Bangalore District Court
Smt Shilpa Chopra vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 December, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE LI ADDL. CITYF CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU CITY. (CCH 52)
Dated this the 18th day of December 2015
PRESENT:
Sri G.D.Mahavarkar, M.A., LL.B (Spl),
M.L. (Lab & Indstrl Rlns & Adm. Laws),
LL.M (Business Laws), M.Phil-in-Law
(Juridical Science)
LI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
Crl. Appeal No. 113/2014
Appellant : Smt Shilpa Chopra,
Original-Accused W/o. Dharmendra Bajaj,
Aged about 34 years,
R/a. No.1/1, Giriyas Building,
Sadashivanagar,
Bangalore.
(By Sri Vishalaxa Kadiwal,
Advocate)
Vs.
Respondent : The State of Karnataka,
Original-Complainant Represented by it's
Highgrounds Police Station,
Bangalore.
(By Public Prosecutor)
* * * *
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal preferred by the
appellant/original-accused against the
2 Crl.Appeal No.113/2014
respondent/original-complainant U/Sec.374 of Cr.P.C., against the impugned conviction judgment passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court - V, Bengaluru, in it's CC No.280/2013, dated 28.01.2014.
2. The original-accused before the lower court having preferred the instant appeal against the original- complainant, as the appellant and the respondent, respectively, are hereby assigned with their original ranks before the lower court i.e., the appellant as the accused and the respondent as the complainant in the instant discussion for the purpose of brevity and convenience to avoid the confoundation and perplexity.
3. This is a criminal case at CC No.280/2013 arising-out of the complaint filed by the complainant against the accused for the offences punishable U/Secs.279 & 338 of I.P.C. and Sections 134(a) & (b) r/w Section 187 and Section 146 r/w Section 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
3 Crl.Appeal No.113/2014
4. The epitomized facts projected from the complaint before the lower court run thus:
On 18.01.2013, at about 8.00 a.m. in the morning, on the Palace Road from North towards South, the accused being the driver of the Santro Car bearing No.KA-04-Z-6340 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner endangering the human-life and dashed to the Motorcycle bearing No.KA-04-EK-642 from it's hind-side, on which the complainant was proceeding and caused the accident, due to which, the complainant sustained grievous injuries and at the time of the accident, the said offending santro car was not bearing the valid insurance and also the accused neither informed the concerned police immediately nor made an arrangement to provide the first-aid treatment to the injured-complainant and thereby, the accused has committed the offences punishable U/Sections 279 & 338 of I.P.C. and Sections 134(a) & (b) r/w Section 187 and Section 146 r/w Section 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act.4 Crl.Appeal No.113/2014
5. Thereafter, the lower court has taken the cognizance of the offences punishable U/Sections 279 & 338 of I.P.C. and Sections 134(a) & (b) r/w Section 187 and Section 146 r/w Section 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
6. In response to the summons issued against the accused, she has put-in her appearance before the lower court through her counsel.
7. On moving for bail, the accused has been released on bail.
8. The copies of the complaint and other documents were supplied to the accused.
9. The substance of the accusation for the offences U/Sections 279 & 338 of I.P.C. and Sections 134(a) & (b) r/w Section 187 and Section 146 r/w Section 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act, was framed and the same was read over and explained to the accused in the vernacular best- known to her.
5 Crl.Appeal No.113/2014
10. The accused has denied the same and pleaded not guilty and further claimed to be tried.
11. In order to prove the guilt against the accused, the prosecution has got examined the witnesses in all as PWs.1 to 7 and placed the reliance on the documentations marked at Exs.P.1 to P.7, in which Ex.P.1 is the complaint; Ex.P.2 is the spot mahazar; Ex.P.2(a) is the signature of the P.W.2; Ex.P.2(b) is the signature of the P.W.3; Ex.P.2(c) is the signature of the P.W.4; Exs.P.3 & P.4 are the notice and reply U/Sec.133 of MV Act; Exs.P.3(a) & P.4(a) are the signatures of the P.W.5; Exs.P.1(a), P.2(d), P.3(b) & P.4(b) are the signatures of the P.W.6; Ex.P.5 is the sketch; Ex.P.6 is the IMV report; Ex.P.7 is the wound certificate and Exs.P.5(a) to P.7(a) are the signatures of the P.W.6
12. After the complainant's evidence was closed, since the incriminating circumstances were arising-out of the evidence of the complainant's side witnesses, the 6 Crl.Appeal No.113/2014 statements of the accused under the provisions of Section 313 of Cr.P.C. were recorded.
