Bangalore District Court
State By P.I vs Sanjeev Kumar on 21 October, 2016
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE TRAFFIC
COURT - V, BANGALORE.
PRESENT : GANAPATI BHAT
B.Sc. LL.B. (Spl). LL.M.
M.M.T.C - V, BENGALURU
DATED THIS 21st DAY OF OCTOBER 2016
C.C.No.448 - 2012
COMPLAINANT : STATE BY P.I
BANASAWADI TR. P.S.
BANGALORE.
V/s
ACCUSED : SANJEEV KUMAR,
S/o.RAMAKRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
RAMASWAMYPALYA,
SAMETHANAHALLI POST,
HOSAKOTE TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL.
JUDGEMENT
This is a case registered against the accused on the basis of the charge sheet submitted by the P.I. Banasawadi Tr. P.S. alleging the offences punishable u/Sec. 279 and 304(A) of the IPC and u/Sec.134(a) & (b) r/w 187 of M.V.Act.
2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is as follows:
That on 11.03.2012 at about 20.15 p.m., accused being a driver of the Innova Car its bearing registration No.KA-03-ML-2 C.C.No.448 - 2012
2677 drove the same in the rash or negligent manner at Outer ring road, in front of Forest Office, so as to endanger the human life and dashed to the pedestrian by name Sri.Swamy, aged about 35 years. Due to the accident, the said pedestrian sustained grievous injuries and he was shifted to Columbia Asia Hospital and for further treatment he was shifted to Srinivasa Hospital. On 12.03.2012 at about 11.40 a.m., the injured succumbed to the injuries.
3. On the basis of the first information given by the C.W.1 the P.S.I. has registered the case against the driver of the Innova Car its bearing registration No.KA-03-ML-2677 alleging offences u/Sec. 279 and 337 of IPC and u/Sec.134(b) r/w 187 of M.V.Act. After completion of the investigation the P.I. has submitted the charge sheet against the accused alleging offence u/Sec. 279 and 304(A) of the IPC and u/Sec.134(a) & (b) r/w 187 of M.V.Act.
4. After filing of the charge sheet it is noticed that the accused was released on bail. After perusal of the charge sheet cognizance of the above said offence taken against the accused and registered the case. Thereafter presence of the accused is 3 C.C.No.448 - 2012 secured by issuing summons. 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 recorded accordingly.
5. Thereafter the prosecution in order to prove the accusation leveled against the accused has got examined Eight witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.8 and in the evidence of the prosecution cases Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10 documents are got marked.
6. After completion of the evidence of the prosecution, statement of the accused as required u/Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. is recorded. The accused has denied the incriminating evidence appearing in the prosecution evidence. The accused did not choose to adduce defence evidence.
7. Heard Learned APP and Learned counsel for the accused. Perused the materials and evidence on record.
8. The points that arise for my consideration are as under:
4 C.C.No.448 - 2012
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that on 11.03.2012 at about 20.15 p.m., accused being a driver of the Innova Car bearing No.KA-03-ML-2677 drove the same in the rash or negligent manner, so as to endanger human life at Outer Ring Road, in front of Forest Office and dashed to the pedestrian and thereby accused has committed offence under section 279 of IPC ?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond the reasonable doubt that due to the impact, the pedestrian by name Sri.Swamy, aged about 35 years sustained grievous injuries and he succumbed to the injuries and thereby accused has committed the offence punishable under section 304(A) of IPC ?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that at the time of the accident the accused failed to provide first aid to the injured and failed to inform about the accident to the nearest P.S. and thereby accused has committed the offence punishable and U/s.134 (a) & (b) r/w 187 of M.V.Act ?
4. What order ?
My findings on the above said point are as follows:
POINT NO.1: In the NEGATIVE;
POINT NO.2: In the NEGATIVE;
POINT NO.3: In the NEGATIVE;
POINT NO.4: As per the final order
for the following ;
5 C.C.No.448 - 2012
:REASONS:
9. POINT NO.1 to 3 : since these points are inter connected with each other, hence taken together for consideration in order to avoid repetition.
