Bangalore District Court
State By Banashankari Traffic P.S vs ) Mahesh M.C. S/O Chikkalingaiah on 9 September, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
TRAFFIC COURT - IV, BANGALORE
PRESENT: SMT. LATHA DEVI G.A. BAL., LLB., LLM.
MMTC - IV, BANGALORE
DATED : THIS THE 9th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015
C.C. NO.3250-2015
COMPLAINANT: State by Banashankari Traffic P.S.
VS.
ACCUSED: 1) Mahesh M.C. S/o Chikkalingaiah,
Age: 33 years,
No.15/7, 3rd cross,
Sanakki Bayalu,
Vrushabhavati Nagar,
Bengaluru City
(Represented by Sri M.M. adv.)
***
JUDGEMENT
The Sub-Inspector of Banashankari traffic police station has filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/s.279 & 338 of IPC, Sec.134(a & b) punishable under section 187 of I.M.V.Act.
2 C.C.No.3250-152. THE CASE OF THE PROSECUTION IS:
That on 18-10-2014 at about 6.30 a.m., the accused being the rider of motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-02/EZ-8314, within the jurisdiction of Banashankari traffic police station drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner from south to northern direction on 14th cross, Girinagar, 3rd phase. That near Manjunath condiments, the accused had taken left turn and has dashed against the pedestrian C.W.3, who was standing in order to cross the road and caused accident. In the said accident C.W.3 had sustained grievous injuries. The accused without informing the jurisdictional police about the accident and without providing medical aid to the injured had fled away from the spot of the offence, thereby the accused is alleged to have committed the offences punishable U/s.279, 338 of IPC, Sec.134(a & b) punishable under section 187 of I.M.V.Act.
3. The accused had appeared before the court and has obtained bail. Prosecution documents were furnished to the accused. The court had framed the 3 C.C.No.3250-15 plea against the accused for the offence punishable U/s.279, 338 of IPC, Sec.134(a & b) punishable under section 187 of I.M.V.Act. The same was read over and explained to the accused in Kannada language known to accused. The accused has pleaded not guilty and has claimed to be tried.
4. In order to prove the guilt of the accused the prosecution has examined one witness as P.W.1 and 6 documents have been marked as Ex.P.1 to 6 on its behalf.
5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused was recorded U/s.313 of Cr.P.C. and the accused was explained about the incriminating circumstances that have appeared against him in the evidence of the prosecution, but the accused has denied all the allegations made against him and not chose to adduce defence evidence on his behalf.
6. Heard both the sides.
4 C.C.No.3250-157. The points that arise for my determination are as under:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 18-10-2014 at about 6.30 a.m., the accused being the rider of motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-02/EZ-8314, within the jurisdiction of Banashankari traffic police station drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner from south to northern direction on 14th cross, Girinagar, 3rd phase. That near Manjunath condiments, the accused had taken left turn and has dashed against the pedestrian C.W.3, who was standing in order to cross the road and caused accident, thereby the accused is alleged to have committed an offence punishable U/s.279 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution further proves that on the above stated date, time and place the accused being the driver of the said vehicle, while driving his vehicle from south to northern direction on 14th cross, Girinagar, 3rd phase. That near Manjunath condiments, the accused had taken left turn and has dashed against the pedestrian C.W.3, who was standing in order to cross the road and caused accident. In the said accident C.W.3 had sustained grievous injuries, thereby the accused is alleged to have committed an offence punishable U/s.338 of IPC.?
3. Whether the prosecution further proves that the accused did not provide medical aid to the injured nor the accused intimated the 5 C.C.No.3250-15 police about the accident, thereby the accused is alleged to have committed an offence punishable U/s.134 (a & b) punishable under section 187 of I.M.V.Act?
