Bangalore District Court
Ks Layout Trps vs Somashekar P K on 15 October, 2024
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS
(TRAFFIC COURT - IV) AT BENGALURU
PRESENT: SRI GAGAN M.R. B.A.L LLB
JMFC (Traffic Court - IV),
BENGALURU
DATED : THIS THE 15th DAY OF OCTOBER 2024
C.C.No.2175/2022
COMPLAINANT: State by K.S. Layout
Traffic Police Station, Bangalore
(Represented by: APP)
VS.
ACCUSED: 1) Somashekar P.K.,
S/o. Sri Krishnappa,
Age: 27 years,
R/at No.95, 3rd main road,
Gate No.2, Swarga Rani
School 4th and 4th stage,
H.V. Halli R.R. Nagara,
Bengaluru
(Represented by: Sri Karthik A. Bhargav Adv.)
1. Date of commission of offence : 15-11-2021
2. Offences alleged against accused : U/s.279 and 304(A) of IPC,
Sec.134(a and b) R/w.187,
of M.V.Act.
3. Date of recording of evidence : 30-12-2022
4. Date of closing evidence : 14-08-2024
5. Date of judgment : 15-10-2024
***
2
C.C.No.2175/2022
JUDGEMENT
The Police Inspector of K.S. Layout Traffic Police Station has filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/s.279 and 304(A) of IPC, Sec.134(A & B) R/w Sec.187 of M.V.Act
2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 15-11-2021 at about 6.15 p.m. accused being the rider of motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-02/KD-6299 drove the same on Uttarahalli main road, from Gowdanapalya towards Uttarahalli in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and he dashed to pedestrian who was crossing the road in front of BESCOM office, from Shanimahatma temple towards BESCOM office. Due to the impact the pedestrian Sri C.P. Nagaraju, aged about 80 years fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Later he succumbed to death. Further on the day of accident the accused did not provide medical aid to the injured nor he intimated to the police about the accident, thereby the accused is alleged to have committed the offences punishable U/s.279 and 304(A) of IPC, Sec.134(A & B) R/w.187 of M.V.Act.
3C.C.No.2175/2022
3. Upon taking cognizance, case came to be registered against accused for the offences punishable U/s.279 and 304(A) of IPC, Sec.134(a and b) R/w.187 of M.V.Act. The accused appeared before the court through his counsel & got enlarged on bail. Charge sheet copies furnished to the accused 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 of M.V.Act for which accused pleaded not guilty claimed to be tried.
5. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined P.W.1 to 7 and got exhibited 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 denied all the incriminating evidence appearing against him and did not choose to lead any defence evidence.
6. Heard arguments on both sides.
7. The points that arise for my consideration are as follows:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 15-11-2021 at about 6.15 p.m. accused being the rider of motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-4
C.C.No.2175/2022 02/KD-6299 drove the same on Uttarhalli main road, from Gowdanapalya towards Uttarhalli in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life, 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 he dashed to pedestrian who was crossing the road in front of BESCOM office, from Shanimahatma temple towards BESCOM office. Due to the impact the pedestrian Sri C.P. Nagaraju, aged about 80 years fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Later he succumbed to death, thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable U/s.304(A) 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. What order?
8. My answer to the above points are as under:
POINT No.1: IN THE NEGATIVE POINT No.2: IN THE NEGATIVE POINT No.3: IN THE AFFIRMATIVE POINT No.4: AS PER THE FINAL ORDER For the following 5 C.C.No.2175/2022 REASONS
9. POINT No.1 to 3: For the sake of convenience and to avoid repetition of facts, these points are taken up for common discussion to have brevity.
10. It is the case of the prosecution that on 15-11-2021 at about 6.15 p.m. accused being the rider of motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-02/KD-6299 drove the same on Uttarhalli main road, from Gowdanapalya towards Uttarhalli in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and he dashed to pedestrian who was crossing the road in front of BESCOM office, from Shanimahatma temple towards BESCOM office. Due to the impact the pedestrian Sri C.P. Nagaraju, aged about 80 years fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Later he succumbed to death. Further on the day of accident the accused did not provide medical aid to the injured nor he intimated to the police about the accident, thereby the accused is alleged to have committed the offences punishable U/s.279 and 304(A) of IPC, Sec.134(A & B) R/w.187 of M.V.Act.
11. In order to prove the contents of complaint the prosecution examined 7 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.7 and marked 10 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10.