13. The lower court having heard the arguments advanced by both the learned Sr. APP for the complainant as-well-as the learned counsel for the accused, basing on the material available on record from the complainant, the lower court has framed the points for it's consideration as under:
(1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that, on 18.01.2013 at about 8.00 a.m. at Palace Road, the accused being the driver of car, it's bearing registration No.KA-04-Z-6320 drove the same in rash and negligent manner, so as to endangerous to human life and dashed against the rider of the motorcycle bearing No.KA-04-EK-642 and thereby the accused committed the offence punishable U/Sec.279 of I.P.C.?
(2) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that, because of the accident, the CW.1 sustained grievous injuries and thereby the accused committed the offence punishable U/Sec.338 of I.P.C.?
(3) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that, at the time of the accident, the accused was failed to produce the vehicle insurance and thereby accused 7 Crl.Appeal No.113/2014 has committed the offence punishable U/Sec.146 r/w 196 of M.V.Act?
(4) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that, at the time of the accident, the accused was failed to provide first-aid to the injured and failed to inform about the accident to the nearest police station and thereby the accused has committed the offence punishable U/Sec.134(a) & (b) r/w 187 of M.V.Act?
(5) What order?
14. The lower court has given the findings on the points for consideration raised by it, 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 .. As per final order, for the
following:
-------- and thereby convicted the accused by sentencing her to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable U/Sec.279 of I.P.C. and in default of payment of the same, simple imprisonment for 30 days; a fine Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable U/Sec.338 of I.P.C. and in default of payment of the same, simple imprisonment for 30 days; a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable U/Secs.134(a) & (b) r/w Section 187 of Motor Vehicles Act, and in default of payment of the 8 Crl.Appeal No.113/2014 same, simple imprisonment for 30 days; a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable U/Sec.146 r/w Section 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and in default of payment of the same, simple imprisonment for 30 days.
15. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment passed by the lower court, the appellant/original- accused before the lower court, has preferred the instant appeal against the respondent/original-complainant before the lower court, on the following:
GROUNDS OF APPEAL
(a) The judgment and order under the appeal is illegal, arbitrary and the same is passed without the facts and circumstances of the case properly.
(b) The lower court has lost it's sight to take note-of that, the P.W.1 has failed to explicit regarding the details of two-wheeler and also he could not see the vehicle coming from his backside and also he could not speak about the rash and negligent act of the accused.
(c) The lower court has lost it's sight to consider that, the P.W.4 being the eyewitness has stated that, only after falling-down by the two-wheeler, 9 Crl.Appeal No.113/2014 he came to know regarding the said alleged accident.
(d) The lower court has lost it's sight to consider the clear versions of the PWs.2 & 3, who are the spot mahazar witnesses, to the effect that they have signed on the said mahazar in the police station.
(e) The lower court has lost it's sight to consider the version of the P.W.4 that, he was deputed on the duty from 8.00 a.m. in the morning, whereas the alleged accident is stated to have taken place at 7.25 a.m. in the morning.
(f) The lower court has lost it's sight to take note-of that, the P.W.4 having stated that, the P.W.6 had come to the spot at about 9.00 a.m. in the morning, PWs.4 & 6 being the police officials have not cared to register the case; Wherefore, there is a sufficient delay in registering the case giving room to implicate the accused in the crime at the instance of the P.W.1, who is working for the Press Trust of India.
