Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Bangalore District Court

State By Hulimavu Traffic P.S vs ) Murugan M. S/O. Mariyappan on 20 September, 2018

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

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

    DATED : THIS THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018
                        C.C.No.6795/2018
COMPLAINANT: State by Hulimavu Traffic P.S.

                            VS.
ACCUSED:       1) Murugan M. S/o. Mariyappan,
                 Age: 27 years,
                 R/at No.27, 7th main road,
                 BTM 2nd stage, N.S. Palya,
                 Bangalore

   The date of commission of        23-03-2018
1. the offence
2. The offences complained of       U/s.279 & 338 of IPC, Sec.129
                                    R/w.177 and Sec.146 R/w.196 of
                                    M.V.Act.

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

6. Accused defence by               Sri H.S. Shivakumar

7. Date of order                    20-09-2018


                                  ***
                            2              C.C.No.6795/18



                     JUDGEMENT

The Police Inspector of Hulimavu Traffic police station has filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/s.279 & 338 of IPC, Sec.129 R/w.177 and Sec.146 R/w.196 of M.V.Act.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 23-03-2018 at about 12.45 p.m. the accused being the rider of Honda Dio bearing registration No.KA- 51/EU-4050 drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner as to endanger human life on Bannerghatta main road. While so driving his vehicle without wearing helmet from Gottigere towards Meenakshi mall junction without any indication suddenly he took 'U' turn and dashed against the Honda Activa bearing registration No.KA-05/HY-5383 which was proceeding in the same direction. Due to the impact of accident the vehicle was damaged and the rider C.W.1 sustained grievous injuries on left shoulder and left leg. Further the accused was not in a possession vehicle insurance on the day of accident, thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable U/s.279 & 338 of IPC, Sec.129 R/w.177 and Sec.146 R/w.196 of M.V.Act.

3. This court took the cognizance of the offence and the accused was provided with the copies of the charge sheet. When plea was read over to the accused, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined 1 witness out of 11 witnesses as P.W.1 and marked 1 document as Ex.P.1. Further the accused counsel filed a memo stating that the examination of C.W.2 to C.W.11 may be given up with consent.

5. The statement of the accused as provided U/s.313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded and when the incriminating evidence appearing against the accused was read over to him, he offered no explanation. The points that arise for consideration are:

1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 23-03-2018 at about 12.45 p.m. the accused being the rider of Honda Dio bearing registration No.KA-51/EU-4050 drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner as to endanger human life on Bannerghatta main road. While so driving his vehicle without wearing helmet from Gottigere towards Meenakshi mall junction without any indication suddenly he took 'U' turn and 4 C.C.No.6795/18 dashed against the Honda Activa bearing registration No.KA-05/HY-5383 which was proceeding in the same direction.

Due to the impact of accident the vehicle was damaged and the rider C.W.1 sustained grievous injuries on left shoulder and left leg. Further the accused was not in a possession vehicle insurance on the day of accident, thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable U/s.279 & 338 of IPC, Sec.129 R/w.177 and Sec.146 R/w.196 of M.V.Act., thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable U/s.279 & 338 of IPC, Sec.129 R/w.177 and Sec.146 R/w.196 of M.V.Act.?

2. What order?

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

1. POINT No.1: IN THE AFFIRMATIVE

2. POINT No.2: AS PER THE FINAL ORDER For the following REASONS

7. POINT No.1: It is the case of the prosecution that on 23-03-2018 at about 12.45 p.m. the accused being the rider of Honda Dio bearing registration No.KA-51/EU-4050 drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner as to endanger human life on Bannerghatta main road. While so driving his vehicle without wearing helmet from Gottigere towards Meenakshi mall junction without any indication 5 C.C.No.6795/18 suddenly he took 'U' turn and dashed against the Honda Activa bearing registration No.KA-05/HY-5383 which was proceeding in the same direction. Due to the impact of accident the vehicle was damaged and the rider C.W.1 sustained grievous injuries on left shoulder and left leg. Further the accused was not in a possession vehicle insurance on the day of accident, thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable U/s.279 & 338 of IPC, Sec.129 R/w.177 and Sec.146 R/w.196 of M.V.Act.

8. C.W.1 examined as P.W.1 he deposed that on 23-03-2018 at about 12.45 p.m. offender vehicle bearing registration No.KA-51/EU-4057 came in rash and negligent manner from Bannerghatta main road Gottigere towards Meenakshi temple and hit against a motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-05/HY- 5383. Due to the impact of accident he sustained grievous injuries in the said accident. By the fault of the accused rider the said accident has occurred. The accused present before the court was the rider of the offender vehicle on the day of the accident. In this regard he has lodged a complaint Ex.P.1.

9. Among the witnesses examined by the prosecution C.W.1 - P.W.1 is the complainant.

10. With the consent of accused counsel C.W.2 to C.W.11 are given up. On the other hand the learned APP has not objected the consent given by the accused counsel.

11. The learned APP argued that accident was occurred only due to the fault of the accused that he drove the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. In that regard, C.W.1 who is none other than the complainant has supported the prosecution case. Therefore, he prays for convict the accused for the said offences.

12. In a road traffic accident cases first the prosecution has to prove the rash and negligent driving of the accused. In order to prove this fact the case in hand the prosecution fully depend upon the evidence of C.W.1 who is none other than the complainant and complainant of this case who deposed about the accident. On the other hand the accused has not disputed the fact that he was the driver of the said vehicle on the day of the accident. Here itself it is pertinent to note that while recording 7 C.C.No.6795/18 313 statement the accused has not offered any explanation and P.W.1 has not been cross-examined. As such it can be safely said that the accused does not dispute the fact that the accident had occurred due to his rash and negligent driving. In view of the discussion made supra, this court considered view that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed an offence punishable U/s.279 & 338 of IPC, Sec.129 R/w.177 and Sec.146 R/w.196 of M.V.Act. Hence for the above discussion I answer point No.1 IN AFFIRMATIVE.

13. POINT No.2: In view of the above discussions and findings I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER Acting U/s.255(2) of Cr.P.C. the accused is convicted for the offences punishable U/s.279 & 338 of IPC, Sec.177 and Sec.196 of 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.100/- for the offence punishable U/s.177 of M.V.Act.

                The accused shall pay       a fine of
          Rs.1,000/- for the offence        punishable
          U/s.196 of M.V.Act.

In total the accused shall pay a fine of Rs.3,100/- on default he shall undergo S.I. for a period of 30 days.

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 20th day of September 2018) (GAYATHRI.S.KATE) MMTC - IV, BANGALORE.

ANNEXURE

1) LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:

P.W.1: Mohammd Rafiq Khan

2) LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION:

Ex.P.1: Complaint

3) LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE ACCUSED:

NIL

4) LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE ACCUSED:

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