6C.C.No.2175/2022
12. C.W.1/ Akash is examined as P.W.1 who is the complainant of this case. He deposed that on 15-11-2021 between 6.15 to 6.20 p.m. while he was in home one unknown person called him and informed that his grand father had met with an accident near BESCOM office. Immediately he rushed to the spot, where his grand father sustained injuries on his face and head. He got scared. Upon enquiry the police and other personals told that bike rider dashed to his grandfather who was crossing the road. Later he shifted his grand father to nearby Maharaja hospital. The rider also there, he told him to come to hospital. He said he will come you go. He taken his grandfather to hospital where his grand father took treatment. After two days he lodged complaint against the rider of the two wheeler bearing registration No.KA-02-KD-6299. After filing complaint, police came with him. Police conducted spot mahazar and prepared one rough sketch. The accident has taken place due to the negligent act of the two wheeler rider. He has identified the accused present before the court.
During his cross-examination by accused counsel he deposed that he does not know the person who informed him about the accident, accident has taken place at a 7 C.C.No.2175/2022 distance of 100 mtrs from his house. HE admits he has not seen the accident and before he went near accident spot people gathered at accident spot. He deposed he came to know about the accident from police. He denied the suggestions of the accused counsel.
13. C.W.2 / Prakash is examined as P.W.2 who is eye witness of this case. He deposed that on 15-11- 2021 between 5.00 to 6.00 p.m. while he was proceeding from Gowdanapalya towards Uttarahalli in his two wheeler, at that time one aged person was crossing the road from Shanimahatma temple towards BESCOM office. One two wheeler rider came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the person who was crossing the road. Due to the impact the pedestrian sustained injuries. He helped the injured. Police took his mobile number and later he left from there. On 17-11-2021 police summoned him. He went to the spot, at about 11.00 a.m . police conducted mahazar and obtained his signature over the same. The accident has taken place due to the negligent act of the two wheeler rider. Later he came to know that the injured succumbed to death. In this regard he has given statement before police. The learned APP treated the witness as partly hostile and cross-examined him with the permission of the court.
8C.C.No.2175/2022 During his cross-examination by the learned APP he admits that the accused came from his behind in vehicle No.KA-02-KD-6299 and dashed to injured. He denied the suggestion that he has informed the accident to his family members. He denied the suggestions of APP with regard to informing the family members.
During his cross-examination by the accused counsel he deposed that he works as Electrician and he does not had any specific place of work. He admits in the said road normally there is a heavy traffic and several curves in the said road. He deposed that there is no zebra crossing at accident spot. He deposed that he has signed the mahazar in police station. He denied the suggestions of the accused counsel.
14. C.W.3/ Shivamalla is examined as P.W.3 who is eye witness of this case. He deposed that on 15-11- 2021 between 6.00 to 6.30 p.m. while was standing near BESCOM office of Uttarhalli road. At that time one Yamaha motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-02-KD- 6299 came from Kumarswamy Layout towards Uttarhalli in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to one aged person who was crossing the road from Shaneshwara temple towards BESCOM office. Due to the impact the 9 C.C.No.2175/2022 pedestrian sustained grievous injuries. Later one women police came there and informed about the accident to his relatives. His family members came to the spot. Later Ambulance came and shifted the injured to hospital. The bike rider left from there. The accident has taken place due to the rash and negligent act of the rider of the motor cycle. Later he came to know the injured name is Nagaraj. Later Police informed that the said Nagaraj succumbed to death. Police called him to station, they showed the accused, he has identified the accused. Later he came to know the accused name is Somashekar. In this regard he has given statement before police. He has identified the accused present before the court.
During his cross-examination by the accused counsel he denied there is a curve at accident spot. He admits about high density traffic at accident spot. Further deposed it is a vide road. He contended there is a zebra cross at accident spot. He deposed that he has identified the accused in police station. He denied the suggestions of the accused counsel.
15. C.W.6/ Venkatesh is examined as P.W.4 who is mahazar witness of this case. He deposed that on 17- 11-2021 police conducted mahazar regarding the 10 C.C.No.2175/2022 accident taken place between one two wheeler and pedestrian on 15-11-2021 and asked him become a witness, he agreed. Police conducted mahazar between 11.00 am to 12.00 p.m. at Chikkallsandra junction in his presence and prepared one rough sketch and obtained his signature.
During his cross-examination by the accused counsel he deposed that he has signed the mahazar in police station. He denied the suggestions of the accused counsel.