(g) The lower court has lost it's sight to take note-of that, the prosecution has utterly failed to establish the alleged sketch of the scene of offence and the spot mahazar through the independent witnesses.10 Crl.Appeal No.113/2014
(h) The lower court has lost it's sight to take note-of that, the P.W.7 being the Doctor has not specifically mentioned in the wound certificate, as to which arm the complainant has sustained the fracture and also not mentioned regarding the X-Ray taken, in the said wound certificate.
(i) The lower court has lost it's sight to take note-of that, the Motor Vehicle Inspector has not been examined, who is a material-witness to consider regarding the damages to the said alleged car and the two-wheeler motorcycle.
Hence, prayed for allowing the instant appeal.
16. Per contra, the respondent/complainant has not filed any counter-objections to the instant appeal memo.
17. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant/accused as-well-as the learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/complainant.
18. Basing on the material available on record and grounds of appeal, the points that arise for my consideration are:
(1) Whether the lower court has justified in affirming the Point No's.1 to 4 raised for 11 Crl.Appeal No.113/2014 it's consideration holding that, on 18.01.2013, at about 8.00 a.m. in the morning, near the signal-point at Mount Carmel junction in Bengaluru City, the accused without the valid and effective insurance, drove the Santro Car bearing No.KA-04-Z-6320 in a rash and negligent manner, endangering the human-life from North towards South and dashed the hind-portion of the complainant's Motorcycle bearing No.KA-04-EK-642 and caused the accident, due to which, the complainant sustained grievous injuries and thereafter, the accused went-away without informing to the concerned police regarding the alleged accident and also without making an arrangement for providing the first-aid treatment to the injured-complainant and thereby, the accused has committed the offences punishable U/Sections 279 & 338 of I.P.C. and Sections 134(a) & (b) r/w Section 187 and Section 146 r/w Section 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act?12 Crl.Appeal No.113/2014
(2) Whether the impugned judgment of the lower court is arbitrary, baseless, capricious, devoid of merits, erroneous, frivolous and perverse without being on the sound principles of law and warrants for the interference by the instant court?
(3) To what order?
19. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 .. In the Negative.
Point No.2 .. In the Affirmative.
Point No.3 .. As per the final order, for
the following:
REASONS
20. The status and ranking assigned in the lower court to the complainant and accused are being adopted and adhered-to in the instant discussion for the purpose of brevity and convenience to avoid the confoundation and perplexity.
21. Point No's.1 & 2:- To avoid the reiteration of the material available in hand and to appreciate the 13 Crl.Appeal No.113/2014 evidence adduced before the lower court, in a better position, I hereby take-up the instant Point No's.1 & 2 together admixingly for discussion.
22. It is the specific contention of the complainant by way of his complaint that, on 18.01.2013, at about 8.00 a.m. in the morning, on the Palace Road from North towards South, the accused being the driver of the Santro Car bearing No.KA-04-Z-6340 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner endangering the human-life and dashed to the Motorcycle bearing No.KA-04-EK-642 from it's hind-side, on which the complainant was proceeding and caused the accident, due to which, the complainant sustained grievous injuries and at the time of the accident, the said offending santro car was not bearing the valid insurance and also the accused neither informed the concerned police immediately nor made an arrangement to provide the first-aid treatment to the injured-complainant.
14 Crl.Appeal No.113/2014
23. To substantiate it's case, the prosecution has got examined the evidence of the witnesses as PWs.1 to 7, in which CW.1 is examined as P.W.1, who is the complainant as-well-as the injured; CWs.3 & 4 are examined as PWs.2 & 3, who are the spot mahazar witnesses; CW.2 is examined as P.W.4, who is the Police- Constable as-well-as the eyewitness being on duty at the Mount Carmel junction signal; CW.5 is examined as P.W.5, who is the owner of the said car and the circumstantial witness; CW.8 is examined as P.W.6, who is the entire investigating officer and CW.6 is examined as P.W.7, who is the Medical Officer having provided the treatment to the injured-complainant and issued the wound certificate as per Ex.P.7 and thereby placed the reliance on the documentations marked at Exs.P.1 to P.7, in which Ex.P.1 is the complaint; Ex.P.2 is the spot mahazar; Ex.P.2(a) is the signature of the P.W.2; Ex.P.2(b) is the signature of the P.W.3; Ex.P.2(c) is the signature of the P.W.4; Exs.P.3 & P.4 are the notice and 15 Crl.Appeal No.113/2014 reply U/Sec.133 of M.V.Act; Exs.P.3(a) & P.4(a) are the signatures of the P.W.5; Exs.P.1(a), P.2(d), P.3(b) & P.4(b) are the signatures of the P.W.6; Ex.P.5 is the sketch; Ex.P.6 is the IMV report; Ex.P.7 is the wound certificate; and Exs.P.5(a) to P.7(a) are the signatures of the P.W.6.
