Bangalore District Court
State By Byatarayanapura Traffic ... vs Iliyaz S/O Ibrahim on 29 September, 2021
IN THE COURT OF THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
TRAFFIC COURT- II BANGALORE
DATED THIS 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021
Present: Smt. Rekha. H.C.
B.A.LLB
Metropolitan Magistrate,
Traffic Court-II, Bengaluru.
C.C. No. 1607/2014
Complainant: State by Byatarayanapura Traffic Police
Station, Bengaluru.
Represented by: Sr. APP
V/s
Accused:- Iliyaz S/o Ibrahim, 21 Yrs, R/at Kowkradi
Village, Dontila Nellahadi Post, Puttur Taluk,
South Canara.
Driver of Lorry Bearing No. KA 19 AA 566
Represented by Sri. S.R, Advocate
1. Date of commission of offence: 1.7.2014
2. Offences alleged against accused : U/sec. 279 and
304-A of IPC.
3. Date of recording of evidence: 4.3.2015
4. Date of Judgment: 29.9.2021
JUDGMENT
This case emanates from the charge sheet filed by Sub-inspector of Byatarayanapura Traffic P.S. against the accused alleging that he has committed the offence punishable U/sec. 279 and 304-A of IPC.
2 CC 1607/20142. The brief case of the prosecution that;
It is the case of the prosecution that on 1.7.2014 at about 9.50 p.m. the accused being the driver of Lorry bearing Reg. no. KA 19 AA 566 drove the same on NH-17, Bengaluru-Mysore road from Rajarajeshwari Arch towards Nayandanahalli ring road in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger the human life and dashed against right side handle of Suzuki Axis Scooter bearing Reg. no. KA 05 HK 3749. Due to the impact, rider, pillion rider and child were fell down and pillion rider/Smt. Veena sustained head injury was shifted to Hi-Tech hospital for treatment and while shifting her to Victoria hospital for further treatment on the way succumbed to the injuries. Based on the first information statement given by CW-1, the case came to be registered against the accused in Cr. No. 87/2014 U/sec. 279 and 304-A of IPC. The I.O. took up the investigation, visited the spot, drawn the spot mahazar and recorded the statement of witnesses. Further, the I.O. after obtaining the postmortem report and other documents and on completion of investigation he has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/sec. 279 and 304-A of IPC.
3. Upon taking cognizance, case came to be registered against accused for the offences punishable U/sec. 279 and 304-A of IPC. The accused appeared before court engaged counsel and enlarged on bail. Charge 3 CC 1607/2014 sheet copies furnished to the accused and thereby provision U/sec. 207 duly complied with.
4. Plea came to be framed for the offence punishable U/sec. 279 and 304-A of IPC for which accused pleaded not guilty claimed to be tried.
5. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PWs-1 to 8 and got exhibited documents as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10. Ex.D.1 is marked on the side of defence. On completion of prosecution side evidence, the statement of accused U/sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded and the accused denied all the incriminating evidence appearing against him. No defence evidence led.
6. Heard arguments on both sides.
7. The points that arise for my consideration are as follows:
1. Whether prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 1.7.2014 at about 9.50 p.m. the accused being the driver of Lorry bearing Reg. no. KA 19 AA 566 drove the same on NH-17, Bengaluru-Mysore road from Rajarajeshwari Arch towards Nayandanahalli ring road in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger the human life. Thereby the accused has 4 CC 1607/2014 committed the offences punishable U/sec. 279 of IPC ?
2. Whether prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above date, time, and place, the accused being the driver of Lorry bearing Reg. no. KA 19 AA 566 dashed against right side handle of Suzuki Axis Scooter bearing Reg. no. KA 05 HK 3749 and rider, pillion rider and child were fell down and pillion rider/Smt. Veena sustained head injury was shifted to Hi-Tech hospital for treatment and while shifting her to Victoria hospital for further treatment on the way succumbed to the injuries. Thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable U/sec. 304-A of IPC?
