Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Bangalore District Court

State By Basavanagudi Traffic P.S vs ) Sadumarakal @ Sadumarakal on 23 October, 2017

  IN THE COURT OF THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
          TRAFFIC COURT - IV, BANGALORE

PRESENT: GAYATHRI.S.KATE, B.com.,LLB.,
         MMTC - IV, BANGALORE

      DATED : THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2017

                        C.C.No.12787/2016
COMPLAINANT: State by Basavanagudi Traffic P.S.

                            VS.
ACCUSED:       1) Sadumarakal @ Sadumarakal,
                  S/o Narayan Marakal,
                  Age: 49 years,
                  KSRTC Udupi Depot,
                  Bille No.9415,
                  Udupi

1. The date of commission of        22-09-2015
   the offence
2. The offences complained of       U/s.279 & 337 of IPC, Sec.115
                                    R/w.177 of M.V.Act.

3. Plea of the accused and his      Pleaded not guilty
   examination
4. Opinion of the judge             Acquitted
5. State represented by             Learned APP

6. Accused defence by               Sri K. Prasanna Sheetty

7. Date of order                    23-10-2017



                                  ***
                                       2              C.C.No.12787/15



                               JUDGEMENT

The Police Inspector of Basavanagudi Traffic police station has filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/s.279 & 337 of IPC, Sec.115 R/w. Sec.177 of M.V.Act.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 22-09-2015 at about 6.20 a.m. the accused being the driver of K.S.R.T.C. bus bearing registration No.KA-19/F-3174 drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner as to endanger human life on Old Kanakapura Road. While so driving his vehicle in the opposite direction at Home School circle he dashed against the Mini bus bearing registration No.KA- 01/AB-387 of C.W.1 and the said vehicle was damaged. Due to the impact of accident the passenger of the offender bus i.e., C.W.2 sustained simple injuries, thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable U/s.279 & 337 of IPC, Sec.115 R/w.177 of M.V.Act.

3. Cognizance was taken by perusing the prosecution papers and materials, the accused on receipt of summons appeared before the court and got himself enlarged on bail. On the said date the prosecution papers were furnished to the accused as 3 C.C.No.12787/15 per Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. and substance of accusation in the form of plea was read over and explained to him, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. During the course of trial the prosecution has examined 3 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.3 and got marked 10 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10. The statement of accused as per Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded the accused had no explanation and he denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he has not chosen to lead the defence evidence.

5. Heard arguments on both sides and perused the records carefully.

6. The point that arise for my determination is as under:

1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 22-09-2016 at about 6.20 a.m. the accused being the driver of K.S.R.T.C. bus bearing registration No.KA-19/F-3174 drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner as to endanger human life on Old Kanakapura Road and he dashed against the Mini bus bearing registration No.KA-01/AB-387 of C.W.1 and the said vehicle was damaged. thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable U/s.279 of IPC?

2. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place the accused being the driver of the said vehicle, drove his vehicle in the above said manner. While so driving his vehicle in a opposite direction at Home School circle he dashed against the Mini bus bearing registration No.KA-01/AB-387.

Due to the impact of accident the passenger of the offender bus i.e., C.W.2 sustained simple injuries, thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable U/s.337 of IPC?

3. Whether the prosecution further proves that the accused had drove his vehicle in the opposite direction, thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable U/s.119 R/w.177 of M.V.Act?

4. What order?

7. My answer to the above points are as under:

1. POINT NO.1: IN NEGATIVE

2. POINT NO.2: IN NEGATIVE

3. POINT NO.3: IN NEGATIVE

4. POINT NO.4: AS PER THE FINAL ORDER For the following REASONS

8. POINT NO.1 & 2: For the sake of convenience and to avoid repetition of facts, these points are taken up for common discussion to have brevity.

9. It is the case of the prosecution that on 22-09-2015 at about 6.20 a.m. the accused being the driver of K.S.R.T.C. bus bearing registration No.KA-19/F-3174 drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner as to endanger human life on Old Kanakapura Road. While so driving his vehicle in the opposite direction at Home School circle he dashed against the Mini bus bearing registration No.KA- 01/AB-387 of C.W.1 and the said vehicle was damaged. Due to the impact of accident the passenger of the offender bus i.e., C.W.2 sustained simple injuries, thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable U/s.279 & 337 of IPC, Sec.115 R/w.177 of M.V.Act.

