Bangalore District Court
K S Layout Tr Police Sation vs Jaheer Pasha on 18 April, 2024
IN THE COURT OF THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
TRAFFIC COURT - IV, BANGALORE
PRESENT: SRI GAGAN M.R. B.A.L LLB
Metropolitan Magistrate
Traffic Court - IV, BANGALORE
DATED : THIS THE 18th DAY OF APRIL 2024
C.C. No.5813/2018
COMPLAINANT: State by K.S. Layout Traffic Police Station,
Bangalore
(Represented by: APP)
VS.
ACCUSED: 1) Sri Jaheer pasha,
S/o. Yarab Jhon,
Age: 24 years,
R/at No.164/3,
Channakrishnappa building,
Bettadasapura,
Bengaluru
2) Sri Jabeer
S/o. Yarab Jhon,
Age: 24 years,
R/at No.164/3,
Channakrishnappa building,
Electronic city
Bengaluru
(Represented by: Thimmegowda M. Adv.)
2
C.C.No.5813/2018
1. Date of commission of offence: 04032018
2. Offences alleged against accused: U/s.279 and 304(A) of IPC,
Sec.134(a and b) R/w.187
Sec.3(1) R/w.181 and
Sec.5 R/w.180 of M.V.Act.
3. Date of recording of evidence: 30032023
4. Date of closing evidence: 14122023
5. Date of judgment: 18042024
***
JUDGEMENT
The SubInspector of Kumarswamy Traffic Police Station has filed the charge sheet against the accused No.1 for the offences punishable U/s.279, 304(A) of IPC, Sec.134(a and b) R/w.187, Sec.3(1) R/w.181 and against accused No.2 for the offences punishable U/s.5 R/w.180 of M.V.Act.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 04032018 at about 7.30 p.m. the accused No.1 being the rider of Bullet motor cycle bearing registration No.KA 05/KD1212 drove the same on J.P. Nagar 8 th stage, Kottanur main road, from Jambusavari Dinne towards RBI Layout in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and he dashed to the pedestrian who was crossing the road in front of Corporation bank.
3C.C.No.5813/2018 Due to the impact the pedestrian Sri Lingappa, aged about 71 years sustained grievous injuries, later he succumbed to death. Further on the day of accident the accused No.1 did not provide medical aid to the injured nor he intimated to the police about the accident. Further the 1st accused was not having valid driving license on the day of accident. Further the 2 nd accused being the owner of the offending vehicle had permitted the 1st accused to drive the said vehicle though the accused No.1 was not possessing valid driving license on the day of accident, thereby the 1 st accused is alleged to have committed the offences punishable U/s.279, 304(A) of IPC, Sec.134(a and b) R/w.187 and Sec.3(1) R/w.181 of M.V.Act and the 2nd accused is alleged to have committed the offence punishable U/s.5 R/w.180 of M.V.Act.
3. Upon taking cognizance, case came to be registered against the accused No.1 for the offences punishable U/s.279 and 304(A) of IPC, Sec.134(a and b) R/w.187, Sec.3(1) R/w.181 and against the accused No.2 for the offence punishable U/Sec.5 R/w.180 of M.V.Act. The accused No.1 and 2 appeared before the court through their counsel and got enlarged on bail. Charge 4 C.C.No.5813/2018 sheet copies furnished to the accused persons and thereby provision U/s.207 of Cr.P.C. duly complied with.
4. Plea came to be framed for the offences U/s.279 and 304(A) of IPC, Sec.134(a and B) R/w.187, Sec.3(1) R/w.181 and Sec.5 R/w.180 of M.V.Act. for which accused No.1 and 2 have pleaded not guilty claimed to be tried.
5. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined P.W.1 to 4 and got marked documents as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10. On completion of prosecution side evidence, the statement of accused U/s.313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded and the accused No.1 and 2 denied all the incriminating evidence appearing against them and did not choose to lead any defence evidence.
