Station filed charge sheet alleging that, the accused has committed the offences punishable U/s 279 and 304 (A) of IPC and Sec.134 (A & B) r/w 187 of IMV Act.
2. The facts of prosecution case in brief are as under:
On 17.05.2012 at about 9.00 p.m. within the jurisdiction of Indiranagar Traffic Police Station, the accused being the rider of motorcycle No.KA-51-R-5982 2 CC.No.1578/2013 rode it on Malleshpalya Main Road from West to East direction, in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life Opp: Manjunath Wood works, dashed to the motor cycle bearing No.KA-22-EB-136 which was coming opposite direction, as a result of which the rider of the motor cycle Darshan P. Thore fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries and shifted to Manipal Hospital while getting treatment he succumbed to injuries on 18.05.2012 at about 5.00 a.m. It is further case of the prosecution that after the accident the accused did not provide medical aid to the injured and did not inform about the accident to the nearest police station. Thereby, the accused has committed the offences as stated supra.
3. After Completion of Investigation, I.O. has filed charge sheet against the accused. Thereafter cognizance was taken of the offences punishable U/s 279 and 304 (A) of IPC and sections 134(A & B) read with section 187 of IMV Act and process has been issued to the accused. Accused appeared through counsel in pursuance of process and got enlarged on bail.
4. Charge Sheet copies have been furnished to the accused in compliance of Section 207 of Cr.P.C.
3 CC.No.1578/20135. Substance of accusation has been read over and explained to the accused, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the case is posted for Prosecution evidence.
6. In order to establish its case Prosecution has examined seven witnesses as PW.1 to 7 and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to 11 and closed its side.
7. Statement U/s 313 of Cr.P.C. is recorded. All the incriminating evidence appearing against the accused in the prosecution evidence has been read over and explained to accused who denied the same but, he didn't choose to lead defense evidence.
8. I have heard the arguments and perused the materials available on record. The following points that would arise for consideration:
1. Whether prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that on 17.05.2012 at about 9.00 p.m. within the jurisdiction of Indiranagar Traffic Police Station, the accused being the rider of motorcycle No.KA-51-R-
5982 rode it on Malleshpalya Main Road from West to East direction, in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life Opp: Manjunath Wood works, dashed to the motor cycle bearing No.KA-22-EB-136 which was coming opposite direction 4 CC.No.1578/2013 and thereby, the accused has committed the offence punishable U/s 279 of Indian Penal Code ?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that as a result of above said accident, the rider of the motorcycle bearing its No.KA-22-EB-136 succumbed to injuries is not amounting to culpable homicide and thereby committed the offence punishable U/s 304 (A) of Indian Penal Code ?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that after the accident the accused did not provide medical aid to the injured and did not inform about the accident to the nearest police station and thereby, the accused has committed the offence punishable under section 134(A & B) r/w 187 of IMV Act?
4. What order?
9. The findings to the above points are as under:
Point No. 1 and 2 : In the Negative; Point No.3 : Partly in the Affirmative;
Point No. 4 : As per final order for the
following:
REASONS
POINT Nos.1 and 2:
10. Since these points are interlinked with each other, they are taken up together for common discussion to avoid repetition of facts, as here under.
In this case the prosecution has examined seven witnesses as PW-1 to 7. PW-1 is Complainant as well as 5 CC.No.1578/2013 Spot-mahazar witness. PW-2, 3 and 4 are Eye-witnesses. PW-5 is Eye-witness as well as Spot-mahazar witness. PW-6 and 7 are Investigation Officers.
11. PW-1 has deposed that on 17.05.2012 when he was in home he received message that his brother met with an accident on Mukesh playa main road and he has been admitted to Manipal Hospital. Immediately, he rushed to the hospital on enquiry with the police he came to know that the rider of the motor cycle bearing its No.KA-51-R-5982 came in high speed while overtaking vehicles which are going in-front of him dashed against motor cycle of his brother's motorcycle which was coming opposite to the offending motor cycle on its left side as a result of which this accident happened. In this regard he has lodged complaint as per Ex.P-1. He has further deposed that on 18.05.2012 at about 5.00 a.m. his brother succumbed to injuries. He has further deposed that he went to the accident spot after 4 - 5 days of the accident. However, he has admitted his signature to Ex.P-2, Spot-mahazar stating that he put signature to Ex.P-2 in Police Station. In this regard he has been subjected to cross-examination by the learned APP. During cross-examination by the learned APP he has admitted to the suggestion put to him that on the next day of the accident between 11.00 a.m. and 12.00 noon 6 CC.No.1578/2013 the police have conducted Spot-Inspection at accident spot in his presence and drawn Spot-mahazar as per Ex.P-2.