3. What Order?
8. Now, my findings to the above points are as follows:
Point Nos.1& 2 : In the Affirmative Point No.3: As per order, for the following:
REASONS
9. Point Nos. 1 & 2 :- Both points taken together for common discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts and for appreciation of evidence It is the specific case of the prosecution that on 1.7.2014 at about 9.50 p.m. the accused being the driver 5 CC 1607/2014 of Lorry bearing Reg. no. KA 19 AA 566 drove the same on NH-17, Bengaluru-Mysore road from Rajarajeshwari Arch towards Nayandanahalli ring road in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger the human life and dashed against right side handle of Suzuki Axis Scooter bearing Reg. no. KA 05 HK 3749. Due to the impact, rider, pillion rider and child were fell down and pillion rider/Smt. Veena sustained head injury and she was shifted to Hi- Tech hospital for treatment and while shifting her to Victoria hospital for further treatment on the way succumbed to the injuries.
10. To prove its case, the prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 7 and marked Exs.P.1 to 10 with sub marking.
11. CW-1 is Gopal Sumuk is examined as PW-1 who is injured and complainant of this case. He deposed that on 1.7.2014 at about 9.45 p.m. he along with his wife and daughter/Siri, after attending the marriage reception of his friend at The Club situated at Nayanadanahalli signal, they were returning to their home at JP nagar on two wheeler. After passing Rajarajeshwari signal towards Nayandanahalli, at that time one lorry came from rear side in high speed and touched right side handle and mirror of his vehicle. Due to the impact, he lost his control and all of them fell down. He sustained injuries to his right elbow and right knee and his wife sustained head injury. The registration number of offending lorry is KA 19 AA 566 and two wheeler is KA 05 HK 3749 and he saw the driver 6 CC 1607/2014 of offending lorry. His injured wife was shifted to Hi-Tech hospital for treatment while shifting her to Victoria hospital for further treatment, the doctor declared that on the way his wife succumbed to the injuries. Hence, he lodged complaint as per Ex.P.1 and the accident had happened due to the fault of accused who came in rash and negligent manner and dashed to right side handle of his vehicle and he lost his control on his vehicle. Hence, the accident had been occured.
12. The learned counsel for accused made some suggestions to PW-1. However, he specifically answered in his cross-examination that due to the accident the right side of two wheeler was damaged. Further PW-1 denied the suggestion made by the learned counsel for accused that at the time of accident, his wife was wearing the saree and they were traveled three members in the said motor cycle. So, he lost his control and fell down. Even the counsel for accused cross examined said witness in detail, but he was not given any admission in favour of accused.
13. CW-2 Ashok is examined as PW-2 who is spot mahazar of this case. He deposed that on 2.7.2014 at about 7.00 a.m. he came know about the accident to CW-1 and deceased Veena and on the same day, at about 7.30 a.m. he came to saw the spot of accident, at that time the police were conducted mahazar and he signed the mahazar as per Ex.P.1. He came to know that the lorry 7 CC 1607/2014 touched the right side handle of two wheeler of CW-1 and the accident had happened.
14. PW-2 in his cross-examination he admits that the accident had been happened 10-15 ft from the left side of the footpath and the learned counsel for accused not made any suggestions regarding police have not conduct the mahazar with the presence of said witness.
15. CW-4 H.S. Lingaraju is examined as PW-3 who is eye witness of this case and turned partly hostile to the case of prosecution. He deposed that on 1.7.2014 at about 9.30 to 9.45 p.m. after attending the marriage of his friend he was proceeding towards Mysore road. At that time one lorry while over taking his vehicle touched right side of two wheeler which was proceeding infront of him. Due to the impact, two wheeler rider fell towards left side and pillion rider fell towards right side and sustained head injury and injured was shifted to Hi-Tech hospital for treatment from there to Victoria hospital for further treatment. The driver of lorry came in high speed and negligent manner and the registration number of offending lorry is KA 19 AA 566 and on the next day he came to know that injured was succumbed to the injuries.
So far as, the counsel for accused cross examined the PW-3 in detail. However, PW-3 specifically answered that before the accident he saw the lorry when the driver of offending lorry while over taking his vehicle proceed 8 CC 1607/2014 further and he denied the suggestion made by the learned counsel for the accused that the accident had been happened due to the fault of rider two wheeler.
