Bangalore District Court
State By vs Vs. Raja S on 30 April, 2018
20 C.C.No.11720/2016
30-04-2018.
Judgement pronounced in the open court
(vide separately.)
ORDER
Acting U/Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused is hereby acquitted for the offences punishable U/Sec.279 & 304(A) of Indian Penal Code and under Sec.134(B) R/w. Sec. 187 of IMV Act.
The bail bond and surety bonds of the accused shall remain in force, till appeal period is over.
P.O. MMTC-1., Bangalore.
19 C.C.No.11720/201618 C.C.No.11720/2016 LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON PROSECUSION SIDE:
Ex.P.1 : Complaint Ex.P1(a,b) : signature of PW1, 8 Ex.P.2 : Spot mahazar Ex.P2(a,b,c) : Signature of PW.-2, 3,8 Ex.P.3 : Inquest. Ex.P3a : sign of PW8 Ex.P.4 : Post mortem report. Ex.P4a : sign of PW.-8 Ex.P.5 : Death intimation. Ex.P.6 : IMV report. Ex.P6a : sign of PW.-8 Ex.P.7 : 133 notice Ex.P.8 : Reply of 133 notice. Ex.P.9 : Photo Ex.P.10 : FIR. Ex.P10a : sign of PW.-8 Ex.P.11 : Rough sketch Ex.P.11(a) : sign of PW.-8 Ex.P12 : police notice. Ex.P12a : sign of PW.-8
LIST OF WITNESS EXAMINED ON DEFENCE SIDE:
---NIL---
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON DEFENCE SIDE:
---NIL---
P.O, MMTC-I, MAYOHALL UNIT, BANGALORE.17 C.C.No.11720/2016
ORDER Acting U/Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused is hereby acquitted for the offences punishable U/Sec.279 & 304(A) of Indian Penal Code and under Sec.134(B) R/w. Sec. 187 of IMV Act.
The bail bond and surety bonds of the accused shall remain in force, till appeal period is over. (Dictated to the Stenographer directly on the computer, and some part of the text dictated, typed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30th day of April, 2018 ).
(Sanjeev Kumar S.Hindoddi) P.O., MMTC-I, MAYOHALL UNIT, BANGALORE.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESS EXAMINED ON PROSECUSION SIDE:
PW.1 : Murali Babu
PW.2 : Jayaraj
PW.3 : Suresh .N
PW.4 : Rajasimha
PW.5 : Ramamurthy.
PW.6 : Manjula.
PW.7 : Shylaja
PW.8 : Mahesh Kanakagi
16 C.C.No.11720/2016
the road . Whereas PWs. 5 to7 who are important eye witnesses to the prosecution case , they have not deposed that accused had drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner from Gangamma temple and thereby hit Shrutika and caused the death of the said deceased Shrutika. But as per the eye witnesses , the accident occurred while taking the said vehicle in a reverse manner but as per the prosecution case, accused came and hit from the front side of the vehicle. Hence, it creates doubt what actually happened . In the absence of corroborative evidence being eye witnesses and not supported the prosecution story. Hence, it creates doubt that accused really caused the accident and hence, I rely on a decision reported in (2008(4) Crimes 241(SC) in the case of Renumalliah Vs. State of Andhrapradesh. The benefit of doubt always goes to the accused. Hence, the prosecution is utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Consequently, I answer the Points No.1 to 3 in the Negative.