24. To rebut the case of the complainant-
prosecution, the appellant-accused has neither adduced the oral evidence nor placed her reliance on the documentations.
25. On marshalling the available material on record inclusive of the oral as-well-as documentary evidence from the complainant-prosecution's side, it is clear that, there are the allegations against the instant accused, in respect of she having committed the offences punishable U/Secs.279 & 338 of I.P.C. and Sections 134(a) & (b) r/w Section 187 and Section 146 r/w Section 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and the lower court has convicted her accordingly, for the said offences.
16 Crl.Appeal No.113/2014
26. It is an admitted fact that, the said alleged offending santro car bearing No.KA-04-Z-6320 is in the name of the P.W.5, who is none-other than the natural- mother of the accused.
27. It has been clearly stated by the P.W.5 being the owner of the said car as-well-as the circumstantial witness, to the effect that, the said car standing in her name, was being used and driven by her daughter i.e., the instant accused.
28. It is an allegation by the complainant- prosecution against the accused that, the accused drove the said car in a rash and negligent manner in a speeder- way from the backside of the said motorcycle when it was stopped in the Mount Carmel junction signal point.
29. It is pertinent to note that, the P.W.4 being the Police-Constable stated to have attended his duty of traffic-controlling on the said Mount Carmel junction signal, has stated in his chief-examination itself that, on 18.01.2013 from 8.00 a.m. in the morning to 4.00 p.m. 17 Crl.Appeal No.113/2014 in the evening, he was deputed for the traffic-controlling duty on the signal-point of Mount Carmel junction in Bengaluru City. But, in the cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused, he has stated that, in the morning at about 7.00 a.m., he had been to the police station and then he was present at about 7.15 a.m. in the morning near Mount Carmel junction. It is also admitted in the cross-examination by the P.W.4 that, only on giving the signal by him to stop the said motorcycle of the complainant, he has stopped. This itself clearly goes to indicate that, though he was deputed for the traffic-controlling work/duty from 8.00 a.m. in the morning till 4.00 p.m. in the evening, I fail to understand as to how he came there on the spot and engaged himself in the duty at 7.15 a.m. in the morning itself. This particular aspect has remained absolutely under the suspicious circumstances, in respect of which, the lower court has overlooked considering it as a minor discrepancy, but the said observation of the lower court 18 Crl.Appeal No.113/2014 does-not appear to be in the right perspective because, even-otherwise, if the said P.W.4 was to be near the said Mount Carmel junction signal, his duty was to be commenced from 8.00 a.m. in the morning. But, he has been stated that, he has given the signal to stop the said motorcycle, which clearly goes to indicate that, he was not at-all on duty at the time of the alleged accident.
30. Apart from the same, it is also stated by the P.W.4 in the cross-examination that, he has seen regarding the alleged accident having taken place only after the complainant fell-down from his motorcycle, which indicates that, the said P.W.4 is not a direct eyewitness. Apart from the same, no substantial material, such as, copy of SHD is also placed on record to establish that the said P.W.4 was deputed either at 7.15/8.00 a.m. in the morning for the traffic-controling duty on the signal-point near Mount Carmel junction.