6. Heard both sides. The learned APP argued that the instant case they have examined two eye witnesses and both of them supported the case of the prosecution. They deposed about the commission of act by the accused and with regard to driver and owner. The investigating officers deposed in detail allegedly the accused was not having valid driving license to drive a vehicle at the time of accident and upon perusal of the over all evidence of prosecution they have proved their case and accordingly 5 C.C.No.5813/2018 pray for conviction. To counter the same the learned counsel for the accused submitted written arguments wherein they have contended that the prosecution did not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt as alleged by them. They contend accused No.1 is a mechanic and accused No.2 has left the vehicle with accused No.1 for servicing. After completing the service the accused No.1 went to hand over the repaired vehicle and he was driving his vehicle in very slowly and cautiously. They contended that the alleged accident has taken place due to the negligence of the pedestrian. He has entered the road in a negligent manner without seeing the movement of the vehicles. He is old aged person and fallen due to imbalance and the accused has nto committed the accident as narrated by the prosecution. They contended that the accident has taken place in front of the bank and as a rule every bank has installed CCTV cameras. In the case on hand no cctv footage is seized by the police which raises doubt about the case of the prosecution. They further contended that the supported witnesses are the relatives of the deceased and prosecution has not examined any independent witnesses. The prosecution did not examined any relevant and reliable witness to prove their case. They have failed to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt. Upon perusal of the cross 6 C.C.No.5813/2018 examination of the eye witness it is clearly that they are not present at the accident spot and they were planted by the prosecution. There are several admissions made by the witnesses in their crossexamination which is fatal to the case of the prosecution. The persecution in the case on hand has failed to prove their case. Accordingly they prays to acquit the accused persons.
7. The points that arise for my determination are as under:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 04032018 at about 7.30 p.m. the accused No.1 being the rider of Bullet motor cycle bearing registration No.KA05/KD1212 drove the same on J.P. Nagar 8th stage, Kottanur main road, from Jambusavari Dinne towards RBI Layout in rash and negligent manner & thereby the 1st accused committed offene punishable U/s.279 of IPC.?
2. Whether the prosecution further proves that on the said date, time and place the accused being the driver of the said vehicle. While so driving his vehicle he dashed to the pedestrian who was crossing the road in front of Corporation bank. Due to the impact the pedestrian Sri Lingappa, aged about 71 years sustained grievous injuries, later he succumbed to death. thereby the 1st accused committed an offence punishable U/s.304(A) of IPC.?7
C.C.No.5813/2018
3. Whether the prosecution further proves that the accused did not provide medical aid to the injured nor he intimated the police about the accident, thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable U/s.134 (A & B) R/w. Sec.187 of M.V.Act?
4. Whether the prosecution further proves that on the said date, time and place the 1st accused was not in possession of driving license on the day of the accident, thereby the 1st accused has committed an offence punishable U/s.3(1) R/w.181 of M.V.Act?
5. Whether the prosecution further proves that on the said date, time and place the 2nd accused being the owner of the offending vehicle had permitted the 1st accused to drive the said vehicle who was not in possession of driving license on the day of accident, thereby the 2nd accused has committed an offence punishable U/s.5 R/w.180 of M.V.Act?
6. What order?
8. My findings on the above said points are as under:
1. POINT NO.1: IN THE NEGATIVE
2. POINT NO.2: IN THE NEGATIVE
3. POINT NO.3: IN THE AFFIRMATIVE
4. POINT NO.4: IN THE AFFIRMATIVE
5. POINT NO.5: IN THE AFFIRMATIVE
6. POINT NO.6: AS PER FINAL ORDER For the following 8 C.C.No.5813/2018 REASONS
9. POINT No.1 and 2: These points are inter related, hence they are taken together for common discussion.
10. It is the case of the prosecution that on 04032018 at about 7.30 p.m. the accused No.1 being the rider of Bullet motor cycle bearing registration No.KA 05/KD1212 drove the same on J.P. Nagar 8 th stage, Kottanur main road, from Jambusavari Dinne towards RBI Layout in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and he dashed to the pedestrian who was crossing the road in front of Corporation bank. Due to the impact the pedestrian Sri Lingappa, aged about 71 years sustained grievous injuries, later he succumbed to death. Further on the day of accident the accused No.1 did not provide medical aid to the injured nor he intimated to the police about the accident. Further the 1st accused was not having valid driving license on the day of accident. Further the 2 nd accused being the owner of the offending vehicle had permitted the 1st accused to drive the said vehicle though the accused No.1 was not possessing valid driving license on the day of accident, thereby the 1 st accused is alleged to have committed the offences punishable U/s.279, 304(A) of IPC, Sec.134(a and b) R/w.187 and Sec.3(1) R/w.181 9 C.C.No.5813/2018 of M.V.Act and the 2nd accused is alleged to have committed the offence punishable U/s.5 R/w.180 of M.V.Act.