16. CW-5 Shiva Raju is examined as PW-4 who is also an eye witness of this case. He deposed that on 1.7.2014 at about 9.45 p.m. he was proceeding from Mysore road towards Nayandanahalli, at that time one lorry while over taking his vehicle dashed against two wheeler which was proceeding infront of him. Due to the impact, two wheeler rider sustained injuries and pillion rider sustained head injury. The driver of lorry came in high speed and negligent manner and injured was shifted to Hi-Tech hospital for treatment from there to Victoria hospital for further treatment. The registration number of offending lorry is KA 19 AA 566 and two wheeler is KA 05 HK 3749 and he identified the accused before court and on the next day he came to know that injured was succumbed to the injuries.
17. So far as, PW-4 in his cross-examination stated that the accident had been occurred in hi-way road, so the heavy vehicles were proceeding in the said road. Further deposed that the accident had been occurred in the night time, so movement of vehicles were in low in the said road. Further deposed that infront of heavy vehicle, no vehicle will be visible, but he specifically answered that he saw the alleged vehicle. The learned counsel for accused denied that he did not saw the accused in spot, but this 9 CC 1607/2014 witness specifically answered that he saw the accused at spot.
18. CW-12 Nagabhushan. Y.B. is examined as PW-5 who is Sr. IMV inspector of this case. He deposed that on 4.7.2018 on the requisition of P.I. of Byatarayanapura Traffic police station, at about 3.00 p.m. he inspected the vehicle bearing Reg. no. KA 19 AA 566 and Motor cycle bearing Reg. no. KA 05 HK 3749 and he opined that the accident had not happened any mechanical defects of the vehicle and he issued IMV report which has been mared as Ex.P.4.
The counsel for the accused cross examined the said witness, but nothing has been admitted by the said witness and not given any admissions.
19. CW-15 Sathish Kumar-P.I. examined as PW-6 Investigating Officer states that on 2.7.2014 he received further investigation from ASI Cahanaveeregowda. He conducted spot mahazar and prepared rough sketch. On the same day, he conducted inquest mahazar at Victoria hospital and accused appeared before him and arrested the accused and produced before court. On 4.7.2014 he issued requisition to IMV authorities to inspect the vehicle. On 4.7.2014 he got issued 133 notice and received reply. On 17.7.2014 obtained postmortem report, on 11.8.2014 obtained IMV report and after conclusion of 10 CC 1607/2014 investigation he filed the charge sheet against the accused u/sec. 279 and 304-A of IPC.
20. Channaveeragowda-ASI who was not cited as witness in the charge sheet at column no.V. Thereafter, the learned Sr. APP filed an application for recall the said witness. Though this court has issued summons to said witness, then this witness has examined as PW-7. He deposed that on 1.7.2014 he received complaint from CW- 1 and on its basis he registered the case in Cr. No.87/14 and dispatched FIR to the court. On the same day, he visited the spot and handed over further investigation to CW-15.
21. Out of the exhibits marked for prosecution Ex.P.1 is the spot mahazar, Ex.P.2 is complaint, Ex.P.3 is statement of PW-3, Ex.P.4 is IMV report, Ex.P.5 is inquest mahazar, Ex.P.6 is postmortem report, Ex.P.7 is rough sketch, Ex.P.8 is FIR, Ex.P.9 is copy of 133 notice, Ex.P.10 is reply.
22. In the light of the above material available on record, the learned Sr. APP argued that there is sufficient material on record to convict the accused.
23. The learned counsel for the accused argued that there is no evidence to show rash or negligent driving on the part of the accused. Further, he argued that the material and evidence available on record is not sufficient 11 CC 1607/2014 to believe the case of prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, he prayed to acquit the accused.
24. It is appropriate to ascertain, whether the prosecution is successful in proving that the incident took place at the instance of the accused. Further, the accused is duty bound to prove that, at the time of the alleged incident, he was not driving the said lorry and he was not there on the spot.
25. Sec. 279 of IPC deals with rash and negligent driving any vehicle or riding on a public way in rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life or likely to cause hurt or injury to any person. In order to constitute an offence U/sec. 279 of IPC, it must be established that the accused was driving the vehicle on a public way in a rash and negligent manner to endanger human life or to likely cause hurt or injury to any other person. For the purpose of section 279 of IPC, rash and negligent may be described as criminal rashness or criminal negligence. It must be more than mere carelessness of error of judgment. The essential ingredients of Sec. 279 of IPC are;
i) Rash and negligent driving or riding on public way. (ii) The act must be such as to endanger human life or likely to cause hurt or injury to any person.