20. Point No. 4:- For the aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the following:15 C.C.No.11720/2016
18. On perusal of the evidence of PWs.5 to 7 who are eye witnesses to the accident , these three witnesses have deposed that TATA mobile vehicle No.13C-097089E dashed against the Shrutika without observing the said Shrutika who was standing backside of the vehicle while the accused taking the vehicle reverse and thereby she sustained injury over her head ,due to the said injuries , she succumbed to it. Whereas these three witnesses have given statement before the Investigating Officer that, accused came from Gangamma temple in the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and he hit the Shrutika who was walking on the left side of the road . In the cross-examination PW.-8 Investigating Officer deposed that these PWs. 5 to 7 have not stated in their statement about the accident happened while taking reverse. There is no corroboration between the evidence of PWs.1 , 5 to 8 whereas, PW.-1 deposed in one version and the eye witnesses PWs. 5 to 7 deposed in another version and there is contradictions in the evidence of PW.-1 which is in Ex.P1 and the evidence of PWs. 5 to 7.
19. As per the prosecution case, the accused came from Gangamma temple in the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and he hit the Shrutika who was walking on the left side of 14 C.C.No.11720/2016 »ªÀÄÄäRªÁV rQÌ¥Àr¹zÀ ¨UÉÎ ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀ ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj and further admits that witnesses not stated in their statement that, the children were playing on the road on the date of accident. Further, he admits that he has not filed any documents to show that the accused was the driver of the said offending vehicle on the date of accident.
17. On perusal of the entire evidence of PWs 1 to 8 , the important witnesses to the prosecution case are that PW.-1 who is the complainant . PWs. 5 to 7 are eye witnesses to the accident. As per the prosecution case, PW.-1 is hearsay witness lodged the complaint against the accused stating that TATA Mobile vehicle bearing No.13C-097089E, driver Raja. S drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and hit his brother's daughter by name Shrutika who was walking on the left side of the road, when the Shrutika fell down on the road, vehicle ran over on head of Shrutika thereby she sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to it. PW.-1 deposed that complaint is marked at Ex.P1 during the course of cross-examination by the defence counsel, he admits that in Ex.P1, he has not mentioned that who has informed about the accident , but in his chief examination he deposed that his Son informed about the accident.13 C.C.No.11720/2016
16. PW.-8 Mahesh Kanakagi P.I. deposed that on 01-01-
2016 at 9.00 a.m. he received complaint as per Ex.P1 from CW-1 and the case was registered under Cr.No.1/2016, sent FIR as per Ex.P10 to the court, and on the same day, at Bowring hospital he conducted inquest mahzar on the body of the deceased in the presence of CWs.7 to 9 as per Ex.P3, recorded the statement of CW 10, on the same day between 1.30 p.m. to 2.30 p.m. in the presence of CWs 2 and 3 conducted spot mahazar as per Ex.P2, prepared rough sketch as per Ex.P11, recorded the statement of CWs. 4 to 6 . He further deposed that on 2-1-2016 he issued police notice to CW-11 to produce the offending vehicle and he also issued notice U/s.133 and received reply which are marked at Ex.P7 and Ex.P8, sent requisition to the RTO, K.R. Pura for inspection of the vehicles involved in the accident , they have given IMV report as per Ex.P6, recorded the further statement of CWs 1 and 4 to 6, thereafter he arrested the accused and produced the accused before the court. He further deposed that on 8-01-2016 received P.M. report as per Ex.P4 and after completion of the investigation, he submitted chargesheet against the accused . During the course of cross-examination by the defence counsel, he deposed that the vehicle hit from the front portion. Further , he admits that, ªÁºÀ£ÀªÀÅ 12 C.C.No.11720/2016 No.13C-097089E child Shrutika was standing, accused without observing the child , took the vehicle in a speed manner reversly , due to the impact, the child fell down and sustained injury over her head and accused took the child to the hospital and herself and CW -5 went to the hospital and came to know the child was dead. She further stated that, she identifies the accused as driver of the said vehicle and she has given statement before the police and identified the photos of the car as per Ex.P9. This witness has been partly treated as hostile by the prosecution . During the course of cross-examination by the Sr.APP., she denied that the police have recorded her further statement . During the course of cross-examination by the defence counsel she deposed that child was playing shuttle cock with other 3 to 4 children. Further she has not stated before the police in her statement that child was playing and the police not read over the statement to her . Further she deposed that ªÀiUÀÄ UÁrAiÀÄ »AzÀÄUÀqÉ EzÁÝUÀ DgÉÆæ vÀ£Àß ªÁºÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß jªÀ¸ïð vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÁUÀ C¥À¥sÁvÀ DVvÀÄÛ UÁrAiÀÄ JqÀ¨sÁUÀ¢AzÀ C¥À¥sÁvÀ DVzÉ and further deposed that CWs.1, 4 and 5 are neighbours of her. Further she denied the suggestion made by the defence counsel.