12. PW-2 and 3 are stated to be Eye-witnesses to the incident have deposed that on 17.05.2012 at about 9.00 p.m. on Mukeshpalya main road near Manjunath Wood works the accused being the rider of the bike No.KA-51-R-5982 was riding his motor cycle in high speed and negligent manner and while overtaking the vehicles which are going in-front of him he has gone to right side of the road and dashed against the motor cycle which was coming opposite to him as a result of which both the riders of the motor cycles fell down. In this accident the accused though fell down, he went away from the spot along with his bike. But, rider of another motor cycle sustained injuries to his head and he has been taken to hospital. Later on next day they came to know that the said injured rider of the motor cycle died.
13. PW-4 has deposed that on 17.05.2012 at about 9.00 p.m. when he was standing near Manjunath Fly wood work shop with his auto at that time the accused being the rider of motor cycle bearing No.KA-51-R-5982 came from G.M.Palya towards Vignannagar while overtaking Car which was proceeding ahead of him 7 CC.No.1578/2013 dashed against the motor cycle which was coming opposite to him as a result of which both the riders of the motor cycles fell down on the road. In the said impact the accused sustained simple injuries and he fled away from the spot with his bike. Rider of another motor cycle sustained injuries to his head and he has been taken to CMH Hospital. On next day he came to know that the rider of another motor cycle died.
14. PW-5 has deposed that on 17.05.2012 at about 9.00 p.m. when he was going along with his friend as a pillion rider the accused being the rider of the motor cycle bearing its No.KA-51-R-5982 came in their opposite side by over taking the truck which was coming ahead of him and dashed against their motor cycle as a result of which his friend fell down on the road and his friend was riding his motor cycle about 20 Kms speed but, accused was riding his motor cycle in high speed. In this accident his friend sustained injuries to his head. However, he has not seen injuries happened to the accused. Thereafter, his friend injured has been taken to Chinmay Hospital and then to Manipal Hospital. On next day at about 5.00 a.m. his friend died. After death of his friend at about 12.00 noon the police have enquired about the accident spot and have taken signature of him on Ex.P-2 which is Spot-Mahazar.
8 CC.No.1578/201315. PW-6 and 7, Investigation Officers have deposed with regard to investigation.
16. PW-1 to 7 have been subjected to cross- examination by the defense wherein denied the entire case of the prosecution. It is specific defense of the accused that he has not caused the accident and the false case has been registered against him in order to get compensation from the accident.
17. In this case inquest, P.M.Report, IMV Report, Notice issued U/s 133 of the IMV Act to the owner of the offending motor cycle and reply given by the owner of the offending motor cycle have not been denied by the defense.
18. It is not in dispute that the rider of the motor cycle died due to road accident. It is also not in dispute that the road in question where the accident took place is a public road. It is specific defense of the accused that he has not caused the accident in question but, the police have filed a false case against him.
19. In this case, PW-2 to 4 who are the Eye- witnesses have identified the accused who present before the Court stating that he is the rider of the offending 9 CC.No.1578/2013 motor cycle which caused the accident in question. Though they have been subjected to cross-examination nothing worthwhile has been elicited from their mouth that no accident took place from the offending motor cycle. All witnesses who saw the accident have clearly deposed that the offending motor cycle has caused the accident. It is not in dispute that as on the date of the alleged accident the accused was riding the aforesaid motor cycle. Apart from that Ex.P-3 and 4 which are not denied by the defense speak that on the date of alleged accident the accused was riding the offending motor cycle. From these facts it could be said that the accused was riding the offending motor cycle on the date and time of the alleged accident and he has caused the accident.
20. It is not the defense of the accused that this accident is due to the mechanical defect of the offending motor cycle or victim's motor cycle. On going through Ex.P-5, IMV Report it could be seen that the IMV Inspector who inspected the offending motor cycle and victim's motor cycle has opined that this accident is not due to mechanical defects of the motor cycles involved in the case. From this it could be said that this accident is not due to mechanical defect of the vehicles involved in the case.
