Bangalore District Court
State By Basavanagudi Traffic P.S vs Sandeep.Y on 14 October, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
TRAFFIC COURT - IV, BANGALORE
PRESENT: SMT. GAYATHRI.S.KATE
MMTC - IV, BANGALORE
DATED : THIS THE 14th DAY OF OCTOBER 2016
C.C. NO.5427-2015
COMPLAINANT: State by Basavanagudi Traffic P.S.
(Represented by Learned App)
VS.
ACCUSED: Sandeep.Y,
Aged about 27 years,
Presently r/at:
No.12, 1st main road, 1st cross,
Shabhari Nagara, Bydarayana
Pura, Hebbala, Bangalore -560092.
Permanent Address:
No.203, Yadahatti (V&P),
Ballari(T&D), Ballari-583116.
Karnataka
(Represented by Sri S.B.G adv.)
***
2 C.C.No.5427 of 2015
JUDGEMENT
The Police sub inspector of Basavanagudi Traffic police station has filed the chargesheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/S 279,338 of IPC and U/Sec/134(A and B) r/w Sec.187 of M.V.Act.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 01.03.2015 at about 9.30pm the accused being the driver of car bearing registration No. KA 34-N-2536 drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life at N.R.Colony, Kattebalaga road, while so driving, he took a right turn at main 4th road and has dashed against C.W.1, who was crossing the road near Kumara Bhavan Hotel. Due to the impact of the accident, the pedestrian C.w.1 has sustained grievous injuries on his right leg. Further the accused did not provide medical aid to the injured nor intimated the police about the accident, thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable U/sec.279 and 338 of IPC and Sec.134(A and B) r/w/s 187 of M.V.Act.
3. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the C.W.1, the PSI has registered the case against the driver of car bearing registration No. KA 34-N-2536, alleging offences U/sec.279 and 338 of IPC and Sec.134(A and B) r/w Sec 187 of M.V.Act. After completion of the investigation PSI has submitted the charge 3 C.C.No.5427 of 2015 sheet against the accused alleging offences U/sec.279 and 338 of IPC and Sec.134(A and B) r/w Sec 187 of M.V.Act.
4. After the perusal of the charge sheet, cognizance of the above said offence taken against the accused and case is registered. There after presence of the accused is secured by issuing process. Accused was enlarged on bail. Copies of the prosecution papers were supplied to the accused. substance of the accusation framed and 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 four witnesses as P.W.1 to PW.4 and got marked 4 documents as E.X.P1 to E.X.P.4 on their behalf.
6. After the completion of the evidence of the prosecution, the statement of the accused as required U/S. 313 of C.r.P.C. is recorded and he was explained with the incriminating circumstances that have appeared against him in the evidence of prosecution. And the accused has denied the incriminating evidence in the prosecution evidence. The accused did not choose to adduce defence evidence.
4 C.C.No.5427 of 20157. Heard both the sides.
8. The points that arise for my consideration are as follows :
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, on 01/03/2015 at about
9.30pm, the accused being the driver of car bearing registration No. KA 34-N-2536,drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner as to endanger human life on N.R.Colony, Kattebalaga road, there by the accused committed an offence punishable U/S 279 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the said date, time and place the accused being the driver of the said vehicle while so driving his vehicle in the above said manner, has dashed against C.W1, who was crossing the road near Kumara Bhavan Hotel. Due to the impact of the accident, the pedestrian C.W.1 has sustained grievous injuries on his right leg, thereby the accused 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 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 MV Act?
4. What order?
5 C.C.No.5427 of 20159. My findings on the above said 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: 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. 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, 338 of IPC, and U/Sec.134 (A & B) r/w Sec.187 of MV Act.
12. As per the contents of the complaint it is the case of the prosecution that on 01.03.2015 at about 9.30pm the accused being the driver of car bearing registration No. KA 34-N-2536 drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life at N.R.Colony, Kattebalaga road, while so driving, he took a right turn at main road and has dashed against C.W.1, who was crossing the road near Kumara Bhavan Hotel.
6 C.C.No.5427 of 2015Due to the impact of the accident, the pedestrian C.w.1 has sustained grievous injuries on his right leg. Further the accused did not provide medical aid to the injured nor intimated the police about the accident, thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable U/sec.279 and 338 of IPC and Sec.134(A and B) r/w Sec 187 of M.V.Act.