11 C.C.No.11720/2016
14. PW.-6 Manjula has deposed in her evidence that she knows you accused and child Shrutika , and that on 31-12-2014 at 4.30 p.m. when she was in her house compound, at Gangamma temple road, near the house of you accused , behind the vehicle the child was playing , you accused took the vehicle in reverse manner and dashed against the child , the child fell down and sustained injury over head, you accused took the child to the Lakshmi hospital and she also went to the hospital and came to know the child was dead. She further deposed that she identified accused as driver of the said vehicle and vehicle bears the No.13C-097089E and white colour and she identifies the photos of the car as per Ex.P9. During the course of cross-examination by the defence counsel, she deposed that deceased child was playing badminton with the other children on the road . Further she admits that Cws.1, 4 and 7 are neighbours of her and also known accused person. Further she denied the suggestion made by the defence counsel.
15. PW.-7 Sylaja deposed that she knows accused . That on 31-12-2015 at about 4.30 p.m. at Gangamma street, she was standing near her house, behind the TATA mobile vehicle bearing 10 C.C.No.11720/2016 person of the said vehicles. Further, he deposed that he has given reply to the notice given by the police for releasing of the vehicle.
13. PW.-5 Ramamurthy has deposed that on 31-12-2015 at 4.30 p.m. after finishing her work going to her home at that time, at Vijayaraja Layout, Mulakattamma temple , towards Gangamma temple road near the house of accused behind the vehicle TATA Mobile vehicle bearing No.13C-097089E child Shrutika , aged 6 years was there , accused without observing of standing of child took back the vehicle in a speed, child sustained injury over her head and fell down and thereafter you took the child to the hospital. He further deposed that himself along with other public went to the hospital, on enquiry, he came to know the child was dead and he identified accused as driver of the said vehicle, and he has given statement before the police . During the course of cross- examination he deposed that ªÀiUÀÄ UÁrAiÀÄ »AzÀÄUÀqÉ EzÁÝUÀ DgÉÆæ vÀ£Àß ªÁºÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß jªÀ¸ïð vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ C¥À¥sÁvÀ DVvÀÄÛ UÁrAiÀÄ JqÀ¨sÁUÀ¢AzÀ C¥À¥sÁvÀ DVzÉ . Further, he denied the suggestion made by the defence counsel. Further , he admits that CWs. 1, 5 and 6 are the neighbours of him.
9 C.C.No.11720/2016identified his signature as per Ex.P2(a) and Ex.P2(b) respectively. This witness has been treated partly hostile to the prosecution case. In the cross-examination by the learned Sr.APP this witness admits panchanama and denied that CW-3 also signed the said panchanama. During the course of cross-examination by the defence counsel, PW.-2 admits that Ex.P2 was not read over to him and also admits that CW-1 is also very well known to him. Further he admits that, he signed Ex.P2 in the Police Station. PW.-3 was treated partly hostile to the case of prosecution . During the course of cross-examination by the learned Sr.APP, he denied the suggestion made by the learned Sr.APP.
