Bangalore District Court
State By Basavanagudi Traffic P.S vs ) Sri Muniswami V on 15 September, 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 15th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017
C.C.No.9097/2016
COMPLAINANT: State by Basavanagudi Traffic P.S.
(Represented by Learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor)
VS.
ACCUSED: 1) Sri Muniswami V.,
S/o Varadappa Reddy,
Age: 61 years,
No.30/7, 5th main road,
7th cross, Krishnappa Garden,
Chamarajpete,
Bengaluru
2) Srinivasa Murthy,
Age: 59 years,
No.138, 3rd main,
2nd cross, Kasturi Bha Nagara,
Bengaluru
(Represented by Sri H.S. Shivakumar, adv.)
***
2 C.C.No.9097/16
JUDGMENT
The Police Sub-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.134(A & B) R/w. Sec.187, Sec.146 R/w. Sec.196 and Sec.5 R/w.180 of M.V.Act.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 10-05-2016 at about 7.15 p.m. the 1st accused being the driver of Maruthi Omni bearing registration No.KA-41/P-5912 drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner as to endanger human life on Dhobighat road, Brindavan Nagar. While so driving his vehicle he dashed against the Scooter bearing registration No.KA-05/HG-3339 which was proceeding in the opposite direction, in front of Rajeev Gandhi Play ground building. Due to the impact of accident the rider C.W.1 and pillion rider C.W.2 sustained simple injuries. Further the 1st accused did not provide medical aid to the injured nor he intimated the police about the accident, thereby the 1st accused has committed an offence punishable U/s.279 & 337 of IPC, Sec.134(A & B) R/w. Sec.187 of M.V.Act. Further the 2nd accused being the owner of Maruthi Omni bearing registration 3 C.C.No.9097/16 No.KA-41/P-5912 had permitted the 1st accused to drive the vehicle, the said vehicle was not insured on the day of accident, thereby the 2nd accused has committed an offence punishable U/s.146 R/w.196 and Sec.5 R/w.180 of M.V.Act.
3. On the basis of the information lodged by the C.W.1, the PSI has registered the case against the driver of Maruthi Omni bearing registration No.KA- 41/P-5912, alleging offences U/s.279 & 337 of IPC, Sec.134(A & B) R/w. Sec.187, Sec.146 R/w. Sec.196 and Sec.5 R/w.180 of M.V.Act. After completion of the investigation PSI has submitted the charge sheet against the accused alleging offences U/s.279 & 337 of IPC, Sec.134(A & B) R/w. Sec.187, Sec.146 R/w. Sec.196 and Sec.5 R/w.180 of M.V.Act.
4. After filing the charge sheet, this court has registered the case against the accused for the aforesaid offences. In response to service of summons accused has appeared before the court through his learned advocate and got enlarged on bail. Prosecution papers were furnished to the accused as required U/s.207 of Cr.P.C. and proceed with the case. Substance of the accusation was framed and 4 C.C.No.9097/16 read over to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried. His plea was recorded accordingly.
5. In order to prove the guilt of the accused the prosecution has examined 4 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.4 and got marked 9 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9 on their behalf.
6. After the closure of the prosecution case the statement of the accused as required U/s.313 of C.r.P.C. is recorded and read over to the accused. Wherein the accused denied the entire allegations made by the prosecution witnesses and not chosen to lead any defence evidence. Hence this court posted the case for arguments.
7. I have heard the arguments of learned APP for state and learned counsel for the accused and now the case is posted for judgment.
8. Now the points that arise for my consideration are as under:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 10-05-2016 at about 7.15 p.m. the 1st accused being the driver of Maruthi Omni bearing registration No.KA-41/P-5912 drove his 5 C.C.No.9097/16 vehicle in a rash and negligent manner as to endanger human life on Dhobighat road, Brindavan Nagar, 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 he dashed against the Scooter bearing registration No.KA-05/HG-3339 which was proceeding in the opposite direction, in front of Rajeev Gandhi Play ground building. Due to the impact of accident the rider C.W.1 and pillion rider 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 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 beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place the 2nd accused being the owner of the Maruthi Omni bearing registration No.KA-41/P-
5912 had permitted the 1st accused to drive the vehicle, the said vehicle was not insured on the day of accident, thereby you committed offence punishable U/s.146 R/w.196 and Sec.5 R/w.180 of M.V.Act.