13. In order to prove the contents of the complaint, the complainant himself has examined as PW.1. In his chief examination he reiterated the contents of the complaint. He deposed that after completion of his work, he was coming back to his home. Likewise, 5 months before on the first day of the month at 9.30P.M. He was standing on N.R.Colony road, next to Dwarka Hotel. At that time, one car came from his left side and has dashed against him and due to the impact of the accident he suffered grievous injuries to his right leg. The car came in fast manner and has dashed against him. Further he deposed that the car No.is 2536. He was taken to Shankarpura Hospital for treatment. The accused driver had ran away from the accident spot.
14. In the cross examination of P.W1 by counsel of accused he has deposed that as he was illiterate, he did not know what was written in the complaint. He was not knowing the car 7 C.C.No.5427 of 2015 number. The said car number was told by the police to him. He was standing on the footpath to cross the road. He does not know which vehicle hit him.
15. P.W2 is the eye witness who has reiterated the contents of the complaint as it is. He deposed that he has seen the accident occurred on 01.03.2015 at 9.30 P.M, where the accident took place and further deposed that the car which made accident was bearing reg.No.KA-34-N-2536 and deposed about the rashness of the vehicle and further he had put his signature to the spot mahazar at the accident spot. In the cross examination of PW2 by the counsel for accused, he has denied all the suggestions put by the counsel for accused. This witness has really supported the prosecution.
16. P.W3 is the doctor who is an official witness, he has deposed about the wound certificate issued by him. Further P.W.4 is the mahazar witness who has clearly turned hostile to the prosecution. P.W4 was cross examined by the Learned A.P.P and this witness has turned hostile. But the efforts of the Learned A.P.P went in vain because nothing could be elicited by this witness, he has completely denied the suggestion put by the Learned A.P.P. 8 C.C.No.5427 of 2015
17. There are lot of contradictory statement deposed by complainant and mahazar witness. The contradictory statement gives rise to benefit of doubt in favor of accused regarding the occurrence of accident. Though the eye witness has supported the prosecution, but the investigating officer- the very official witness is not examined by the prosecution. The mahazar witness has turned hostile to prosecution. The complainant does not depose about the rash and negligent drive of the offender vehicle or the vehicle registration number which was involved in the accident. All these above contradictory statements and reason of doubts gives rise to the benefit of doubt in favor of accused.
18. On considering the evidence placed before the court, it is pertinent for the court to note that 133 notice and reply, spot mahazar, wound certificate, IMV report have been marked with the consent of the advocate for accused. As such it can be safely said that the accused does not dispute the fact that he was the driver of the car bearing registration No. KA 34-N-2536 on the day of accident.
19. Now the question before the court is whether prosecution has placed convincing material before the court to establish that the accused was rash and negligent in his driving. In this regard it 9 C.C.No.5427 of 2015 is necessary to refer to the IMV report-E.X.P.3 in which it is stated that no damages on the car bearing registration No. KA 34- N-2536 and accident occurred was not due to any mechanical defect. This shows that no rash or negligent act has occurred in accident. In view of the oral and documentary evidence placed before the court. I am the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offences punishable U/S 279 & 338 of IPC. Hence point No. 1 & 2 are answered in negative.
20. POINT No.3: Further it is the case of the prosecution that the accused did not intimate to the police about the accident. It is already held that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable U/Sec.279 and 338 of IPC. Hence, there is no question proceeding against the accused for the offences punishable U/Sec 134(A and B) r/w Sec.187 of IMV Act. Hence point No.3 is answered in the Negative.
21. Point No.4: 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/Secs. 279 and 338 10 C.C.No.5427 of 2015 of IPC and Section 134 (A & B) r/w Sec.187 of M.V.Act.
The bail bond and surety bond of the accused shall stands cancelled after the appeal period.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by her directly on the computer, corrected, revised and signed then pronounced by me in the open court this the 14th day of October 2016).
(SMT. GAYATHRI.S.KATE) MMTC - IV, BANGALORE.
ANNEXURE
1) LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
P.W.1: Kumar P.W.2: Manjunatha P.W.3: Murali Lingam P.W.4: Ambishwara
2) LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1: Complaint Ex.P.2: Spot Mahazar Ex.P.3: IMV report Ex.P.4: Wound certificate
3) LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE ACCUSED:
NIL
4) LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE ACCUSED:
NIL (SMT. GAYATHRI.S.KATE) MMTC - IV, BANGALORE.