11. In order to prove its case the prosecution examined 4 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.4 and got marked 9 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9.
12. C.W.3/ Chidananda H.V. is examined as P.W.1 who is the eye witness of this case. He deposed that on 04032018 in order to do walking at around 7.30 p.m. in the evening he was proceeding in Kottanurdinne main road at that time one Bullet rider came from Kottanur dinne side toward RBI layout in rash and negligent manner and near corporation bank he dashed to one pedestrian who was crossing the road. Due to impact of the accident he has sustained injuries to his head and hands. Immediately they shifted him to T.R. hospital and he came to know his name is Lingappa. The bike rider ran away from the spot on next day police came near accident spot and he has shown them accident spot and police conducted spot mahazar at accident spot. On 16032018 police asked him to come to a police station and wherein he has seen the rider of the bike and he has identified the accused present before the court.
10C.C.No.5813/2018 During his crossexamination by accused counsel he deposed that he works in private company and his office is situated at Bommasandra. He admits about existence of high density of traffic on accident spot. He deposed that his house is situated at a distance of 56 km from the police station. He further deposed he knows the deceased from several years since he is his relative. He admits he affixed his signature in police station and further deposed after that he did not visited the police station. The witness identified the accused No.2 as the rider of the vehicle. He further deposed that the accident spot is at a distance of 750 mtrs from his house. He deposed that there is no zebra cross on the accident spot. He admits about high density of traffic in accident spot. He denied the suggestions of the accused counsel.
13. C.W.4/ Naveen M. is examined as P.W.2 who is the eye witness of this case. He deposed that on 04 032018 at around 7.30 p.m. while he was proceeding in Kottanurdinne road at that time one bike rider was coming from Kottanurdinne side towards RBI layout in rash and negligent manner and he dashed to pedestrian in front of Corporation bank and he did not stop at the spot and went away. Immediately he went near the pedestrian the said person has sustained injuries to his 11 C.C.No.5813/2018 foot and head. In this regard he has given statement before police. On 16032018 police called him to police station wherein he was shown the accused and he came to know about his name. The witness identified the accused before the court.
During his crossexamination by the accused counsel he deposed that he works in private company. He further deposed that the deceased is his relative. He deposed that he does not remember the name of the company where he was working at the time of accident. He further deposed that at the time of accident he was residing in Tindlu and the said spot is 25 km away from the accident spot. He further deposed that on the said day he went to install a software in client's house near Kottanur main road. He has seen the accident from a distance of 20mtrs. He deposed that it is the duty of the pedestrian to cross the road on zebra cross. The deceased is his father's brother. He admits about high density of traffic at accident spot. HE further deposed that he has seen the accused No.1 at accident spot. He admits about existence of road hump at a distance of 20ft. He denied the suggestions of the accused counsel.
12C.C.No.5813/2018
14. C.W.12/ B.P. Nagaraj is examined as P.W.3 who is the 2nd Investigating Officer of this case. He deposed that he received the case file C.W.11 and conducted further investigation. After receipt of information about the death of the injured, he has taken action to send it to KIMS hospital and submitted memorandum to court to include Sec.304(a) of IPC. On the same day he visited KIMS hospital mortuary and conducted inquest mahazar in the presence of C.W.5 to 8 and body was sent to postmortem. He received the postmortem report from C.W.10. After completion of investigation he has submitted charge sheet against accused No.1 and 2.
During his crossexamination by the accused counsel he deposed about existence of zebra crossing and accident has taken place on zebra crossing. The witness deposed that no cctv camera has captured the accident and hence he has not seized the cctv footages. He denied the suggestions of the accused counsel.