31. That apart, the P.W.4 himself has stated in the cross-examination that, after the alleged accident, he had 19 Crl.Appeal No.113/2014 intimated the control-room and also the police station on wireless message; Wherefore, the P.W.6/ASI came to the spot at about 9.00 a.m. in the morning, where-at, he (P.W.4) has given the information regarding the said accident. But, the said P.W.6 has neither drawn the mahazar nor investigated nor has taken any written- report from him (P.W.4), at 9.00 a.m. in the morning, when P.W.6 visited the spot.
32. But, the P.W.6 who is stated to have conducted the entire investigation, has stated in his chief- examination itself that, on 18.01.2013, while he was on duty as SHO in Bengaluru City, at about 9.00 a.m. in the morning, he received a telephone-call from Mahaveer Jain Hospital, stating that one Shankar Reddy i.e., the injured-complainant had been to the said hospital for the treatment purpose with a history of road traffic accident. The said version of the P.W.6 clearly goes to indicate that, at 9.00 a.m. in the morning, he was in the police 20 Crl.Appeal No.113/2014 station. But as per the version of the P.W.4, P.W.6 had come to the spot at 9.00 a.m. in the morning.
33. Apart from the same, the P.W.6 has stated in the cross-examination itself that, on 18.01.2013, he had been to the spot at 4.00 p.m. in the evening for the purpose of drawing the panchanama and prior to it, he had not at-all visited the spot and he had not received any information regarding the said alleged accident prior to receiving of the phone-call from the said Mahaveer Jain Hospital. According to the version of the P.W.6, he had received the phone-call at about 9.00 a.m. in the morning from the said Mahaveer Jain Hospital. As per the very version of the P.W.5, he had informed the control-room as-well-as the police station at 8.05 a.m. in the morning, on wireless. If the said P.W.4 had sent the message through the wireless to the police station in the morning at about 8.05 a.m., then I fail to understand as to how could P.W.6 being the SHO at that time, say that he had not received any information regarding the alleged 21 Crl.Appeal No.113/2014 incident prior to receiving the phone-call from the Mahaveer Jain Hospital at about 9.00 a.m. in the morning. This particular aspect has absolutely remained under absolute suspicious circumstances.
34. That apart, even as per the very version of the P.W.6, he had never visited to the police station prior to 4.00 p.m. in the evening on 18.01.2013 for the purpose of the spot mahazar. But, according to the very version of the P.W.4, the said P.W.6 had visited the said spot of the alleged incident at 9.00 a.m. in the morning. The said versions of the PWs.4 & 6 are absolutely emanating in contravention with each-other dismantling the very crux of the prosecution's tale creating the fatal doubts in the mind of this court.
35. When that is so, the very PWs.2 & 3 being the spot mahazar witnesses have stated in their chief- examinations that, on 18.01.2013, there was an accident taken place, in respect of which, the police have drawn the mahazar, to which they have signed. But, in the 22 Crl.Appeal No.113/2014 cross-examination, the said cross-examination, the said PWs.2 & 3 have clearly admitted to the effect that, they have signed in the police station, on the said spot mahazar, which is marked as per Ex.P.2.
36. It is significant to note that, the lower court has made an observation that, as per the settled-law, the spot mahazar can be established through the investigating officer and therefore, the said lower court has believed and admitted the said spot mahazar as per Ex.P.2 has been proved by the prosecution. But, it is quite interesting to note that, if the very deposition of the investigating officer is absolutely clean and clear without any infirmities and discrepancies, then under the circumstances of considering the circumstantial circumstances prevailing in the case, the deposition of the investigating officer plays the vital role in considering such spot mahazar. But, in the instant case in hand, the very deposition of the P.W.6 who is stated to be the complete investigation officer, is prevailing with fatal 23 Crl.Appeal No.113/2014 contradictions and major discrepancies creating the fatal doubts in the mind of this court regarding the very case of the prosecution, along-with his alleged investigation. When that is so, the very deposition of the P.W.6 does- not come to the aid of the prosecution to hold that, it has established the said spot mahazar as per Ex.P.2 through the mouth of the P.W.6.