16. C.W.4/ Kumar is examined as P.W.5 who is eye witness of this case. He deposed that in the year 2021 at around 6.00 p.m. while he was waiting for his friend near Chikkalsandra temple, at that time one two wheeler came and dashed to one aged person. Immediately he and public went to help the injured, women police also came there. Later the injured was shifted to hospital in an ambulance. He does not know the number of the vehicle. He has not seen the rider fo the vehicle. After 4-5 days police summoned him and he explained about the accident. The learned APP treated the witness as partly hostile and cross-examined him with the permission of the court. During his cross-examination by the learned 11 C.C.No.2175/2022 APP he admits the suggestion with regard to date, time and place of accident. He admits the suggestion that the accused came from gowdanapalya side and dashed to aged person. He denied the suggestion with regard to vehicle number which caused accident. He admits he has seen the accused at accident spot, but did not identify the accused present before the court. He admits the suggestion with regard to manner of accident.
During his cross-examination by the accused counsel he deposed that there is a high density of traffic at accident spot and admits before he went near accident spot people gathered at accident spot. He admits he has not seen the accident live and he does not know which vehicle has caused accident. He deposed that he is seeing the accused for the first time in the court. He denied the suggestions of the accused counsel.
17. C.W.16/ Sri Kumar is examined as P.W.6 who is the 1st Investigating Officer of this case. He deposed that while he was discharging his duty, he received a information from Maharaja Agrasena hospital that the injured person admitted in their hospital due to accident. He went to hospital there injured was not in a position to give statement and later went to accident spot. C.W.1 12 C.C.No.2175/2022 came to police station and given written complaint, he received the same and on the basis of said complaint he registered the case in Crime No.178/2021 against the accused and forwarded the same to court and higher officers. On the same day he visited the accident spot and conducted mahazar between 11.00 a.m. to 12.00 p.m. in the presence of C.W.2 and 6 and prepared one rough sketch. Later he handed over the case file to C.W.17 for further investigation. During his cross-examination he denied the suggestions of the accused counsel.
18. C.W.17/ Venkatesh T is examined as P.W.7 who is the 2nd Investigating Officer of this case. He deposed that he received case file from C.W.16 and conducted further investigation. On 18-11-2021 while he was discharging his duty in Banashankari Police station he received the death intimation and forwarded the request to include Sec.304(a) of IPC to the court. Later he shifted the body to KIMS hospital for further procedure. Later he visited KIMS Hospital mortuary and conducted inquest mahazar in the presence of C.W.w to 9 between 12.00 to 01.00 p.m. and later requested the doctor to conduct postmortem. Later his personal produced the accused before him, he obtained further statement from C.W.4 and 5 with regard to identification on the basis of 13 C.C.No.2175/2022 identification he followed the arrest procedure and produced before the court. 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 RTO. After completion of vehicle inspection, he collected the motor vehicle inspection report. He collected the postmortem report. Upon perusal of records it is noticed that the investigation is completed and submitted final report to the Hon'ble court. During his cross-examination he denied the suggestions of the accused counsel.
19. Out of the documents marked for prosecution Ex.P.1 is the complaint, Ex.P.2 is the Spot mahazar, Ex.P.3 is the rough sketch, Ex.P.4 is the FIR, Ex.P.5 is the inquest mahazar, Ex.P.6 is the 133 notice, Ex.P.7 is the reply, Ex.P.8 is the P.M. Report, Ex.P.9 is the IMV Report and Ex.P.10 is the Indemnity bond.
20. In the instant case the prosecution is alleging that the accused being the rider of the two wheeler drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and caused accident due to which the victim succumbed to death and prosecution contended that accused committed the offences punishable U/s.279 and 304(A) of IPC. Section 279 IPC deals with rash and negligent driving of any 14 C.C.No.2175/2022 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.
21. 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 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.
22. The prosecution has to establish that the accused is the person who is driving the vehicle on the alleged day. The rider drove his vehicle in rash and 15 C.C.No.2175/2022 negligent manner and due to his negligent act the deceased succumbed to death. To prove that aspect the prosecution has examined in total seven witnesses though they have listed out 17 witnesses in the charge sheet. In the instant case the prosecution has examined the complainant and two eye witnesses, one mahazar witness and two investigating officers. Prosecution contended that P.W.2, 3 and 5 are the eye witnesses and they have supported the case of the prosecution and deposed that accused drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to pedestrian. The said version was supported by the investigating officer and hence they have proved their case. The contention of the accused is that he is not denying that he has not caused the accident, but contended the aged person all of a sudden came to the road in a restricted area and the incident has taken place and due to his negligence the alleged incident has taken place and accused has not driven his vehicle in rash and negligent manner.