10 CC.No.1578/201321. It is the argument of the learned counsel of the accused that all the witnesses cited by the prosecution are either friends or relatives of the deceased. Therefore, their evidence cannot be looked into and relied upon.
22. On going through the evidence on record it is not in dispute that PW-1 who is Complainant is none other than the brother of the deceased. PW-5 is also friend as well as relative of the deceased. However, the accused has failed to elicit that PW-2 to 4 are either friends or relatives of the deceased rider of the motor cycle.
23. Coming to the evidence of PW-1, PW-1 who is not an Eye-witness to the incident. PW-1 in his Examination-in-chief has deposed on enquiry he came to know that the rider of the offending motor cycle has come extreme right while overtaking vehicles which were in front of him and dashed against his brother's bike which was coming opposite to him on left side of the road. At this stage it is relevant to go through Ex.P-1, Complaint. On going through the Ex.P-1, Complaint no where in the complaint it is stated that the rider of the offending motor cycle came extreme right side while overtaking vehicle and dashed against the deceased's motor cycle which 11 CC.No.1578/2013 was coming on his right path. Apart from that PW-5 who is none other than the friend of deceased in his examination-in-chief itself has deposed two versions. Firstly he has deposed that he was going along with his deceased friend's motorcycle as a pillion rider. Secondly he has deposed that he was going on his bike and his deceased friend was going in his bike in front of him. During his cross-examination he has stated that he was not going on the bike of deceased rider of the motor cycle but, he was going behind the deceased motor cycle. Further, during his cross-examination he has admitted to the suggestion put to him that he had gone to the spot of the accident after the accident. From this it creates doubt about his presence at the time of the accident.
24. PW-1 has deposed that he got information about the accident through police who present at the hospital. In this case none of the police have witnessed the accident in question. If really PW-5 were present at the time of the accident and he took his injured friend to the hospital, then he could have been explained the incident to the PW-1. But, according to PW-1 he got information about the accident from police who are not witnessed the accident itself. From this itself it creates doubt of presence of PW-5 at accident spot.
12 CC.No.1578/201325. Further, on going through the entire evidence on record, it is clear case of the prosecution that the accident in question is head and collusion. All the witnesses who saw the accident have deposed that the accused was riding his motor cycle in high speed while over taking vehicles in front of him dashed against another motor cycle which was coming opposite to him. But, none of the witnesses have deposed how the deceased was riding his motor cycle.
26. It is further argument of the learned counsel for the accused that the spot-mahazar and Hand-sketch have been prepared in Police Station by the Investigation Officer. Therefore, Spot-mahazar and Hand-sketch cannot be relied upon.
27. In this case PW-1 and PW-5 have been cited as Spot-mahazar witnesses. PW-1 in his examination-in- chief has deposed that he put signature to Spot-mahazar in Police Station. He has further deposed that he has gone to the place of accident after 4-5 days of the accident. However, during cross-examination by the learned APP he has admitted to the suggestion put to him that on 18.05.2012 between 11.00 a.m. and 12.00 noon the police have conducted Spot-Inspection in his presence and drawn Spot-mahazar as per Ex.P-2. During 13 CC.No.1578/2013 cross-examination by the defense he has stated that he put signature to Ex.P-2 in Police Station. Further he has stated that he does not know the contents of the Ex.P-2. Further, he has stated that he does not know who put signatures to Ex.P-2. PW-5 though in his examination-in- chief has deposed that the police have conducted Spot- Inspection on next day of accident at about 12.00 noon in his presence at accident spot whereas in his cross- examination by the defense he has deposed that he put signature to Spot-mahazar at Ex.P-2 in the Police Station. From this part of evidence it creates doubt about drawing of Spot-mahazar and Hand sketch at the place of the accident. From the evidence of PW-1 and 5 it could be said that the Investigation Officer has not conducted Spot-Inspection at the spot of accident. Under these circumstances, it is not proper to place reliance upon the Spot-mahazar at Ex.P-2 and Hand-sketch at Ex.P-11.
28. PW-4 who is alleged to be driver of the auto, in his evidence has deposed that at the time of the accident he was standing along with his auto for waiting passengers it was about 50 to 70 feet away from the spot of the accident. Investigation Officer in her cross- examination by the defense has clearly admitted that there was no auto stand near Manjunath Wood works or 14 CC.No.1578/2013 near place of accident. When he was standing at about 50 to 70 feet away from the accident spot waiting for passengers then it is not possible to expect from him that he saw the accident how it had happened. It may be true that he might have seen the accident after the accident.
