Bangalore District Court
State By Madiwala Traffic Police ... vs Shivappa S/O Ambalaha on 20 January, 2016
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE TRAFFIC
COURT - VI, BENGALURU CITY.
C.C. No.420/2015
Dated: This the 20th day of January, 2016
Present: Smt.Lavanya H.N., B.Sc.,LL.B
P.O. of MMTC-VI, Bangalore
Complainant : State by Madiwala Traffic Police Station.
V/s
Accused : Shivappa S/o Ambalaha,
Aged about 36 years,
R/at Kowthala Village, Manvi Taluk,
Raichur, Karnataka.
JUDGMENT
Police Inspector of Madiwala Traffic Police Station filed charge sheet alleging that, the accused has committed the offences punishable U/s 279 and 304 (A) of IPC.
2. The facts of prosecution case in brief are as under:
On 12.12.2014 at about 3.55 pm within the jurisdiction of Madiwala Traffic Police Station, the accused being the driver of Goods Canter No.KA-51-5438 drove it on Hosur Main Road, from Electronic City towards Silk Board in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life, near Suraksha Car Care, Roopena Agrahara dashed against the scooter No.KA-03-HW-8245 which was proceeding ahead of it as a result of which the rider of 2 CC.No.420/2015 he scooter by name Kum.S.Renuka, aged about 25 years fell down on the road and then the back wheel of the Canter ran over her who succumbed to injuries at the spot and thereby, the accused has committed the offences as stated supra.
3. After Completion of Investigation, I.O. has filed charge sheet against the accused. Thereafter cognizance was taken of the offences punishable under sections U/s 279 and 304 (A) of IPC and process has been issued to the accused. Accused appeared through counsel in pursuance of process and got enlarged on bail.
4. Charge Sheet copies have been furnished to the accused in compliance of Section 207 of Cr.P.C.
5. Substance of accusation has been read over and explained to the accused, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the case is posted for Prosecution evidence.
6. In order to establish its case Prosecution has examined Five witnesses as PW.1 to 5 and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to 9 and closed its side.
7. Statement U/s 313 of Cr.P.C. is recorded. All the incriminating evidence appearing against the accused has been read over and explained to the accused, who denied the same. But, he did not choose to lead defense evidence.
3 CC.No.420/20158. I have heard the arguments and perused the materials available on record. The following points that would arise for consideration:
1. Whether prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that on 12.12.2014 at about 3.55 pm within the jurisdiction of Madiwala Traffic Police Station, the accused being the driver of Goods Canter No.KA-51-
5438 drove it on Hosur Main Road, from Electronic City towards Silk Board in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life, near Suraksha Car Care, Roopena Agrahara dashed against the scooter No.KA- 03-HW-8245 which was proceeding ahead of it as a result of which the rider of he scooter by name Kum.S.Renuka, aged about 25 years fell down on the road and then the back wheel of the Canter ran over her and thereby, the accused has committed the offence punishable U/s 279 of Indian Penal Code ?
2. Whether prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that as a result of aforesaid accident the rider of the scooter, Kum.S.Renuka, succumbed to injuries is not amounts to culpable homicide and thereby, the accused has committed the offence punishable U/s 279 of Indian Penal Code ?
3. What order?
9. The findings to the above points are as under:
Point No. 1 and 2 : In the Negative;
Point No. 3 : As per final order for the
following:
REASONS
4 CC.No.420/2015
POINT Nos.1 and 2:
10. Since these points are interlinked with each other, they are taken up together for common discussion to avoid repetition of facts, as here under:
In this case the prosecution has examined five witnesses as PW-1 to 5. PW-1 is eye witness, complainant as well as spot mahazar witness. PW-2 and 3 are eye witnesses. PW-4 and 5 are Investigation Officers.
11. PW-1 who is stated to be eye-witness and spot mahazar witness has deposed that he did not see how the accident had happened. On 12.12.2014 at about 3.55 pm when he was going in his bike near Roopena Agrahara the accident was occurred in between the two wheeler and Canter No.KA-51-5438. However, he has identified the accused stating that he is the driver of the canter which caused the accident. He has lodged First Information at Ex.P.1. He has further deposed that he put signature spot mahazar at Ex.P.2 at police station.