10. The PW.1 in his examination-in-chief has deposed that on 11.03.2012 when he was moving in Hebbal Ring road in his car at about 8.00 pm., a person was fall on the road and he carried that person along with the police personals to Srinivasa Nursing Home and then took to Columbia Asia Hospital and he has further deposed that he has given the first information and number plate was broken and he has handed over the number plate piece to the police where in vehicle number was appeared as KA.ML.677 and he has not found other numbers and he has further deposed that he has not seen the accident and not given any statement to the police and not shown the car and he has been treated partly hostile and he denied the suggestion of learned APP as to giving of re- statement to the police and identifying the car of the accused. In the cross-examination on behalf of the accused he has admitted that on the accident spot there was no street light 6 C.C.No.448 - 2012 facility and it was night and he has further admitted that "C¥ÀWÁvÀªÁzÀ eÁUÀzÀ°è ¥ÁzÀZÁjUÀ½UÉ gÀ¸ÛÉ zÁl®Ä fèÁæ PÁæ¹AUï EgÀ°®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj".
11. The PW.2 in his examination-in-chief has deposed that he has moved to the accident spot but has not found at whose fault accident took place. In his cross-examination on behalf of the accused he has admitted that he was not in a position to say the names of 30 persons gathered on the accident spot. The PW.1 and 2 are not the eye witnesses as they reached the spot after the accident.
12. The PW.3 in his examination-in-chief has deposed that on the accident day at about 8.15 pm., a Innova Car bearing its registration No.KA.03.ML.2677 came in a fast manner and dashed to the pedestrian and the said pedestrian lost his conscious and he has further deposed that after the accident, the said driver of the car ran away from the spot and there after he found that the Innova Car number plate was not intact and that he had heard that the injured - pedestrian was died in the Satya Hospital and he has identified the accused. In the cross-examination he has admitted that "vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjAiÀÄ 7 C.C.No.448 - 2012 ªÀÄÄAzÉ £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ°è E£ÉÆßêÁ PÁgï ZÁ®PÀ eÉÆÃgÁV ZÁ®£É ªÀiÁqÀÄvÁÛ gÀ¸ÛÉ zÁlÄwÛzÀÝ ¥ÁzÀZÁjUÉ rQÌ ¥Àr¹zÁÝ£É JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÉÝãÉ. ¸ÀzÀj gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ°è gÀ¸ÉÛ «¨ÀsdPÀ EzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj gÀ¸ÉÛ «¨ÀsdPÀ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ MAzÀÄ Cr EzÉ. ¥ÁzÀZÁj gÀ¸ÉÛ zÁlÄwÛzÀÝ eÁUÀzÀ°è fèÁæ PÁæ¹AUï EgÀ°®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj". Further, he has deposed that "PÁj£À £ÀA§gï ¥ÉèÃmï ªÀÄÄjzÀÄ ©¢ÝzÀÝ §UÉÎ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ MAzÀÄ ¦Ã¸ï EzÀÝ §UÉÎ £Á£ÀÄ vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjAiÀÄ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ºÉýzÉÝãÉ" Further, he has deposed that "¸ÀzÀj PÁgÀ£ÀÄß £Á£Éà ZÀ¯Á¬Ä¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ¥ÉÇðøï oÁuÉUÉ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃVzÉÝãÉ" and further he has admitted that there is no problem him to give the complaint and further in the cross-examination on behalf of the accused he has deposed that "£Á£ÀÄ £ÉÆÃrzÀ ªÀÄÄjzÀÄ ºÉÆÃVzÀÝ £ÀA§gï ¥ÉèÃmï£À°è PÉJ.03 JA§ÄzÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀæ EvÀÄÛ. C¥ÀWÁvÀªÁzÀ eÁUÀzÀ°è ªÀÄÄjzÀÄ ©¢ÝzÀÝ £ÀA§gï ¥ÉèÃl£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ CgÉÆæAiÀÄ ªÁºÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ ¨É£ÀßvÀÛ®Ä ºÉÆÃVzÉÝ". This witness is a police constable and is duty bound to inform the commission of cognizance offence to the SHO but interestingly this witness has not explained why he has not given the complaint to the police. Further, he has not stated the number of the Innova Car in his statement. Further, he admitted that there is no zebra cross at the accident spot. The 8 C.C.No.448 - 2012 PW.4 has turned hostile and he is cross-examined by learned APP but nothing contrary is achieved in the cross-examination.
13. The PW.5 in his examination-in-chief has deposed that on 13.03.2012 he has examined the Innova Car bearing its registration No.KA.03.ML.2677 as per the requisition of Banasawadi Traffic Police and found that the break system were in-tact and opined that accident was not due to any mechanical defect. Further in the cross-examination he has admitted that in Ex.P.5 he has not mentioned whether the damages are new or old and from which material damage took place.