23. In the case on hand the complainant is a hearsay witness and he deposed in clarity he does not know anything about the accident and he has not disclosed the name of the person who provided him the information stated in the complaint. He admits based on 16 C.C.No.2175/2022 the information provided by the police he has lodged the complaint. He claims since his house is situated within 100 mtrs soon after the knowledge he went to accident spot and there he has seen the accused. P.W.2, 3 and 5 claims themselves as eye witnesses and P.W.2 claims he was proceeding in the said road and in his front the alleged accident has taken place and he has witnessed the incident live. P.W.3 claims he was waiting in front of BESCOM office and he saw the accident. PW..5 claims he was standing in front of temple at that time accident has taken place. Here P.W.5 though claims himself to be the eye witness the said witness in his cross-examination clearly admits he has not seen the accident live and before he went near accident spot people gathered at accident spot and he got information from them. Though he was subjected to cross-examination by APP he did not depose the number of the vehicle which caused accident and he refused to identify the accused present before the court. P.W.5 is of no use to prosecution since he has not supported the prosecution case. The prosecution relied its case on P.W.2 and 3.
24. P.W.2 claims he was proceeding in the said road and accident has taken place in his front. The said witness partly turned hostile and he was subjected to 17 C.C.No.2175/2022 cross-examination wherein he admits the suggestion that the accused over taken his vehicle and caused accident. According to prosecution he is the person who has taken the mobile of the injured and intimated to his family members, but said version was denied by the witness and he denied the suggestion in cross-examination by APP as well. The said witness claims he has seen the incident live. He deposed that there is no curve at accident spot and there is no zebra cross at accident spot. He speaks about a lady PC at accident spot. He contended that he has signed the mahazar in police station. He admits near accident spot there is a high density of traffic and he denies the suggestion that there is no option for driving the vehicle in high speed. The other eye witness upon which the prosecution is relying P.W.3 who claims he was standing at BESCOM office and he has saw the accident live. The said witness in his cross-examination deposed that there is no curve at accident spot, but admits there is a high density of traffic at accident spot. He deposed that there is a zebra cross at accident spot. He deposed that he has seen the accused previously in police station. The investigating officer is examined as P.W.7 who deposed that there is a curve at accident spot and accident has taken place on zebra crossing.
18C.C.No.2175/2022
25. Learned APP contended P.W.2 and 3 supported their case and they have proved their case. As discussed earlier the prosecution has the burden to prove the negligence of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Both the witnesses deposed in similar lines and deposed that the accused drove his bike in high speed and dashed to pedestrian who was crossing the road. Both the witnesses deposed that they have not seen the bike prior to accident. P.W.2 in cross-examination by APP admits accused over taken his bike. As per the sketch map the accident spot is situated at a distance of 3ft from the left side edge of the road. P.W.2 did not deposed from which side the accused over taken his vehicle. As per Ex.P.3 i.e., sketch map there is a curve road and the road divide into two sides and accused came from left side curve. Both PW..2 and 3 deposed that there is no curve at accident spot. As per IO and sketch map there is a curve. P.W.2 claims there is no zebra cross at accident spot, P.W.3 claims there is a existence of zebra cross at accident spot. Both the witness claims soon after the accident they went to help the injured and with the help of women police constable they have taken the injured to side of the road, the prosecution did not listed out the women police constable in their list of witness, even P.W.1 also speaks 19 C.C.No.2175/2022 about women police constable. Both P.W.2 and 3 deposed accused came and dashed to injured. Both the witness did not speak about the manner of negligence of the accused they did not deposed whether the accused driven his vehicle in high speed, whether he made attempt to over take whether he has driven the vehicle violating the traffic rules nothing is deposed by tghem. They simply claims he came and dashed to aged person. Admittedly injured in the above case is a aged person who is 80 years of age.
26. The injured was crossing the road at around 5.00 p.m. which means it is a busy time. As per the witness there was a police constable who was discharging the duty. Whether he has managed the traffic to provide option for crossing the road by pedestrian nothing is placed by the prosecution.