5. What order?
6 C.C.No.9097/169. 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: IN NEGATIVE
5. POINT NO.5: AS PER THE FINAL ORDER For the following REASONS
10. POINT No.1 and 2: These points are inter related to each other, hence to avoid the repetition of facts, both these points are taken up together for common discussion at one stretch.
11. It is the case of the prosecution that on 10-05-2016 at about 7.15 p.m. the 1st accused being the driver of Maruthi Omni bearing registration No.KA-41/P-5912 drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner as to endanger human life on Dhobighat road, Brindavan Nagar. While so driving his vehicle he dashed against the Scooter bearing registration No.KA-05/HG-3339 which was proceeding in the opposite direction, in front of Rajeev Gandhi Play ground building. Due to the impact of accident the rider C.W.1 and pillion rider C.W.2 sustained simple injuries. Further the 1st accused did not provide medical aid to the injured 7 C.C.No.9097/16 nor he intimated the police about the accident, thereby the 1st accused has committed an offence punishable U/s.279 & 337 of IPC, Sec.134(A & B) R/w. Sec.187 of M.V.Act. Further the 2nd accused being the owner of Maruthi Omni bearing registration No.KA-41/P-5912 had permitted the 1st accused to drive the vehicle, the said vehicle was not insured on the day of accident, thereby the 2nd accused has committed an offence punishable U/s.146 R/w.196 and Sec.5 R/w.180 of M.V.Act.
12. In order to prove the contents of the complaint, the complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and reiterated the contents of complaint. He has deposed that "¢B 10.05.2016 gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ ¸ÀAeÉ 07.00 UÀAmÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß PÀvÀðªÀå ªÀiÄV¹PÉÆAqÀÄ PÉA¥ÉÃUËqÀ £ÀUÀgÀ fPÉ ¥ÁPï𠧽 £À£Àß ¢éZÀPÀæªÁ£ÀzÀ°è £À£Àß ªÉÆà ¸ÉÊ £ÀAB PÉJ 05 ºÉZïf 3339 gÀ°è £À£Àß CPÀÌ£À ªÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÉgÀzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀĪÁUÀ JzÀgÀÄUÀqɬÄAzÀ ªÀiÁgÀÄw PÁgÀÄ £ÀAB PÉJ 41 n 5912 CwªÉÃUÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CeÁUÀgÀÆPÀvɬÄAzÀ ZÁ®£É ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀÄ, £ÀªÀÄä ªÁºÀ£ÀPÉÌ rQÌ ¥Àr¹gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj C¥ÀWÁvÀzÀ°è £À£ÀUÉ PÉÊ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÁ®ÄUÀ½UÉ wêÀæ ¸ÀégÀÆ¥ÀzÀ UÁAiÀÄUÀ¼ÁzÀªÀÅ. £À£Àß CPÀÌ£À ªÀÄUÀ½UÉ ¸ÀtÚ ¥ÀÅlÖ UÁAiÀÄUÀ¼ÁVzÀݪÀÅ. £À£Àß ¢éZÀPÀæªÁºÀ£À ¸ÀzÀj C¥ÀWÁvÀzÀ°è dRA DVvÀÄÛ. ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀgÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä£ÀÄß D¸ÀàvÉæUÉ zÁR°¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
8 C.C.No.9097/16¸ÀzÀj C¥ÀWÁvÀ £ÉqÀzÀ ¢£ÀzÀAzÀÄ zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß zÁR°¹gÀÄvÉÛãÉ". In his cross-examination by the learned counsel for accused he has admitted that C¥ÀWÁvÀ £ÀqÉzÀ ¢£ÀzÀAzÀÄ WÀl£Á ¸ÀܼÀzÀ°è ºÉZÀÄÑ ªÁºÀ£À ¸ÀAZÁgÀ«vÀÄÛ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. £À£Àß ªÁºÀ£ÀzÀ CPÀÌ ¥ÀPÀÌ »AzÉ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ªÁºÀ£ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ZÀ°¸ÀÄwÛzÀݪÀÅ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. DgÉÆæ ªÁºÀ£ÀzÀ CPÀÌ ¥ÀPÀÌ »AzÉ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ªÁºÀ£ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ZÀ°¸ÀÄwÛzÀݪÀÅ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. CPÀÌ ¥ÀPÀÌ »AzÉ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ªÁºÀ£ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ZÀ°¸ÀÄwÛzÀÝgÉ ¸ÁªÀiÁ£ÀåªÁV EvÀgÉ ªÁºÀ£ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄAzÀUÀwAiÀÄ°è ¸ÁUÀÄvÀÛªÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. C¥ÀWÁvÀzÀ ªÀÄÄAavÀªÁV C¥ÀWÁvÀ ¥Àr¹zÀ ªÁºÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß UÀªÀĤ¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è".