12. PW.-4 Rajasimha K. has deposed that TATA mobile vehicle bearing No 13C 07 is belongs to their department and police has seized the same with respect to road accident and he came to know when he visited the KR pura Police Station and that on 3-1-2016 K.R.Pura police have issued notice as per Ex.P7 to him and he has given reply as per Ex.P8 and he identified his signature as per Ex.P7a and Ex.P8a and the accused Raja was driver of the said vehicle. During the course of cross-examination by the defence counsel, he deposed that there were 55 vehicles in his company and he has not submitted the documents showing the in-charge 8 C.C.No.11720/2016 identifies accused as the driver of the said Car on the day of accident, and he lodged complaint as per Ex.P1 and he identified his signature as Ex.P1(a). He further stated that on 01-01-2016 police have summoned him to accident spot, police drew mahzar in his presence between 1.30 to 2.30 p.m. as per Ex.P2 and CWs 2 and 3 were also present at the spot and he identified his signature as per Ex.P2(d). This witness is recalled on the application filed by the learned Sr.APP and further in the chief examination , he deposed that on 1-1-2016 at about 1.30 p.m. police have conducted the panchanama and at that time, CWs. 2 and 3 were present and he signed the said panchanama. PW.-1 during the course of cross-examination by the defence counsel , he admits that he has not mentioned in Ex.P1 that his Son inform about the accident and also admits , he has not seen the accident. During the course of cross-examination by the defence counsel, he admits that at the time of conducting the panchanama there were 10 to 15 persons were present and he do not know the said persons . Further he denied the suggestion made by the defence counsel.
11. PW.-2 Jayaraj and PW.-3 Suresh N. have deposed that the police official has drawn spot mahazar as per Ex.P2 and he 7 C.C.No.11720/2016 facts, they are taken together for consideration and discussion.
9. The prosecution has to prove that the accused being the driver of the Tata Mobile vehicle bearing No. 13C-097089E drove it in a rash and negligent manner on 31-12-2015 at about 16-30 hours at A.Narayanapura Gangamma temple main road, in front of House No.22 and dashed against Kum.Shrutika and caused the death of female child aged about 6 years.
10. In order to prove the guilt of the accused , the prosecution has examined PW.-1 Muralibabu has deposed in his evidence that he knows the accused , that on 31-12-2015 when he had been to work, his son had phoned him stating that from Gangamma temple Tata Mobile Motor vehicle No13C-097089E driver drove his vehicle in a rash manner at 4.30 p.m. when Shrutika left the house , accused dashed against her and ran over on her head. He further deposed that due to the impact, Shrutika succumbed to injuries and he rushed to the Lakshmi hospital situated at Devasandra and saw Shruthika, whose face was smashed and he has given complaint to the police as per Ex.P1. He further deposed that he 6 C.C.No.11720/2016 culpable homicide and thereby committed the offence punishable U/Sec. 304 (A) of Indian Penal Code?
3) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the aforesaid date, time and place, after the accident , failed to inform about the accident to the nearest hospital and thereby committed the offence punishable U/Sec. 134(B) of Indian Motor Vehicles Act?
4) To What Order?
7. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the Negative.
Point No.2 : In the Negative.
Point No.3 : In the Negative.
Point No.4 : As per final order for the
following:
REASONS
8. Points No.1 to 3:- Since these three points are
interlinked with each other, in order to avoid repetition of 5 C.C.No.11720/2016
1)Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 31-12-2015 at about 16-30 hours the accused being the driver of the TATA Mobile vehicle bearing No.13C-097089E belonging to LRDE , Ministry of Defence drove it in a rash and negligent manner in front of House No.22, A -Narayanapura Gangamma temple main road, from south to west direction so as to endangerous to human life and dashed against the pedestrian child Kum.Shrutika, 6 years, who was moving on left side of the road and thereby committed the offence punishable U/Sec.279 of Indian Penal Code?
2) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the aforesaid date, time and place, due to the impact, child Kum.Shrutika fell down on the road and sustained grievous injury over her head and the injured child was shifting to the Sree Lakshmi Hospital situated at Kaggadasapura and while on the way to the hospital succumbed to injuries which was rash and negligent not amounting to 4 C.C.No.11720/2016 Act was taken by my predecessor. The accused appeared through his counsel and got enlarged on bail. The prosecution papers were furnished to accused as per Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. The substances of accusation for the offences punishable U/Sec. 279, 304(A) of Indian Penal Code and U/s.134(B) r/w 187 of IMV Act , framed by my predecessor in office, read over and explained to the accused. Accused plead not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. In support of the prosecution case, out of 15 witnesses, the prosecution has examined eight witnesses as PWs.1 to 8 and got marked the documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12. Cws.7,8,9,10,12,13 & 14 are given up by the prosecution. The statements of the accused U/Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. is recorded. The accused denied the incriminating evidence read over to him. There is no defence evidence.
5. Heard the arguments.
6. The points that arise for my consideration are as follows:
3 C.C.No.11720/2016
who was moving on left side of the road. It is further alleged that, due to the impact, child Kum.Shrutika fell down on the road and sustained grievous injury over her head and the injured child was shifting to the Sree Lakshmi Hospital situated at Kaggadasapura and while on the way to the hospital succumbed to it. It is further alleged that, after the accident , the accused failed to inform about the accident to the nearest Police Station . The first informant Murali M has lodged his first information to K.R.Pura Traffic police station. The S.H.O. of K.R.Pura police station registered a case against the accused for the offences punishable U/Sec. 279 & 304(A) of Indian Penal Code,and U/s.134(B) r/w 187 of IMV Act and prepared First information repot and sent to jurisdictional Magistrate. After investigation, the Inspector of police of Pulakeshi nagar Traffic police station have filed charge-sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/Sec. 279, 304(A) of Indian Penal Code and U/s.134(B) r/w 187 of IMV Act.
3. The cognizance of the offences punishable U/Sec. 279, & 304(A) of Indian Penal Code and U/s.134(B) r/w 187 of IMV 2 C.C.No.11720/2016
4. Date of commencement of Evidence : 23-01-2018
5. Date of completion of Evidence : 04-04-2018
6. Offences punishable : Sec.279, 304(A) of Indian Penal Code & Sec.134(B) r/w Sec.187 of IMV Act.
7. Opinion of the Accused found Presiding Officer : not guilty.
JUDGEMENT The Traffic Police Inspector of K.R.Pura Traffic Police Station has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/Sec.279 & 304(A) of Indian Penal Code and U/s.134(B) r/w Sec.187 of IMV Act.
2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that:
On 31-12-2015 at about 16-30 hours the accused being the driver of the TATA Moible vehicle bearing No.13C-097089E belonging to LRDE , Ministry of Defence drove it in a rash and negligent manner in front of House No.22, A -Narayanapura Gangamma temple main road, from south to west direction in a rash and negligent manner endangerous to human life and dashed against the pedestrian child Kum.Shrutika, 6 years, IN THE COURT OF THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE TRAFFIC COURT-I, MAYOHALL UNIT, BANGALORE.
Present:- Sri. Sanjeev Kumar S. Hindoddi, B.Com., LL.B.,(Spl.) Metropolitan Magistrate, MMTC-I, Bangalore.
DATED THIS THE 30th DAY OF APRIL, 2018 C.C.NO.11720/2015.
Complainant:- State by
Police Inspector,
K.R.Puram Traffic Police Station,
Bangalore City.
(Rpd by Sr.Asst. public prosecutor)
V/s
Accused:- Vs. RAJA S.,
LATE SHIVALINGAM,
AGED 55 YEARS,
R/AT No.36/1 A, GANGAMMA
TEMPLE STREET, A
NARAYANAPURA , D.V.NAGAR
POST,BANGALORE CITY.
(Rep. By Sri.M.Mahanthesha, Adv.)
1. Date of Incident: 31-12-2015
2. Date of Institution : 01-01-2016
3. Complainant's Name : M.Murali Babu.