Bangalore District Court
State By P.S.I vs Raghavendra on 19 February, 2020
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE TRAFFIC
COURT - V, BENGALURU
PRESENT : SMT.POOJA SHETTI
B.A., LL.B. (Hon's).
M.M.T.C - V, BENGALURU
DATED THIS 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020
C.C.No.1712 - 2020
COMPLAINANT : STATE BY P.S.I
HIGHGROUNDS TR. P.S.
BANGALORE.
// VS //
ACCUSED : RAGHAVENDRA,
S/O.MUNI KRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
NO.37, 2ND MAIN ROAD,
CHIKKANNA LAYOUT,
VENKATESHAPURA,
BENGALURU.
Date of Commission of Offence 08.11.2019.
Date of report of Offence 08.11.2019.
Name of the complainant Namrutha.R.
Date of recording of evidence 18.02.2020.
Date of closing of evidence 18.02.2020.
Offences complained of u/Ss.279, 337 and 338 of IPC
and u/Ss.134(a) & (b) r/w
187 of MV Act, u/Ss.56 of MV
Act, u/Ss.66 r/w 192(a) of MV
Act and u/Ss.3(1) r/w 181 of
MV Act.
Opinion of the Judge Accused found guilty.
2 C.C.No.1712 - 2020
JUDGEMENT
The Police Sub-Inspector of High Grounds Traffic Police Station, Bengaluru, has filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under section 279, 337 and 338 of IPC and under section 134(a) & (b) r/w 187, under section 56 of MV Act, under section 66 r/w 192(A) of MV Act and under section 3(1) r/w 181 of MV Act.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution cases is as under:
That on 06.11.2019 at about 11.40 p.m., within the jurisdiction of High Grounds Traffic Police Station at Millers Road, towards UDAYA T.V. Junction, the accused being the driver of the Lorry (TATA
407) bearing its registration No.KA.39.6208 drove the same in rash and negligent manner, so as to endanger human life and dashed a Cab bearing its registration No.KA.14.B.5574. Due to the impact of accident, the passengers in the cab i.e., CW.1 sustained grievous injuries and CW.2 sustained simple injuries. Hence, the complaint.
3. On receipt of the compliant lodged by the complainant, the police have registered a case in Cr.No.53/2019 against the accused 3 C.C.No.1712 - 2020 for the offence punishable under section 279, 337 and 338 of IPC and under section 134(a) & (b) r/w 187, under section 56 of MV Act, under section 66 r/w 192(A) of MV Act and under section 3(1) r/w 181 of MV Act.
4. After completion of investigation sub-inspector of High Grounds Traffic Police has filed charge sheet against the accused.
5. Cognizance of the offence was taken. The accused is on bail.
6. The copies of prosecution papers along with charge sheet were furnished to the accused as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C.
7. The plea for the offence punishable under section 279, 337 and 338 of IPC and under section 134(a) & (b) r/w 187, under section 56 of MV Act, under section 66 r/w 192(A) of MV Act and under section 3(1) r/w 181 of MV Act., was recorded and read over to the accused, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried by this court. Hence, summonses were issued to the prosecution witness.
4 C.C.No.1712 - 2020
8. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined two witnesses out of 8 witnesses as PW.1 and PW.2 and got marked 10 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10.
9. The statement of accused as required under section 313 of Cr.P.C was recorded and when the incriminating evidence appeared against the accused was read over to him, he offered no explanation.
10. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the documentary evidence on record.
11. The points that arise for my consideration are;
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 06.11.2019 at about 11.40 p.m., within the jurisdiction of High Grounds Traffic Police Station at Millers Road, towards UDAYA T.V. Junction, the accused being the driver of the Lorry (TATA 407) bearing its registration No.KA.39.6208 drove the same in rash and negligent manner, so as to endanger human life and dashed a Cab bearing its registration No.KA.14.B.5574 and thereby accused committed an offence punishable u/Sec.279 of the IPC?
5 C.C.No.1712 - 2020
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that on the above date, place and time, due to the impact of accident, the passengers in the cab i.e., CW.1 sustained grievous injuries and CW.2 sustained simple injuries and thereby accused committed an offence punishable u/Sec.337 and 338 of the IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that on the above date, time and place, the accused failed to provide first aid to CW.1 and CW.2 and failed to inform about the accident to the nearest police station and there by accused has committed offences punishable u/Sec.134(a) & (b) r/w 187 of IMV Act ?
4. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that on the above said date, time and place, at the time of accident, the accused drove the said vehicle without holding effective driving license and thereby accused committed an offence punishable u/Sec.3(1) r/w 181 of IMV Act ?
5. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that on the above said date, place and time, the accused drove the vehicle holding no effective fitness certificate and thereby accused committed an offence punishable u/Sec.56 r/w 197 of IMV Act.?
6. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that on the above 6 C.C.No.1712 - 2020 said date, place and time, the accused drove the vehicle holding no permit violation and thereby accused committed an offence punishable u/Sec.66 r/w 192(A) of IMV Act.?