15. C.W.13/ Nagaraj E is examined as P.W.4 who is the 1st Investigation Officer of this case. He deposed that on the basis of information given by C.W.1 he received the written complaint and registered the case 13 C.C.No.5813/2018 in Crime No.47/18 against the accused. On the next day he visited the accident spot and conducted spot mahazar in the presence of C.W.2 and 3 between 2.00 to 3.00 p.m. and prepared one rough sketch. He issued Sec.133 notice to the owner of the vehicle and received reply to the said notice. He sent a requisition letter to concerned vehicle inspector. He arrested the accused and released him on bail. He received motor vehicle inspection report. Since it become a fatal case he has handed over the case file to C.W.12 for further investigation. He has identified the accused before the court. During his crossexamination by the accused counsel he denied the suggestions of the accused counsel.
16. Out of the documents marked for prosecution Ex.P.1 is the Spot mahazar, Ex.P.2 is the Inquest mahazar, Ex.P.3 is the P.M. Report, Ex.P.4 is the Complaint, Ex.P.5 is the FIR, Ex.P.6 is the Rough sketch, Ex.P.7 is the 133 notice, Ex.P.8 is the reply to the said notice, Ex.P.8 is the P.M. Report and Ex.P.9 is the Motor vehicle inspection report and Ex.P.10 is the Indemnity bond.
17. In the instant case the prosecution is alleging that the accused being the driver of the motor cycle drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner 14 C.C.No.5813/2018 and dashed to deceased person who was crossing the road due to the impact he sustained grievous injury and succumbed to death. The prosecution has alleged that accused has committed the offences punishable under Section 279 and 304(A) of IPC. Section 279 IPC deals with rash and negligent driving of any vehicle or riding on a public way in a 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/s.279 of IPC, it must be established that the accused was driving the vehicle on a public way in rash and negligent manner to endanger human life or to likely cause to hurt or injury to any other person. For the purpose of section 279 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 section 279 are: (1) rash and negligent driving or riding on a public way, (ii) The act must be such as to endanger human life or likely to cause hurt or injury to any person.
18. In order to constitute offence U/s.304(a) of IPC the prosecution must establish the essential ingredients of Sec.304(A) of IPC which are as follows: (I) The death of the person must be in question (ii) The 15 C.C.No.5813/2018 death must have caused by the accused; and (iii) The act of the accused was rash or negligent and it did not amount to culpable homicide.
19. The prosecution in the instant case has listed out around 12 witnesses in the charge sheet to prove their case. Among them only four witnesses were examined before the court. The prosecution did not examined the complainant and one mahazar witness is reported as dead and rest of the witnesses are inquest witnesses, motor vehicle inspector and the doctor who conducted postmortem. Since the accused did not disputed the death, IMV Report and postmortem report, the said witnesses were dropped. In the instant case the prosecution has listed out two eye witnesses and they were examined before the court as PW.1 and 2.
20. The prosecutor contended that the prosecution has examined two witnesses and both of them supported their case. The learned counsel for the accused contended that as per their own admission both the eye witnesses examined by the prosecution are the relatives of the deceased since the same is admitted by them, they are not reliable. Since they became interested witnesses. They contend no independent eye witness is examined by the prosecution and hence the case of the 16 C.C.No.5813/2018 prosecution appears to be doubtful. As per the interpretation of the apex court merely because the supported witnesses are the relatives of the deceased or injured the court cannot ruled out their evidence without giving any evidentiary value to their deposition. The contention of the accused with regard to interested witness is ruled out.
21. Whether the prosecution was able to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt. In the case on hand the prosecution contended that the accused was not possessing valid driving license to drive the vehicle and he has driven the vehicle without having knowledge about the same, the same is sufficient to held him guilty. Yes it is true that the accused No.1 who was driving the alleged vehicle on the day of the incident was not possessing valid driving license. The contention of the accused that the accused No.1 is a mechanic and he is well versed with the automobile field and he has complete knowledge about the bike and hence he has requisite knowledge to drive a bike and he has sound knowledge about the functioning of the bike. He does not possess valid driving license as on the date of incident is proved by the prosecution and the same is not denied by the accused. though the accused has taken contention they 17 C.C.No.5813/2018 did not get any relevant admission on these aspect from the investigating officer.