10. In order to prove the contents of the complaint, the complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and reiterated the contents of complaint. In his cross- examination by the learned counsel for the accused he has admitted that "DgÉÆæ ªÁºÀ£ÀªÀÅ ªÀiÁPɱÀmï¤AzÀ PÀ£ÀP¥ À ÀÅgÀ gÀ¸ÉÛ PÀqÉUÉ ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛvÀÄÛ. ¸ÀzÀj C¥ÀWÁvÀ ¢£ÀzÀAzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ DgÉÆæAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. £À£ÀUÉ DAUÀè ¨sÁµÉ NzÀ®Ä §gÉAiÀÄ®Ä §gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ¤.¦.01£ÀÄß AiÀiÁgÀÄ §gÉzÀgÀÄ JAzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è. ¥ÉǰøÀgÀ PÉÆÃjPÉAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ £Á£ÀÄ ¤.¦.01 PÉÌ ¸À» ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. £Á£ÀÄ DgÉÆæ ªÁºÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß C¥ÀWÁvÀ ªÀÄÄAZÉ 6 C.C.No.12787/15 £ÉÆÃrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ¥ÀjºÁgÀzÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄÄzÀ GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ ¸ÀļÀÄî ¸ÁQë £ÀÄrAiÀÄÄwÛzÉÝãÉAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¤.¦.02 PÉÌ oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è ¸À» ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÉÛãÉAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¤.¦.02 £ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ ¥ÉǰøÀgÉÆA¢UÉ ºÉÆÃV ¸À» ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. ¤.¦.02 gÀ CA±ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è".

11. P.W.2 is victim who has turned hostile who has turned hostile to the prosecution. Learned APP has conducted cross-examination of P.W.2, but nothing is elicited by the mouth of P.W.2. Because P.W.3 has denied each and every suggestion put by the learned APP. Hence evidence of this prosecution witness is not helpful to the prosecution.

12. C.W.7 is examined as P.W.3 who is the I.O. has clearly supported the prosecution and has not given a single admission in cross-examination by counsel for accused.

13. The evidence of P.W.3 is no where helpful to prosecution because in order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to examine the material witness properly. The prosecution has to prove the very ingredients of alleged offences, they are identification of accused, the said accused must have drove the offender vehicle in rash and negligent 7 C.C.No.12787/15 manner and the said offender vehicle must have been involved in the accident. If either of the one of the ingredient is not fulfilled by the prosecution then benefit of doubt would give raise to acquittal of accused in consequence. The law is very much clear that unless contrary is proved, the accused is to be treated as innocent.

14. There are lots of contradicting statements between the complainant and eye witness evidences. The contradicting statements among prosecution witness gives raise to benefit of doubt to the accused.

15. On the perusal of the oral as well as documentary evidence, at the outset it can be said that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, for the offences punishable U/s.279 & 337 of IPC. Hence for the above discussion, I answer point No.1 & 2 IN NEGATIVE.

16. POINT No.3: Further it is the case of the prosecution that accused had driven his vehicle in the opposite direction on the day of accident. It is already held that prosecution has failed to prove the 8 C.C.No.12787/15 guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/s.279 & 337 of IPC. Hence there is no question of proceeding against the accused for the offence punishable U/s.115 R/w Sec.177 of M.V.Act. Hence I answer POINT No.3 IN NEGATIVE.

17. POINT No.4: In view of the above discussions and findings I proceed to pass the following ORDER Accused is acquitted U/s.255(1) of Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable U/s.279 & 337 of IPC, Sec.177 of M.V.Act.

The bail bond and surety bond of the accused 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 23rd day of October 2017).

(GAYATHRI.S.KATE) MMTC - IV, BANGALORE.

ANNEXURE

1) LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:

P.W.1: Girish P.W.2: Udaykumar P.W.3: Srinivas Shetty 9 C.C.No.12787/15

2) LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION:

Ex.P.1: Complaint Ex.P.2: Spot Mahazar Ex.P.3: FIR Ex.P.4: Rough sketch Ex.P.5: 133 notice Ex.P.6: Reply Ex.P.7: Wound certificate Ex.P.8: IMV Report Ex.P.9: Log sheet Ex.P.10: Trip sheet

3) LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE ACCUSED:

NIL

4) LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE ACCUSED:

NIL (GAYATHRI.S.KATE) MMTC - IV, BANGALORE.