26. For an offence punishable U/sec. 304-A of IPC the point to be established is that the act of accused was responsible for resulting in the death and such act of 12 CC 1607/2014 accused was rash and negligent although it did not amount to culpable homicide. To establish either of Sec. 279 or 304-A of IPC, rash and negligent has to be established, but only distinction is that in Sec. 279 rash and negligent act relates to the manner of driving or riding on a public way, while offence punishable U/sec. 304-A of IPC extends to any rash and negligent act falling short of culpable homicide. As indicated above, rashness or negligence to be established must be more than an error of judgment. Distinction between rashness and negligence is that negligence connotes want of proper care while rashness conveys an idea of reckless doing of an act without consideration of any consequences.
27. I have carefully gone through the charge sheet materials and also evidence made available in the file. PW-1 is injured cum complainant of this case. As per prosecution evidence, PW-1 is rider of two wheeler and deceased/Smt.Veena was his wife and he was proceeding along with his wife and child. In the examination-in-chief he specifically stated that on 1.7.2014 at about 9.30 to 9.40 p.m. he was proceeding with his family on Mysore road towards Nayandanahalli, at that time offending vehicle came from rear side in rash and negligent manner and touched right side handle and mirror of his two wheeler. Due to the impact, he lost his control on two wheeler and fell down. So due to the accident he sustained simple injuries and his wife sustained grievous head 13 CC 1607/2014 injury. Thereafter his wife was shifted to Hi-Tech hospital for treatment from there to Victoria hospital for further treatment and doctor declared that injured was succumbed on the way to shifting the hospital. In this regard, I have perused complaint given by the complainant/CW-1 which has been marked as Ex.P.2. In the said document, he stated that the driver of the offending vehicle drove his vehicle in rash and negligent manner and touched the right side of handle of two wheeler. Due to the impact, CW-1 along with his wife and daughter were fell down and his wife sustained grievous head injury. The complainant specifically stated in his complaint (Ex.P.2) he identified the accused. Hence, the contents of Ex.P.2 is also discloses that due to negligent act of the accused the accident has been happened. Further, I have perused IMV report produced by PW-5 which has been marked as Ex.P.4. In this report the concerned official is mentioned the damages caused to both vehicles. As per Ex.P.4 there is no damages found in offending vehicle no KA 19 AA 566. But, the vehicle no. KA 05 HK 3749 was caused damaged.
i) front right side body guard scratched.
ii) front right side rear view mirror damaged.
On other hand, the learned counsel for accused contents that as per Ex.P.4 the accident had been occurred on 7.7.2014 at about 9.50 p.m. The portion of 14 CC 1607/2014 said date is marked as Ex.D.1. In this regard, I have perused Ex.P.4 the concerned official has received the requisition by on 4.7.2014 at about 3.30 p.m. by P.I. of Byatranapura police to inspect the vehicle. Hence, the contents of Ex.D.1 is minor clerical mistake and not for any defect of the case.
Further, I have perused the rough sketch which has marked as Ex.P.7 it shows that the active Honda was proceeding in the left side of road and offending vehicle which came from rear side of two wheeler and touched right handle of two wheeler. The contents of Exs.P.4 & 7 clearly shows that the driver of offending vehicle drove his vehicle in rash and negligent manner and touched right side of handle of two wheeler. So far as the evidence of PWs.1, 3 & 4 discloses that the accident had happened when the offending vehicle touched the right side of the two wheeler.
28. The witnesses P.Ws.1 to 4 are being the alleged eye witnesses and spot mahazar witnesses to this incident, they have supported the case of the prosecution and they have specifically deposed that, the accused was driving the said offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner as on the date and time of the incident and at his instance, the incident took place. He has committed a crime.
15 CC 1607/201429. It is further case of the prosecution that due to the said rash act of driving by the accused the deceased sustained grievous injuries as such he succumbed to the same. Hence, he is alleged to have committed an offence punishable U/s.304(A) of IPC. In this regard as noted above P.Ws.1, 3 & 4 have categorically deposed that due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused the deceased sustained head injuries and PW-1 sustained simple injuries. This version stands corroborated by postmortem report which has been marked as Ex.P.6. The said P.M. report has been marked through consent. The doctor who has prepared the said report has opined that the death is due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of multiple injuries sustained. PWs. 1 & 4 are identified the accused at spot. Even though, except identification of accused by the PW-3, he is also narrated the same evidence given by PWs.1 & 4. Hence the evidence of P.Ws.1, 3 & 4 stands corroborated. Further the occurrence of accident has not been disputed. PWs. 1, 3 & 4 have also supported the case of prosecution. Even though counsel for the accused cross examined them in detail, but single admission not given by the said witnesses.