29. PW-2 and 3 in their examination-in-chief have deposed that the accused was riding his motor cycle in high speed while over taking vehicles which are going in- front of him he came extreme right of the road and dashed against motor cycle which was coming opposite to him and the victim's motor cycle was on left side of the road. PW-4 has deposed that the accused was riding his motor cycle in high speed while overtaking vehicles which are going in front of him dashed against victim's motor cycle which was coming opposite to him.
30. PW-4 has not deposed that the accused came extreme right side while over taking vehicles which were going in front of him and then dashed against the opposite motor cycle. At this stage it is relevant to go through the statement of PW-2 and 3. PW-2 and 3 have not stated about the fact that the accused came right side of the road and the victim's vehicle was on left side of the road. The evidence of PW-2 and 3 before the court that the accused came extreme right side of the road and 15 CC.No.1578/2013 victim's motorcycle is in its right path is an improvement which was not stated before the police at the first instance itself.
31. As has already been noticed in this case the prosecution has failed to prove the Spot-mahazar. Therefore, it cannot be looked for any purpose. PW-2 and 3 have improved their versions which were not in their statements. Therefore, their versions before the Court cannot be acceptable.
32. It is relevant to note that this accident is a head and collusion. The prosecution has not brought complete picture about the incident. The facts placed before the Court by the prosecution are in-sufficient to hold that this accident is due to rash and negligent riding of the accused. The prosecution has failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubts that this accident is due to rash and negligent riding of the accused, but not due to rash and negligent act of the deceased rider of the motor cycle. Therefore, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. Hence, Point No.1 and 2 are answered in the Negative.
POINT No.3:
33. It is further case of the prosecution that after the said accident the accused did not arrange for 16 CC.No.1578/2013 medical treatment to the injured and did not inform about the accident to the nearest police station and thereby, accused has committed the offences punishable under section 134(A & B ) read with 187 of IMV Act.
34. On available material it could be said that the accused who is rider of the offending motorcycle caused the accident. As per section 134(A) and (B) of IMV Act, after the accident it is duty of the rider or driver of the vehicle to inform about the accident nearest police station and also provide medical aid to the injured irrespective of their faults. In this case accused has not provided medical aid to the injured person. Further in this case the accused who was rider of the offending motorcycle has not intimated about the accident to the nearest police station. As such the accused has committed the offences punishable under section 134(A&B) read with 187 of IMV Act. Hence point No.3 is answered in the Affirmative.
Point No.4 :
35. In view of findings on point No.1 to 3, this Court proceeds to pass following:
ORDER 17 CC.No.1578/2013 Acting U/s 255(1) of Cr.P.C. the accused is acquitted for the offences punishable U/s 279 and 304 (A) of IPC Acting U/S 255(2) of Cr.P.C Accused is convicted of the offence punishable U/s 134 (A&B) r/w 187 of IMV, Act.
The accused is sentenced for the offence under section 134(A&B) read with 187 of IMV Act to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to pay the fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days.
The bail bond executed by the accused shall stand cancelled.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript computerized by him, revised, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 31st day of August, 2015) (Smt.Lavanya H.N.) P.O. OF MMTC-VI, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the prosecution:
PW-1 : Prasad, PW-2 : Ravi Varma.S, PW-3 : Amar, PW-4 : Murthy.K, PW-5 : Uttakarsh.A.Karoshi, PW-6 : K.N.Ramachandrappa, 18 CC.No.1578/2013 PW-7 : M.C.Kavitha.
Documents Exhibited for the prosecution:
Ex.P1 : Complaint, Ex.P2 : Spot Mahazar, Ex.P3 : Notice issued u/s 133 of IMV Act, Ex.P4 : Reply given to Ex.P.3, Ex.P5 : I.M.V.Report, Ex.P6 : P.M.Report, Ex.P7 : Inquest Mahazar, Ex.P8 : F.I.R., Ex.P9 : Death Memo, Ex.P10 : Police report, Ex.P11 : Rough Sketch. Witness examined for the defense : Nil. Documents exhibited for the defense : Nil.
Material object got marked in this case : Nil.
P.O of MMTC-VI, Bengaluru City.