4. What order?
8. My findings on the above said points are as under:
1. POINT NO.1: IN AFFIRMATIVE
2. POINT NO.2: IN AFFIRMATIVE
3. POINT NO.3: IN AFFIRMATIVE
4. POINT NO.4: AS PER FINAL ORDER For the following REASONS
9. POINT No.1 & 2: These points are inter related, hence they are taken up together for common discussion.
10. THE CASE OF THE PROSECUTION IS:
That on 18-10-2014 at about 6.30 a.m., the accused being the rider of motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-02/EZ-8314, within the jurisdiction of Banashankari traffic police station drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner from south to northern direction on 14th cross, 6 C.C.No.3250-15 Girinagar, 3rd phase. That near Manjunath condiments, the accused had taken left turn and has dashed against the pedestrian C.W.3, who was standing in order to cross the road and caused accident. In the said accident C.W.3 had sustained grievous injuries. The accused without informing the jurisdictional police about the accident and without providing medical aid to the injured had fled away from the spot of the offence, thereby the accused is alleged to have committed the offences punishable U/s.279, 338 of IPC, Sec.134(a & b) punishable under section 187 of I.M.V.Act.
11. The learned APP submitted that the prosecution has placed sufficient material before the court to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. On the other hand the counsel for the accused has submitted that the prosecution has failed to place any convincing material before the court to prove the guilt of the accused.
12. P.W.1 Shantha is the complainant in her chief evidence has stated that on 18-10-2014 her son had 7 C.C.No.3250-15 gone out for supply of newspapers to the customers between 6.45 to 7.00 a.m. That P.W.1 has received a phone call that her son had met with an accident and was admitted to Vinayak nursing home. That for further treatment her son was taken to the Kempegowda hospital for further treatment.
13. That Pulsar vehicle had caused accident to the son of P.W.1, while the injured was crossing the road, hence the complainant has been lodged by the complaint on the date of accident. That police had conducted the mahazar on the next day of accident and obtained signature of the complainant.
14. APP has got treated P.W.1 as partly hostile and has elicited suggestive answer to the fact that P.W.1's son while he was standing next to the road near Vijaybharathi school, at that time one pulsar vehicle bearing registration No.KA-02/EZ-8314 had came in a rash and negligent manner and caused accident, that P.W.1 after coming to know the said fact she had lodged the complaint.
8 C.C.No.3250-1515. In the present case the accused advocate has not chosen to cross-examine P.W.1 and has consented to mark notice, reply, IMV report, wound certificate as Ex.P.3 to 6. In view of consenting marking APP has prayed to drop C.W.2 to 6, hence C.W.2 to 6 have been dropped. APP has prayed to issue summons to C.W.7 due to the reason that accused advocate has consented to mark Ex.P.3 to 6 and has not chosen to cross-examine P.W.1 leading to unchallenged and unrebutted evidence of P.W.1. Hence I am of the opinion that prosecution has proved its case. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 and 2 IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
16. POINT No.3: In the present case accused has been Charge Sheeted for offence U/s.134(a & b) for not intimating the police about the accident and without providing medical aid to the injured had fled away from the spot of the offence. In the present case accused has not intimated the police about the accident and without providing medical aid to the injured, as the complainant / injured has given complaint to the police station, hence the accused 9 C.C.No.3250-15 can be stated to have committed offence U/s.134(a &
b) for not intimating the police about the accident and not providing medical aid to the injured. The accused has committed offence U/s.134(a & b). Accordingly, I answer point No.3 is IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
17. POINT No.4: In view of the above discussions and findings I proceed to pass the following ORDER Accused is convicted U/s.255(2) of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable U/s.279 & 338 of IPC, Sec.134(b) punishable under section 187 of I.M.V.Act.
The accused shall pay a fine of
Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable
U/s.279 of IPC.
The accused shall pay a fine of
Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable
U/s.338 of IPC.
The accused shall pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable U/s.134(b) under section 187 of M.V.Act.
In total the accused shall pay fine of Rs.2,500/- in default the accused shall undergo S.I. for a period of 30 days.
10 C.C.No.3250-15The bail bond and surety bond shall stand cancelled after the appeal period is over.
The accused person is set at liberty.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her corrected, revised and signed then pronounced by me in the open court this the 9th day of September 2015).
(SMT. LATHA DEVI G.A.) MMTC - IV, BANGALORE.
ANNEXURE
1) LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
P.W.1: Shantha
2) LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1: Complaint Ex.P.2: Spot Mahazar Ex.P.3: 133 notice Ex.P.4: Reply Ex.P.5: IMV Reports Ex.P.6: Wound Certificate
3) LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE ACCUSED:
NIL
4) LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE ACCUSED:
NIL (SMT. LATHA DEVI G.A.) MMTC - IV, BANGALORE.