37. It is pertinent to note that, by virtue of the said versions of the PWs.2 & 3 that, they have signed on Ex.P.2/spot mahazar and also the version of the P.W.3 in the cross-examination that, he has not seen as to whether there were tyre-marks on the spot and also the versions of both the PWs.2 & 3 in the cross-examination that the complainant is well-known to them, it clearly goes to indicate that, the said spot mahazar has not been drawn on the spot and obtained the signatures of the PWs.2 & 3 on the spot itself; Wherefore, on the other hand, it creates the absolute suspicious doubts in respect of the very genuinity of the said Ex.P.2 allegedly 24 Crl.Appeal No.113/2014 stated to have been drawn on the spot of the alleged incident. Therefore, under these circumstances, it is crystal clear that, the prosecution has failed to establish the said Ex.P.2/spot mahazar through the mouths of the PWs.2, 3 & 6, beyond the shadow of all the reasonable doubts.
38. Further, the P.W.1 being the complainant- injured though endeavored to depose in favour of the prosecution in the chief-examination and identified the accused, nothing has been whispered regarding the time of the alleged accident. Apart from the same, none of the witnesses have stated regarding the time of the alleged accident in their respective chief-examinations. But, Ex.P.7 the wound certificate pertaining to the complainant/CW.1, discloses the time of the alleged accident 7.35 a.m. in the morning, which is absolutely contrary to the very case of the prosecution and the deposition of the P.W.4.
25 Crl.Appeal No.113/2014
39. Further, the P.W.7 being the Doctor, who has treated the injured-complainant (P.W.1) in the Mahaveer Jain Hospital, though stated in his chief-examination that, on 18.01.2013, at about 10.30 a.m., the complainant had come to their hospital with a history of the road traffic accident; as per the very version of the P.W.6, he had received the phone-call from the Mahaveer Jain Hospital at 9.00 a.m. in the morning, regarding the said complainant having come to the said hospital. But, as per the version of the P.W.7, the complainant had come at 10.30 a.m. in the morning. When the injured- complainant had been to the Mahaveer Jain Hospital at 10.30 a.m. in the morning, then how was it possible to phone to the P.W.6 at 9.00 a.m. in the morning, before coming/visiting of the accused to the said hospital. Therefore, the said versions of the PWs.6 & 7 are absolutely emanating in contravention with each-other creating the fatal doubts in the mind of this court. 26 Crl.Appeal No.113/2014
40. Apart from the same, the P.W.7 has stated in his chief-examination that, the complainant had sustained the fracture of humorous bone. But, unfortunately, P.W.7 has stated in the cross-examination that, he had neither brought the MLC report, basing on which, the wound certificate as per Ex.P.7 has been issued, nor he has mentioned regarding the fracture of humorous bone, of which hand and also regarding the taking of the X-Ray, in the said Ex.P.7/wound certificate. But, he has clearly admitted regarding the likeliness of occurring such injuries as mentioned in Ex.P.7, if a person falls from the motorcycle by way of skidding. Therefore, the entire deposition of the P.W.7 coupled-with Ex.P.7 being not clear have remained absolutely under the suspicious circumstances, without any clarification; Wherefore, the said deposition of the P.W.7 coupled-with Ex.P.7 do-not come to the aid of the prosecution's tale.
41. Apart from the same, the prosecution appears to have failed to examine the Motor Vehicle Inspector, 27 Crl.Appeal No.113/2014 because, on record, the IMV report finds place as per Ex.P.6 having got marked through the P.W.6/investigating officer. As per the prosecution, the said offending santro car has dashed in a speeder- manner to the hind-portion of the motorcycle of the complainant/P.W.1. If that was to be so, then there should have been some damages occurred to the hind- portion of the said motorcycle and frontal-portion of the said offending santro car. Even, if it is considered the car being in a larger-extent than the motorcycle and no likelihood of causing the damages to it's frontal-portion, it cannot be left-out without considering the likeliness of sustaining the damages to the hind-portion of such motorcycle. But, as per the recitals in Ex.P.6/Motor Vehicles Report, the said Bajaj blue color Motorcycle bearing No.KA-04-EK-642 had sustained the damage of it's frontal-headlight mask by way of it's breakage; But, nothing has been depicted regarding the damages, if any, on the backside of the said motorcycle. These particular 28 Crl.Appeal No.113/2014 aspects ought to have been got testified and made clear by the prosecution only through the Motor Vehicles Inspector; But, it has utterly failed in examining the Motor Vehicles Inspector.