7. What order ?
12. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1: In the AFFIRMATIVE;
Point No.2: In the AFFIRMATIVE;
Point No.3: In the AFFIRMATIVE;
Point No.4: In the AFFIRMATIVE;
Point No.5: In the AFFIRMATIVE;
Point No.6: In the AFFIRMATIVE;
Point No.7: As per final order
for the following:
:REASONS:
13. POINT NO.1 to 6 : As these points are interlinked
with each other, they are taken up together for consideration in order to avoid repetition.
14. PW.1, one Namrutha claiming to be injured, eye witness and complainant deposed that, on 06.11.2019 at about 11.40 pm., she along with her colleagues after attending a reception were 7 C.C.No.1712 - 2020 returning home in a Ola Car, when they were near Udaya TV Junction, a lorry bearing its registration No.KA.39.6208 came from left side being driven in rash and negligent manner dashed their cab, hence, she sustained injuries to her chest and waist. Likewise, CW.2 also sustained injuries. Thereafter, public took them to Bhagwan Mahaveer Jain Hospital for treatment. The witness further deposes that, she can identify the vehicle and driver who caused accident. Thereafter, witness identifies the accused present before the court and complaint lodged by her, hence the complaint was marked as Ex.P.1.
15. PW.2, one Meghashwini claiming to be injured and eye witness deposed that, on 06.11.2019 at about 11.40 pm., she along with her colleagues after attending a reception were returning home in a Ola Car, when they were near Udaya TV Junction, a lorry bearing its registration No.KA.39.6208 came from left side being driven in rash and negligent manner dashed their cab, hence, she sustained simple injuries, whereas CW.1 sustained grievous injuries to her chest and waist. Thereafter, public took them to Bhagwan Mahaveer Jain Hospital for treatment. The witness further deposes that, she can 8 C.C.No.1712 - 2020 identify the vehicle and driver who caused accident. Thereafter, witness identifies the accused present before the court.
16. Among the witnesses examined by the prosecution, PW.1 is the complainant and injured and PW.2 is the injured, however the counsel for the accused, did not cross-examined either PW.1 or PW.2. Thereafter, as all other documents of prosecution case has been marked with consent of counsel for the accused, CW.3 to CW.8 are given up.
17. Learned APP argued that accident was occurred only due to the fault of the accused and that he drove the said vehicle in rash or negligence manner and the deposition of CW.1 and CW.2 supported the prosecution case. Thereafter, the learned APP prayed to convict the accused of the said offences. In a accident case, the prosecution has to prove the rash or negligent driving of the accused and in the present case CW.1 deposed about the complainant and CW.2 deposed about the accident and claimed that the accused drove his vehicle rashly and negligently. During the recording of statement of section 313 of Cr.P.C also the accused 9 C.C.No.1712 - 2020 did not offered any explanation neither he cross-examined PW.1 and PW.2. Under such circumstances, it is very clear that accident occurred due to rash or negligence act of the accused. Hence, this court has come to the conclusion that prosecution has proved that the accused was rash and negligent in driving the motor cycle and caused the accident. Hence, point No.1 to 6 are answered in the AFFIRMATIVE.
18. Point No.7: For forgoing discussion and findings on point No.1 to 6, following order is passed:
ORDER Acting u/Sec.255 (2) of the Cr.P.C., accused is hereby convicted for the offences punishable u/Ss.279, 337 and 338 of IPC and u/Sec.134(a) & (b) r/w 187 of M.V.Act, u/Sec.56 of MV Act, u/Sec.66 r/w 192(A) of MV Act and u/Sec.3(1) r/w 181 of MV Act.
The accused sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (one thousand) for the offence punishable u/Sec.279 of the IPC. I/D S.I. for the period of 30 days.
Further the accused sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (one thousand) for the offence punishable u/Sec.338 of the IPC. I/D S.I. for the period of 30 days.
Further the accused sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- (five hundred) for the offence punishable u/Sec.337 of the IPC. I/D S.I. for the period of 30 days.10 C.C.No.1712 - 2020
Further the accused sentenced to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) for the offence punishable u/Sec.134 (a) & (b) r/w 187 of M.V.Act. I/D S.I. for the period of 30 days.
Further the accused sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (five thousand) for the offence punishable u/Sec.56 of M.V.Act. I/D S.I. for the period of 30 days.
Further the accused sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (five thousand) for the offence punishable u/Sec.3(1) r/w 181 of M.V.Act. I/D S.I. for the period of 30 days.
Further the accused sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (five thousand) for the offence punishable u/Sec.66 r/w 192(A) of M.V.Act. I/D S.I. for the period of 30 days.
In total fine of Rs.27,500/- (Twenty Seven Thousand and Five Hundred) Supply free copy of this judgment to the accused as per law.
The bail bond of the accused stands cancelled. (The judgment dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, transcribed and typed by him and corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this 19TH day of February 2020) (POOJA SHETTI) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, TRAFFIC COURT- V, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION:
P.W.1 Namrutha.R. P.W.2 Meghashwini.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION 11 C.C.No.1712 - 2020 Ex.P.1 Complaint.
Ex.P.2 FIR. Ex.P.3 Sketch. Ex.P.4 Spot mahazar. Ex.P.5 & 6 133 notice and reply. Ex.P.7 & 8 Two Wound Certificates. Ex.P.9 & 10 Two IMV Reports.
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR ACCUSED:
NIL (POOJA SHETTI) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, TRAFFIC COURT- V, BENGALURU.