30. Further, I have carefully gone through the cross examination conducted by the learned counsel for accused. It is noticed that the counsel for accused not put any suggestion to prosecution witnesses who has 16 CC 1607/2014 examined as PWs. 1, 3 & 4 with regard to rash and negligent act of the accused and he never denied the accused has not driver of offending vehicle and the said accused has not drove the said vehicle on the date and time of alleged accident and the learned counsel for accused not put any suggestion to PW-2 for police have not conducted the mahazar at spot in presence of said witness. The learned counsel for accused stands only one point that the complainant/PW-1 who was riding the two wheeler has lost his control on his two wheeler and fell down and sustained injuries. So, due to the fault of rider of two wheeler the accident had happened. But, it is not the criteria to disprove the guilt against the accused, because it is settled principle that the accused has to prove that he has not drove his vehicle in rash and negligent manner and has to prove that the accident has not happened due to fault of accused. In this case, the learned counsel for the accused not prove that the accused does not drove his vehicle in rash and negligent manner and endangering the human life.
31. It so far as PWs. 1 & 4 witnesses have deposed that they have seen the driver of the vehicle. These witnesses have also identified the accused before the court as being the driver of the said vehicle on the said date of offence. Hence, on perusal of the statement made by the witnesses before this court it is significant to note that the entire case of prosecution is based on eye witnesses.
17 CC 1607/2014Among these eye witnesses and mahazar witness P.Ws. 1 to 4 material witnesses who have deposed corroborating the theory of prosecution in the manner of accident as alleged therein. Though P.W.1 is an eye witness cum injured. As it is settled principles of law that criminal law can be set into motion by any person. There is no material statement elicited from the mouth of P.Ws.1 to 4 in order to discredit their statements of being unbelievable.
32. P.W.1 eye witness and injured, P.W.2 is mahazar witness and PWs. 3 & 4 are eye witnesses, PW-5 to 7 are official witnesses who have clearly supported the case of prosecution and they have not given a single admission in their cross-examination by counsel for accused. In so far as the discharge of prosecution's burden to prove its version, examining the eye witnesses including one mahazar witness and as their evidence has not been shaken by the defense, this court opines that, the prosecution has discharged its burden.
33. It is to be noticed that this is the case involving traffic offences. It is a matter of general inference that when such offence occur it is rare chances to see witnesses being available who are known either to the victim or to the offender. Such being the case naming the accused in the complaint would not be possible in the ordinary course of things. However, in this case, there is no dispute that the accused was driving the said vehicle 18 CC 1607/2014 because there is no suggestion put forth to any of the witnesses by the defence in this regard. Hence, in the absence of their being specific denial or a specific defence there would be no doubt created on the theory of prosecution. More so, when the oral testimony of unrelated witness is available on record.
34. It is settled principle of law is that no innocent person is to be punished for his no faults but in the circumstances where the accused has not at all made a single efforts to disprove the alleged offences then the theory of prosecution becomes absolute.
35. In Sudip Kr. Sen @ Bittu Vs. State of W.B. and others reported in 2016(1) crimes 1 SC. Hon'ble Apex court has observed the following in para 12 of the said case that ;
12.Observing that there is no impediment for recording conviction based on the testimony of a single witness provided it is reliable in Prithipal Singh and Others. Vs. State of Punjab and Another it was observed as under:
"49. This court has consistently held that as a general rule the court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness provided he is wholly reliable. There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness. That is the logic of Section 134 of the Evidence Act. But if there are doubts 19 CC 1607/2014 about the testimony, the court will insist on corroboration. In fact, it is not the number of the quantity, but the quality that is material. The time-honored principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy or otherwise. The legal system has laid emphasis on value, weight and quality of evidence, rather than on quantity, multiplicity or plurality of witness. It is, therefore, open to a competent court to fully and completely rely on a solitary witness and record conviction. Conversely, it may acquit the accused in spite of testimony of several witness if it is not satisfied about the quality of evidence".