13. P.W.2 is the victim who has deposed that "¢B 10.05.2016 gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ ¸ÀAeÉ 07.00 UÀAmÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è £ÀªÀÄä aPÀÌ¥Àà£À ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ UÉÆ®ègÀºÀnÖUÉ £À£Àß ªÉÆà ¸ÉÊ £À°è £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ZÁ¸Á 01 gÀªÀgÀÄ fAPÉ ¥ÁPïð ºÀwÛgÀ ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛgÀĪÁUÀ N«Äß ªÁå£ï JzÀÄgÀÄUÀqɬÄAzÀ CwªÉÃUÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CeÁUÀgÀÆPÀvɬÄAzÀ ZÁ®£É ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀÄ, £ÀªÀÄä ªÉÆà ¸ÉÊ rQÌ ¥Àr¹zÀ PÁgÀt £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ZÁ¸À 01 gÀªÀgÀÄ PɼÀUÀqÉ ©zÉݪÀÅ. £À£ÀUÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ZÁ¸Á 01 gÀªÀjUÉ ¸ÁzÀsgÀt ¸ÀégÀÆ¥ÀzÀ UÁAiÀÄUÀ¼ÁzÀªÀÅ. ¸ÀzÀj ªÉÆà ¸ÉÊ £ÀA§gï PÉJ 05 3339 DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ZÁ¸Á 01 gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß D¸ÀàvÉæUÉ zÁUÀR°¹zÀgÀÄ £À£ÀߣÀÄß £À£Àß vÀAzÉAiÀĪÀgÀÄ Qè¤PïUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÀgÀÄ. FUÀ £Áå.zÀ ªÀÄÄA¢gÀĪÀ DgÉÆæ D ¢£À ZÁ®PÀ£ÁVzÀÝ£ÀÄ. DgÉÆæUÀ¼À vÀ¦à¤AzÀ ¸ÀzÀj C¥ÀWÁvÀªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ". In her cross-examination by the learned counsel for accused he has admitted 9 C.C.No.9097/16 that "C¥ÀWÁvÀ gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄÄ ¢éªÀÄÄR gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¸ÀzÀj gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ°è gÀ¸ÉÛ «§dPÀ«gÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. zÀlÖ£É ªÁºÀ£À ¸ÀAZÁgÀ«gÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. DzÀ PÁgÀt ªÁºÀ£ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄAzÀUÀwAiÀÄ°è ¸ÁUÀÄvÀÛªÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¸ÀzÀj gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ°è ¸ÁPÀµÀÄÖ ªÁºÀ£ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀAZÀj¸ÀÄwÛzÀݪÀÅ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. DgÉÆæ ªÁºÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß AiÀiÁgÀÄ ZÀ¯Á¬Ä¸ÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ JAzÀgÉ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è".