14. The PW.6 in his examination-in-chief has deposed that on 11.03.2012 he has received the first information from CW.1 and lodged the FIR and sent it to the court and on the same day in the presence of CW.2 and 3 drawn the mahazar and sketch and recorded CW.8 statement and after the death it is informed him by the Srinivasa Hospital he handed over further investigation to CW.16. In the cross-examination on behalf of the accused he has deposed that "ªÀÄÄjzÀ £ÀA§gï ¥ÉèÃl£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ D¸ÀàvÉæ¬ÄAzÀ §gÀĪÀµÀÖgÀ°è ªÁºÀ£ÀzÉÆA¢UÉ ZÁ ¸Á 8 EªÀgÀÄ EnÖzÀÝgÀÄ DzÀgÉ £À£ÀUÉ 9 C.C.No.448 - 2012 £ÉÃgÀªÁV PÉÆqÀ°®è". He has further deposed that how much pieces of number plates was handed over to him and further categorically admitted that there is no zebra crossing at the accident spot and he has no information as to who brought the vehicle to the police station. From his evidence it is not clear that how many number plates are there, who brought the vehicle and how many number plates and whether at the time of panchanama vehicle was there in the spot or not.
15. The PW.7 in his examination-in-chief has deposed that on 12.03.2012 at 4.00 to 5.00 pm., he has conducted the post mortem as per the requisition of Banasawadi Traffic Police and he has issued P.M. report and in the cross-examination he has admitted that if a lorry dashed the pedestrian then also the injury narrated Ex.P.10 is possible. Hence, from his evidence only aspect of death can be inferred.
16. The PW.8 in his examination-in-chief has deposed that he has received the prosecution papers from CW.15 and after receiving the information as to the death of the injured from the Srinivas Hospital he has sent requisition to adopt 304(A) of IPC in this case and conducted inquest in the 10 C.C.No.448 - 2012 presence of CW.4 to 6 in the Bowring Hospital and recorded the statement of CW.7 and requested CW.13 to conduct the post mortem and sent the notice under section 133 of IMV to the CW.10 and obtained the answer and on 14.03.2012 recorded the statement of CW.8 for the identification of the accused and received I.M.V Report and post mortem report on 03.04.2012 and 05.04.2012 respectively and submitted the final report to the court. In his cross-examination he has categorically admitted that there is a divider on the road in the spot and there is no zebra cross to cross the road and panchas in this case were not the eye witness and in the panchanama it is mentioned that publics have followed the accused to catch him and he has further deposed that "£Á£ÀÄ F ¥ÀæPÀgÀt vÀ¤SÉ ªÀ»¹PÉÆAqÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ C¥ÀWÁvÀ ¥Àr¹zÀ ¸ÀܼÀzÀ°è PÁj£À £ÀA§gï ¥ÉèÃl£À ZÀÆgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ EªÉ JAzÀÄ AiÀiÁgÀÄ vÀAzÀÄ PÉÆnÖ®è. ¤.¦.6 ¥ÀAZÀ£ÁªÉÄAiÀÄ°è PÁj£À £ÀA§gï ¥ÉèÃn£À qÁåªÉÄÃdÄ DVgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ZÁ¸À - 8 gÀªÀgÀÄ C¥ÀWÁvÀªÁ¬ÄvÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉüÀ¯ÁzÀ ¢£À PÁj£ÉÆA¢UÉ ¥ÉÇð¸ï oÁuÉUÉ ºÁdgÁV C¥ÀWÁvÀzÀ §UÉÎ ªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ZÁ¸Á - 15 gÀªÀjUÉ ¤ÃrzÁÝgÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¸ÀzÀj ªÀiÁ»w DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ¥ÀæPÀgÀt zÁR°¹®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. zÀÆj£À°è PÁj£À 11 C.C.No.448 - 2012 £ÀA§gï£ÀÄß PÉJ 03 JAJ¯ï 2667 JAzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹zÁÝgÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¸ÀzÀj ªÁºÀ£ÀzÀ §UÉÎ vÀ¤SÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ ªÀiÁr®è. F ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉýzÀ ªÁºÀ£ÀzÀ £ÀAB 2667 §UÉÎ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CzÀgÀ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀ §UÉÎ £Á£ÀÄ vÀ¤SÉ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä vÉÆAzÀgÉ EgÀ°®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj". In this case Ex.P.1 is the complainant wherein date of accident and time is corrected and over written and one sentence is very interesting to notice that "£ÀAvÀgÀ £Á£ÀÄ PÀ¯É ºÁQzÀÝ PÁj£À £ÀA§gï ¥ÉèÃmï eÉÆÃr¸À¯ÁV KA.03.ML.2667 JAzÀÄ UÉÆvÁÛVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ". Here, the PW.1 - first informant very categorically stated in his examination-in-chief that when the number plate collected by him was arranged then only KA.ML.2667 was appearing. Further, the speed of the vehicle is not at all narrated and in panchanama it was not at all stated as to who shown the spot.