22. In the case on hand the prosecution has the burden to prove that accused drove his bike in rash and negligent manner. With regard to rashness it should be established that the rashness or negligence or more than a error of judgment and prosecution has to establish criminal rashness which is above the term of general negligence. As discussed earlier negligence means which is more than general term of negligence. With regard to negligent act the Hon'ble Apex court in "Mohammed Aynuddin @ Miyan vs State of Andhra Pradesh (decided on 28.07.2000)" , wherein the Court discussed in detail the constituents of a "rash or negligent act" and observed:
"A rash act is primarily an over hasty act. It is opposed to a deliberate act. Still a rash act can be a deliberate act in the sense that it was done without due care and caution. Culpable rashness lies in running the risk of doing an act with recklessness and with indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negligence is the failure to exercise duty with reasonable and proper care and precaution guarding against injury to the public generally or to any individual in particular. It is the imperative duty of the driver of a vehicle to adopt such reasonable and proper care and precaution."18
C.C.No.5813/2018
23. In Alister Anthony Pareira vs. State of Maharashtra(2012) 2 SCC 648, Hon'ble Apex Court examined the provisions of section 304A, 337 & 338 and explained as under :
"37. In Empress of India v. Idu Beg [ILR (1881) 3All 776] Straight, J. explained the meaning of criminal rashness and criminal negligence in the following words :(ILR pp.77980)"... criminal rashness is hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is so, and that it may cause injury, but without intention to cause injury, or knowledge that it will probably be caused. The criminality lies in running the risk of doing such an act with recklessness or indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negligence is the gross and culpable neglect orfailure to exercise that reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard against injury either to the public generally or to an individual in particular, which, having regard to all the circumstances out of which the charge hasarisen, it was the imperative duty of the accused person to have adopted."
24. In the case on hand admittedly the accident has taken place in road which has high density of traffic and it is a two way road. The time of the accident is at around 7.00 p.m. which is considered as peak hour. Both the eye witnesses admit that normally the movement of traffic is high at that time, when there is a high density of traffic it is general presumption that driving vehicle in high speed is not possible. In the case on hand there is no allegation of any over take by the accused and in the instant case the deceased attempted to cross the road 19 C.C.No.5813/2018 and in that process accident has taken place. Prosecution contended that the accused was crossing the road on zebra cross and it is not a restricted area. The accused contended the deceased is a aged person and he crossed the road all of a sudden and they tried to take shelter under contributory negligence on the part of the deceased also has to be taken into consideration. If the said factor is taken into consideration the court cannot come to the conclusion that the accused drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner.
25. The prosecution contended accused drove the bike in rash and negligent manner and thereby committed untoward act. According to prosecution the accused soon after the accident did not stop his vehicle and he ran away from the spot. P.W.1 as well as P.W.2 both of them deposed that the accused after the accident did not stop his vehicle and ran away from the spot. If that version is taken into consideration P.W.2 was on his bike and P.W.1 was on the side of the accused then how they see the accused at accident spot. Seeing the accused at accident spot appears to be doubtful if that version is taken into consideration. Prosecution contend after securing the accused the said person was identified by P.W.1 and 2 in police station and they have given further 20 C.C.No.5813/2018 statement to that effect. When a person was not able to see a person at accident spot how can he identifiy the said person in police station. In support of the same during crossexamination of P.W.1 he clearly admitted that after mahazar he has not visited police station and he has identified accused No.2 as the driver of the alleged bike.