14. P.W.3 is the eye witness and mahazar witness who has deposed that "¢B 10.05.2016 gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ ¸ÀAeÉ 07.00 jAzÀ 07.15 UÀAmÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è fAPÉ ¥ÁPï𠧽 £Á£ÀÄ ¤AwzÉÝ MAzÀÄ N«Äß ªÁå£ï JzÀÄgÀÄUÀqɬÄAzÀ CwªÉÃUÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CeÁUÀgÀÆPÀvɬÄAzÀ ZÁ®£É ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀÄ, ¢éZÀPÀæªÁºÀ£ÀPÉÌ rQÌ ¥Àr¹gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj C¥ÀWÁvÀzÀ°è ªÉÆà ¸ÉÊ ¸ÀªÁgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÅA§¢ ¸ÀªÁgÀgÀÄ PɼÀUÉ ©zÀÝgÀÄ. £ÀAvÀgÀ ¸ÀzÀjAiÀĪÀgÀ£ÀÄß D¸ÀàvÉæUÉ zÁR°¹zÀgÀÄ. DgÉÆæUÀ¼À vÀ¦à¤AzÀ ¸ÀzÀj C¥ÀWÁvÀªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. FUÀ £Áå.zÀ ªÀÄÄA¢gÀĪÀ DgÉÆæ D ¢£À ZÁ®PÀ£ÁVzÀÝ£ÀÄ. ªÀĺÀdgÀ£ÀÄß ¤.¦.02 ¸À» ¤.¦.02 J JAzÀÄ UÀÄgÀÄw¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ. ¤.¦.02 PÉÌ ¨É½UÉÎ 10.00 UÀAmÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EvÀgÀgÀÄ ¸À» ºÁQgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¤.¦.02 gÀ CA±ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ w½¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. £ÀªÀÄä ¸ÀªÀÄPÀëªÀÄ 02 ªÁºÀ£ÀUÀ£À¼ÀÄß ¥ÉǰøÀgÀÄ ªÀ±À¥Àr¹PÉÆAqÀgÀÄ". In his cross- examination by the learned counsel for accused he has admitted that £Á£ÀÄ EzÀÝ ¸ÀܼÀ¢AzÀ C¥ÀWÁvÀ £ÀqÉzÀ ¸ÀܼÀPÉÌ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 40 jAzÀ 50 Cr CAvÀgÀ«vÀÄÛ. C¥ÀWÁvÀ ¸ÀܼÀPÉÌ £Á£ÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀĪÀµÀÖ° ç è C¥ÀWÁvÀ ¸ÀA¨Às«¹vÀÄÛ. £Á£ÀÄ C¥ÀWÁvÀ ¸ÀܼÀzÀ°èAiÉÄà ¤AwzÉÝ.
10 C.C.No.9097/16¸ÀzÀj gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ°è ªÁºÀ£ÀUÀ¼À ¸ÀAZÁgÀ ºÉZÁÑVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. DzÀ PÁgÀt ªÁºÀ£ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄAzÀUÀwAiÀÄ°è ¸ÁUÀÄvÀÛªÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. DgÉÆæ ªÁºÀ£À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ C¥ÀWÁvÀQÌÃqÁzÀ ªÁºÀ£ÀªÀÅ AiÀiÁªÀ ¢Q̤AzÀ §gÀÄwÛvÀÄÛ JAzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ £ÉÆÃr®è. DgÉÆæ ªÁºÀ£ÀzÀ »AzÉ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ªÁºÀ£ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀAZÀj¸ÀÄwÛzÀݪÀÅ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¤.¦.02 PÉÌ oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è ¸À» ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÉÛãÉAzÀgÉ ¸Àj".
15. P.W.4 is the I.O. who has clearly supported the prosecution and have not given a single admission in their cross-examination by learned counsel for accused.
16. The evidence of P.W.4 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 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 11 C.C.No.9097/16 that unless contrary is proved, the accused is to be treated as innocent.
17. 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.
18. 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 and 2 IN NEGATIVE.
19. POINT No.3: Further it is the case of the prosecution that accused did not provide medical aid to the injured nor he intimated the police about the accident. It is already held that prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec. 279 & 337 of IPC. Hence there is no question proceeding against the accused for the offence punishable U/s.134(A & B) R/w Sec.187 of M.V.Act. Hence I answer POINT No.3 IN NEGATIVE.
12 C.C.No.9097/1620. POINT No.4: Further it is the case of the prosecution that the 2nd accused being the owner of Maruthi Omni bearing registration No.KA-41/P-5912 had permitted the 1st accused to drive the vehicle, the said vehicle was not insured on the day of accident. It is already held that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/s.279 & 337 of IPC. Hence, there is no question proceeding against the accused for the offences punishable U/s.146 R/w.196 and Sec.5 R/w.180 of M.V.Act. Hence I answer point No.4 IN NEGATIVE.
21. POINT No.5: 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.187, Sec.196 and Sec.180 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 15th day of September 2017).
(GAYATHRI.S.KATE) MMTC - IV, BANGALORE.
13 C.C.No.9097/16ANNEXURE
1) LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
P.W.1: Manjunath P.W.2: Sneha P.W.3: Nagaraju P.W.4: Krishnappa
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: Wound certificate Ex.P.6 & 7: IMV Reports Ex.P.8: FIR Ex.P.9: Rough sketch
3) LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE ACCUSED:
NIL
4) LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE ACCUSED:
NIL (GAYATHRI.S.KATE) MMTC - IV, BANGALORE.