17. The PW.6 in his cross-examination very categorically admitted that no panchas mentioned in the panchanama are the eye witnesses in this case. Hence, very interesting thing to be noted in this case is who has shown the accident spot to the Investigating Officer as the I.O is suppose to have the knowledge of spot either on the say of eye witness or the complainant but none of them were present at the time 12 C.C.No.448 - 2012 of panchanama. According to the averment of panchanama and the evidence of PW.6, there is no pedestrian track or zebra cross at the accident spot and it is shown in the sketch there is a center median and pedestrian crossed the center median and try to cross the road. According to the sketch, the car was in left side i.e., in correct side in this case. Further, PW.4 turned hostile and nothing contrary was achieved in the cross- examination. The witnesses PW.1 and 2 turned hostile and there is a much contradiction in their statement. Further, PW.3 is only the eye witness examined on behalf of the prosecution but he is a police constable not an independent eye witness. No independent witnesses are examined in this case. Further, there is a clear cut admission of PW.3 that there is no zebra crossing in accident spot. Another very interesting thing to be noted that when he is an eye witness to accident what prevented him to give the first information is not at all forth coming in his evidence. Further, he has stated that he has collected some piece of the number plates but when he handed over was not at all stated and explained in his evidence. Further, the I.O was not called the persons within the locality of the accident spot as pancha and no independent 13 C.C.No.448 - 2012 eye witness were examined in this case. Further, the I.O has categorically admitted that the only eye witness are competent to identify the spot and exact position of the pedestrian at the time of the alleged accident. Hence, rash or negligent on the part of the accused is not at all proved by the prosecution and prosecution has failed to produce the sufficient evidence to show that the act of the accused caused the accident and death of the injured in this case is due to rash or negligent act of the accused, hence this court has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the accusation leveled against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and caused the accident. Hence, Point No.1 to 3 are answered in the NEGATIVE.
18. POINT NO.4: For the foregoing discussions and findings on Point No.1 to 3, following order is passed:
ORDER Exercising powers U/s 255 (1) of the Cr.P.C., accused is hereby acquitted for the offences punishable U/s 279 and 304(A) of the IPC and u/Sec.134(a) & (b) r/w 187 of M.V.Act.14 C.C.No.448 - 2012
The bail bond of the accused stands cancelled. Accused set at liberty forthwith. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript computerized by him, revised corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 21st day of October, 2016) (GANAPATI BHAT) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, TRAFFIC COURT- V, BANGALORE.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION:
P.W.1 Krupakaran. P.W.2 Siddaramaiah. P.W.3 Astak. P.W.4 Munegowda. P.W.5 Anada Gowda.K. P.W.6 K.Krishna. P.W.7 Dr.Bheemappa Havanur. P.W.8 Meenakshi.H.M.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION Ex.P.1 Complaint.
Ex.P.1(a) Signature of PW.I. Ex.P.2 F/Statement of PW.1. Ex.P.3 & 4 Notice & Reply u/Sec.133 of M.V.Act. Ex.P.3(a) & 4(a) Signature of PW.4. Ex.P.5 I.M.V. Report. Ex.P.5(a) Signature of PW.5. Ex.P.6 Spot Mahazar. 15 C.C.No.448 - 2012 Ex.P.7 Sketch. Ex.P.1(b), 6(a) 7(a) Signature of PW.6. Ex.P.8 Inquest. Ex.P.9 Death Memo. Ex.P.10 P.M.Report. ExP.10(a) Signature of PW.7. Ex.P.3(b), 4(b) 5(b), 8(a), 9(a) to 10(b) Signatures. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR ACCUSED : NIL (GANAPATI BHAT) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, TRAFFIC COURT- V, BANGALORE. 16 C.C.No.448 - 2012