26. In the instant case the counsel for the accused further taken a contention that the examined eye witnesses are planted witness. since they are relatives their version cannot be believed. Whether they have stated any in contrary to the case of the prosecution. The APP while submitting arguments laid stress on existence of zebra crossing where accident has taken place. The said version was deposed by both the investigating officers. Whereas the P.W.1 clearly deposed that there is no zebra crossing near the accident spot. P.W.2 also admits that zebra cross is situated at a distance of 20 mtrs. among the said witness P.W.2 house is situated at a distance of 750 mtrs from the accident spot and he is well versed with the locality, if he himself deposed there is no zebra crossing then doubt arises in the mind of the court. Further P.W.2 deposed that he used to work in a private company, but in crossexamination he deposed 21 C.C.No.5813/2018 that on the said day he went to customers house to install software. He further deposed that he does not know the name of the company where he was working at the time of accident. When he does not know the name of his company which gives him salary, then how can he depose about the accused, the bike and other aspects. The doubt arises in the mind of the court that he appears to be a planted witness. With regard to P.W.1 he deposed that his house is situated in Bommasandra and he used to work at a different place, then what purpose he went near the accident spot is not exaplained by the prosecution. The doubt arises in the mind of the court about his presence as well. Since both the witnesses are close relatives of the deceased there is a doubt in the mind of the court about their presence at accident spot. The prosecution apart from them did not examined any independent eye witness or circumstantial witness to prove that accused drove his vehicle in rash and negligent manner. Mere stating the registration number of the vehicle is not sufficient to establish the rash nd negligent on the part of the accused driver. The examined eye witnesses did not depose anything about the negligence on the part of the accused. They stated only about high speed and they themselves depose it is a busy road and riding a vehicle in high speed at peak hours is 22 C.C.No.5813/2018 not possible. Mere driving the vehicle in high speed will not constitute negligence. Whether high speed alone constitutes negligence Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled "State of Karnataka Vs. Satish ((1998) 8 SCC
493)" wherein the Apex Court observed:
"merely because the truck was being driven at a high speed does not bespeak of either "negligence or rashness" by itself. None of the witness examined by the prosecution could give any indication, even approximately, as to what they meant by "high speed". High speed is a relative term. It was for the prosecution to bring on record material to establish as to what it meant by high speed in the facts and circumstances of the case. In a criminal trial, the burden of providing everything essential to the establishment of the charge against an accused always rests on the prosecution and there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused until the contrary is proved. Criminality is not to be presumed subject of course to some statutory exceptions. There is no statutory exception pleaded in the present case. In the absence of any material on record, no presumption of rashness or negligence could be drawn by invoking the maxim "res ipsa loquitur".
In the above said judgment the court has clearly held that mere driving the vehicle in high speed will not amounts to negligence and it is for the prosecution to prove how high speed amounts to negligence. In the case on hand the same witness who deposed about high speed also deposed that the said road where accident has taken place is having a width of 40ft and it is a busy road and 23 C.C.No.5813/2018 high speed driving is not possible. Moreover it is not the case of the prosecution that the accused was so negligent that he drove his vehicle in high speed in a busy road and caused damages to several vehicles in one act, if that is the scenario the version of the prosecution appears to be believable one.
27. Further with regard to zebra crossing as discussed earlier there is a contradiction among investigating officer and eye witnesses on this aspect. Hence the contention of the prosecutor that deceased was crossing the road on zebra cross is not tenable. In such circumstances crossing the road at that particular spot amounts to negligence. In such situation it amounts to contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. In the instant case Rash and negligent driving of the accused driver is the vital point to book him U/s.279 IPC or section 304(A) IPC. There is no any dispute regarding the accidental death of the deceased person as it was not denied by the defence.
28. The accident has taken place in the middle of the road and it is not a head to head collusion. Negligence is the absence of care and caution whereas culpable rashness results from lack of circumspection. Merely because the bike is being driven at a high speed it would 24 C.C.No.5813/2018 be speak of either negligence or rashness. High speed is a relative term and that has to be examined in the light of the facts & circumstances of the case. With the available materials the court cannot come to the conclusion that the accident has occurred due to the speed of the accused alone. Therefore, in this circumstance of the case, the case of prosecution regarding rash and negligent act of accused could not be made out beyond reasonable doubt.
29. Therefore, looking to the evidence available on record and the materials placed by way of oral and exhibits, the case of prosecution appears to be doubtful. There is doubt as to whether the accused had driven the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, so as to endanger the human life and personal safety of others. Therefore, in the circumstances of the case, the prosecution has failed to prove the alleged offence against the accused. Accordingly, the points under consideration are answered point No.1 and 2 IN THE NEGATIVE.
30. POINT No.3 and 4: In the instant case it is alleged that the accused has failed to provide medical aid to the injured nor he has intimated the police about the accident on the date of the accident and he was not having valid driving license on the day of accident.