2. As per Vadivelu Thewar Vs. The State of Madras (1957 SCR 981) the Hon'ble S.C. had divided the nature of witnesses in three categories, namely, wholly reliable, wholly unreliable and lastly neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. The first two categories they pose little difficulty, but in the case of the third category of witnesses, corroboration would be required. It is sound and well established rule of law that the court is concerned with the quality and not with the quantity of the evidence necessary for proving or disproving a fact. Generally speaking, oral testimony in this context may be classified into three categories, namely;
20 CC 1607/2014 (i) Wholly reliable
(ii) Wholly unreliable
(iii) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly
unreliable.
In the first category of proof, the court should have no difficulty in coming to its conclusion either way it may convict or may acquit on the testimony of a single witness, if it is found to be above reproach or suspicion or interestedness, incompetence, or subornation. In the second category, the court equally has no difficulty in coming to its conclusion. It is in the third category of cases that the court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particular by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial. There is another danger is insisting on plurality of witnesses. Irrespective of the quality of the oral evidence of a single witness, if courts even to insist on plurality of witness in proof of any fact, they will be indirectly encouraging subornation of witnesses.
3. The Hon'ble SC in Jagdish Prasad Vs. State of M.P. (AIR 1994 SC 1251) has held that as a general rule the court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness provided he is a wholly reliable. There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a 21 CC 1607/2014 single witness. That is the logic of Sec.134 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. But if there are doubts about the testimony the courts will insist on corroboration. It is for the court to act upon the testimony of witnesses. It is not the number, the quantity, but the quality that is material. The time honored principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. On this principle stands the edifice of Sec.134 of Evidence Act. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy or other wise.
4. I have carefully gone through the charge sheet materials and also evidence made available in the file. The witnesses have stated regarding the number of vehicle involved in the alleged accident. Further witnesses have stated rash and negligent act on the part of the accused on the date of alleged incident. Further, there is evidence against the accused to show his involvement. Therefore, the case of prosecution regarding rash and negligent act and also regarding involvement of the vehicle of accused made out beyond reasonable doubt.
Though, the inquest mahazar, Postmortem report and IMV report are marked, even then no offence could be made out beyond reasonable doubt.
22 CC 1607/2014In view of the evidence let in by the prosecution being strong and considering its incriminating nature for the above discussed reasons, I am of the firm opinion that, the accused is guilty of the offence punishable U/sec.279, 304(A) of IPC. Hence, at the outset it can be said that the prosecution has successfully proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, for the offences punishable U/sec.279, 304(A) of IPC. Therefore for the above discussion, I answer point Nos.1& 2 IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
36. POINT No.3: In view of the above discussions and findings I proceed to pass the following ORDER Accused is convicted U/sec 255(2) of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable U/sec. 279, 304(A) of IPC.
Firstly, the accused shall pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable U/s.279 of IPC on default he shall undergo S.I. for 30 days.
Secondly, with respect to offence punishable U/s.304-A of IPC the accused shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months also he shall pay a fine of 23 CC 1607/2014 Rs.10,000/- and on default he shall undergo S.I. for three months.
All the above sentences shall run concurrently.
The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled.
The office is directed to furnish copy of the judgment free of cost to the accused forthwith.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 29th day of September 2021).
(Rekha. H.C.) M.M.T.C-II, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for Prosecution:-
PW-1 Gopal Sumuk PW-2 Ashok. N PW-3 H.S. Lingaraju PW-4 Shivaraju `PW-5 Nagabhushan. Y.B. PW-6 Mohan. J PW-7 Channaveeragowda
List of documents marked for Prosecution:
Ex.P.1: Spot mahazar
Ex.P.2 Complaint
Ex.P.3 Statement of PW-3
Ex.P.4 IMV report
Ex.P.5 Inquest mahazar
24 CC 1607/2014
Ex.P.6 Postmortem report
Ex.P.7 Rough sketch
Ex.P.8 FIR
Ex.P.9 Copy of 133 notice
Ex.P.10 Reply
Ex.P.11 Postmortem report
List of witnesses examined for Defence:-
NIL List of documents marked for Defence:
Ex.D.1 Portion of Ex.P.4
(Rekha. H.C.)
M.M.T.C-II, Bengaluru.