27. The case of the prosecution is about crossing the road its speaks that the pedestrian was crossing the road and at that time accused came from behind and dashed to pedestrian. There is a contradiction in the statement of the witness and prosecution on this aspect. Apart from eye witness the prosecution has examined investigating officers they deposed in detail about their 20 C.C.No.2175/2022 duty. The prosecution is contending that the accused being the driver of the bike caused untoward incident, due to this negligent act the victim sustained grievous injuries. In order to establish the same the prosecution has examined only circumstantial witnesses, the burden upon the prosecution is to prove the negligence. The same has to be proved through cogent evidence. The aspect of negligence cannot be proved on preponderance of probability and the same has to be established beyond reasonable doubt. Here there are several material contradictions between the two eye witnesses upon which the prosecution is relying. One witness claims about existence of zebra cross other claims no zebra cross. Both of them claims there is no curve at accident spot, but the sketch map prepared by IO shows about existence of curve. P.W.2 claims accused over taken him and caused accident as per sketch map the accident spot is just 3ft from the left side edge of the road. He has not contended that accused over taken from his right and moved towards extreme left. These factors raises doubt about the presence of P.W.2 and 3 at accident spot. All the witness speaks about lady police constable, but the said constable was not listed as witness. Why she was left out is best known to investigating officer. The examined other eye 21 C.C.No.2175/2022 witness P.W.5 turned hostile with regard to vehicle involved in the accident and identification of accused. P.W.2 claims he seen the accused in police station, he did not mentioned when has seen him. As per the version of the prosecution the accused flee away from the accident spot without providing the medical aid and intimating the police. If that version is taken into consideration the witness seeing the accused at accident spot appears to be doubtful. None of the witness deposed that they have seen the accused driving the vehicle in a negligent manner and the said negligent act is the root cause for the death of the victim. Prosecution claims the injured died due to injuries caused during accident. Upon perusal of Ex.P.8 i.e., postmortem report the cause of death is due to multiple injuries, but his head and spinal card portion was intact and his abdominal and urinary system was also intact. The injured sustained injury on legs and he has not suffered injury or damage over his lungs or abdominal portion. Without damage to vital organs the death cannot be considered due to multiple injuries. The prosecution failed to establish that the injured died due to injury sustained in road traffic accident, which shows the prosecution failed to establish the second part of Sec.304(a) of IPC.
22C.C.No.2175/2022
28. Upon perusal of the records of the instant case though the witness speak about collusion by the vehicle, but they did not speak about any attempt to over take the other vehicle or high speed of the vehicle on the said road, admittedly the said road is quite wider enough for movement of large vehicles and it is one way road with divider. The accident has taken place in the left corner of the road and pedestrian came to the road in a restricted area to cross the road. The investigating officer as well as eye witness clearly admits about existence of zebra crossing, but other eye witness and complainant disputed the existence of zebra crossing. If there is no zebra cross at accident spot there is no option for pedestrian movement at accident spot which speaks of negligence on the part of the deceased. Negligence is the absence of care and caution whereas culpable rashness results from lack of circumspection. Generally the speed of the bike will be lesser than the normal speed while taking turn. High speed is a relative term and that has to be examined in the light of the facts & circumstances of the case. In the instant case the allegation is the accused has driven his vehicle to left side and in that process it came in contact with the person who was proceeding in the the road. With the available materials the court cannot come 23 C.C.No.2175/2022 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. 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: 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. Accordingly he has committed the offence punishable U/s.134(a and b) R/w.187 of M.V.Act. The accused has not contested this aspect and did not cross-examine the witnesses on this aspect, and they did not furnish any documents to deny the case of 24 C.C.No.2175/2022 the prosecution with regard to the allegations leveled against him. Hence, the court answer this point IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
31. POINT No.4: 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 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.
Accused is hereby directed to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offences punishable U/s.134(a and b) R/w.187 of M.V.Act in default he shall undergo SI for 3 months.
25C.C.No.2175/2022 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 15th day of October 2024).
(GAGAN M.R.) JMFC (Traffic Court -IV), BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE
1. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
P.W.1: Akash P.W.2: Prakash P.W.3: Shivamalla P.W.4: Venkatesh P.W.5: Kumar P.W.6: Kumar P.W.7: Venkatesh
2. LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1: Complaint Ex.P.2: Spot mahazar Ex.P.3: Rough Sketch Ex.P.4: FIR Ex.P.5: Inquest mahazar Ex.P.6: 133 notice Ex.P.7: Reply Ex.P.8: P.M. Report Ex.P.9: IMV Report Ex.P.10: Indemnity bond 26 C.C.No.2175/2022
3. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE ACCUSED:
NIL
4. LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE ACCUSED:
NIL (GAGAN M.R.) JMFC (Traffic Court -IV), BENGALURU.