25C.C.No.5813/2018 Accordingly he has committed the offence punishable U/s.134(a and b) R/w.187 and Sec.3(1) R/w.181 of M.V.Act. The accused has not contested this aspect and did not crossexamine the witnesses on this aspect, and they did not furnish any documents to deny the case of the prosecution with regard to the allegations leveled against him. Int he arguments the accused has taken a contention that the accused himself has sustained injury and he is not in a position to provide medical aid. If that is a case the counsel did not put any suggestion to any witness that accused also sustained injury and he was also taken to hospital for treatment. They did not even deny the aspect that the accused ran away from the accident spot. They further taken a contention that the accused is having a learners license and since he is a mechanic he is well versed with the dynamics of the motor cycle. The accused is a motor cycle mechanics not proved before this court, since nothing material placed before this court, having knowledge about the functioning of the bike and its spare parts and having mastering the art of riding the vehicle in a road is a different aspect. Automobile engineer is well versed with the dynamics of the bike, but his knowledge will not help in riding the bike in a public road, because while riding he has to gain knowledge about balancing the vehicle in various 26 C.C.No.5813/2018 circumstances, he must have knowledge about the traffic signals, etc., The contention of the accused on this aspect is not considered by this court. According to law to declare a person is fit to drive a bike is through obtaining driving license. In the case on hand he does not possess dirving license it is admitted fact and in the similar manner soon after the accident he did not made attempt to provide medical aid and not intimated the police, till accused No2. is summond on the basis of RTO records the accused did not voluntarily appeared before the investigating officer and noting is put to investigating officer on this aspect. This shows he has not provided medical aid and not intimated the police. Hence, the court answer this point IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
31. POINT No.5: It is further alleged that the prosecution that the accused No.2 being the owner of the goods vehicle on the alleged day of accident. It is further alleged that though he has knowledge that accused No.1 did not possess valid driving license and he has permitted him to drive the same. The accused was informed about the said aspect and he has not produced any valid documents to substantiate his claim that and alleged day that the accused No.1 was possessing valid driving license. The accused did not choose to lead defence 27 C.C.No.5813/2018 evidence and not produced documentary evidence before the court and no question was asked to investigating officer with regard to this aspect and no document is confronted to the witness. The prosecution has discharged its burden it is for the accused to rebutt the same but he has not done that. Hence point No.5 answered in affirmative.
32. POINT No.6: In view of the above discussions and findings I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting U/sec. 255(1) of Criminal procedure code, the accused No.1 is hereby acquitted of the offences alleged against him punishable U/sec. 279 and 304(A) of IPC.
Acting U/s.255(2) of Criminal Procedure code, the accused No.1 is hereby convicted of the offences alleged against him punishable U/s.134(a and b) R/w.187 of M.V.Act.
Acting U/s.255(2) of Criminal Procedure code, the accused No.1 is hereby convicted of the offences alleged against him punishable U/s.3(1) R/w.181 of M.V.Act.
28C.C.No.5813/2018 The accused No.1 is directed to pay fine of Rs.1,000/ for the offences punishable U/s.134(a and b) R/w.187 of M.V.Act. In default shall under go SI for a period of 3 months.
The accused No.1 is directed to pay fine of Rs.1,000/ for the offences punishable U/s.3(1) R/w.181 of M.V.Act. In default shall under go SI for a period of 3 months.
Acting U/s.255(2) of Criminal Procedure code, the accused No.2 is hereby convicted of the offences alleged against her punishable U/s.5 R/w.180 of M.V.Act.
The accused No.2 is directed to pay fine of Rs.1,000/ for the offences punishable U/s.5 R/w.180 of M.V.Act.
In default shall under go SI for a period of 3 months.
The bail bonds of accused and surety bonds shall stands cancelled after the appeal period.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court this the 18 th day of April 2024.) (GAGAN M.R.) MMTC - IV, BANGALORE.
29C.C.No.5813/2018 ANNEXURE
1) LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
P.W.1: Chidananda H.V. P.W.2: Naveen M. P.W.3: B.P. Nagaraj P.W.4: Nagaraj E
2) LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1: Spot mahazar Ex.P.2: Inquest mahazar, Ex.P.3: PM Report Ex.P.4: Complaint Ex.P.5: FIR Ex.P.6: Rough Sketch Ex.P.7: 133 notice Ex.P.8: Reply Ex.P.9: IMV report Ex.P.10: Indemnity bond
3) LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE ACCUSED:
NIL
4) LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE ACCUSED:
NIL (GAGAN M.R.) MMTC - IV, BANGALORE.