42. Therefore, under all these circumstances, it is crystal clear that, the very depositions of the PWs.2 to 4, 6 & 7 prevailing with the major contradictions and discrepancies discrepanting the very crux of the prosecution's tale with respect to each and every events, I am of the clear opinion that, merely basing on the very depositions of the PWs.1 & 5, the lower court ought not have arrived at a conclusion to target the accused for conviction by overlooking the afore-discussed major discrepancies and contradictions creating the suspicious circumstances in the minds of this court regarding the very genuinity of the prosecution's tale, in the lack of proper and subsisting nexus between the chain of each and every events in the said alleged incident; Wherefore, under the circumstances prevailing therein, the benefit of 29 Crl.Appeal No.113/2014 such doubts are bound to be extended to the accused as per the basic principle of law, as no creditworthiness cannot be adhered-to the very depositions of the PWs.2 to 4, 6 & 7.
43. Overlooking all these particular major aspects of major contradictions and major discrepancies, discrepanting the very crux of the prosecution's tale creating the fatal doubts in the mind of this court, the lower court appears to have arbitrarily and erroneously convicted the said accused under misconception and in the wrong perspective; Wherefore, the said lower court's judgment certainly deserves for warranting the interference by the instant court.
44. With these observations, I am inclined to answer the Point No.1 in the 'Negative' and Point No.2 in the 'Affirmative'.
45. Point No.3:- For the reasons discussed at much-length herein before supra, while answering the Point No.1 in the Negative and Point No.2 in the 30 Crl.Appeal No.113/2014 Affirmative, I am inclined to proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R The instant criminal appeal preferred by the appellant/original-accused against the respondent/original-complainant U/Sec.374 of Cr.P.C., against the impugned conviction judgment passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court - V, Bengaluru, in CC No.280/2013, dated 28.01.2014, is hereby allowed by setting-aside the lower court's judgment.
Consequent-upon the same, the prosecution having failed to establish the guilt against the accused and the accused having found not guilty for having committed the offences punishable U/Secs.279 & 338 of I.P.C. and Sections 134(a) & (b) r/w Section 187 and Section 146 r/w Section 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the accused by name Smt. Shilpa Chopra, hereby stands acquitted for the said alleged offences and set her to liberty forthwith, in the said case.
The fine-amount already deposited by the accused before the lower court shall be refunded to the accused in due process of procedure of due verification and identification.31 Crl.Appeal No.113/2014
Send the entire LCRs to the lower court, along-with the copy of the instant judgment immediately, without causing any delay.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed and typed by him and after corrections, printout taken and then pronounced and signed by me in the open Court, on this the 18th day of December, 2015) (G.D.Mahavarkar) LI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.32 Crl.Appeal No.113/2014
(Judgment pronounced in the open court. Operative portion of the same is extracted as under) ORDER The instant criminal appeal preferred by the appellant/original-
accused against the respondent/original-complainant U/Sec.374 of Cr.P.C., against the impugned conviction judgment passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court - V, Bengaluru, in CC No.280/2013, dated 28.01.2014, is hereby allowed by setting-aside the lower court's judgment.
Consequent-upon the same, the prosecution having failed to establish the guilt against the accused and the accused having found not guilty for having committed the offences punishable U/Secs.279 & 338 of I.P.C. and Sections 134(a) &
(b) r/w Section 187 and Section 146 r/w Section 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the accused by name Smt. Shilpa Chopra, hereby stands acquitted for the said alleged offences and set her to liberty forthwith, in the said case.
The fine-amount already deposited by the accused before the lower court shall be refunded to the accused in due process of procedure of due verification and identification.
Send the entire LCRs to the lower court, along-with the copy of the instant judgment immediately, without causing any delay.
LI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
33 Crl.Appeal No.113/2014