12. As PW-1 did not support the case of the prosecution, he has been treated as hostile witness at the request of learned APP.
During his cross-examination he has admitted to the suggestion put to him that he has stated in the complaint that the accused being the driver of the canter came in high speed and negligent manner and dashed to the two wheeler which was proceeding ahead of him as a result of which the rider of the two wheeler fell 5 CC.No.420/2015 down on the road and then right rear wheel of the canter ran over her who died at spot. He has denied the suggestion put to him that on the same day between 6.00 pm and 7.00 pm the police have conducted spot inspection at accident spot in his presence and drawn spot mahazar at Ex.P.2.
13. PW-2 and 3 who are stated to be eye witnesses have deposed that on 12.12.2014 at about 3.55 pm when they are going towards Silk Board from Bommanahalli the accused being the driver of the Canter bearing its No.KA-51-5438 came in high speed even by over taking their respective vehicles, and dashed to the two wheeler which was proceeding ahead of the canter as a result of which the rider of two wheeler fell down on the road and then right rear wheel of the canter ran over her who died at spot.
14. PW-4 and 5 are Investigation Officers have deposed with regard to investigation.
15. PW-1 to 5 have been subjected to cross-examination by the defense. It is specific defense of the accused that this accident is not due to either rash or negligent driving of the accused but, this accident is due to fault of rider of the scooter as rider of the scooter while over taking canter touched handle of the scooter to canter as a result of which the accident in question took place.
6 CC.No.420/201516. In this case, Inquest, PM report, Notice issued U/s 133 of IMV to the owner of the offending canter, reply given to by the owner of the offending canter, IMV Report have not been denied by the defense. Hence, the prosecution has given up CW-5 to 10.
17. It is not in dispute that the accused was driving the offending canter on the date and time of the alleged accident. It is also not in dispute that the road in question where accident took place is public road. The accused has not denied the accident. From this it can safely be held that the accused was driving the offending lorry on the date and time of the alleged accident.
18. It is not the defense of the accused that this accident is due to mechanical defect of the vehicles involved in the case. Apart from that on going through Ex.P-5, IMV Report it could be seen that the IMV Inspector who inspected the vehicles involved in the case has expressed his opinion that this accident is not due to mechanical defect of the vehicles involved in the case. Hence, it can be held that this accident is not due to mechanical defect of the vehicles involved in the case.
19. It is not in dispute that the rider of the scooter died in the Road traffic accident. Now the question remains before the Court is whether this accident is due to either rash or negligent driving of the accused or not.
7 CC.No.420/201520. PW-1 who is none other than relative of deceased rider of the scooter in his examination-in-chief has deposed that he did not see how the accident had happened and he saw the same after the accident whereas during cross-examination by the learned APP he has admitted the suggestion put to him that he has written in the complaint at Ex.P.1 that the driver of the canter was driving the canter in high speed and negligent manner and dashed to the two wheeler which was proceeding ahead of the canter whereas during cross-examination by the defense he has deposed that he went to accident spot after two minutes of the accident. From this part of evidence of PW-1 it could be gathered that he did not see the accident how it happened. Moreover, he is not a trustworthy to believe as he has given different versions as observed supra.
21. PW-2 and 3 during their cross-examination have deposed that they had gone to accident spot after one minute of the accident. They have also deposed that they came to know the accident by hearing the sound of the same. PW-2 has also deposed that at the time of accident he was 300 meters far away from the accident spot. PW-3 has deposed that at the time of accident he was 100 meters far away from the accident. From this part of evidence it could be said that they have also not witnessed on whose fault the accident in question took place. Hence, evidence of PW-2 and 3 also would not help to the prosecution to prove guilt against the accused. In view of the 8 CC.No.420/2015 aforesaid discussion it is held that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt that this accident is due to either rash or negligent driving of the accused. Hence, Point No.1 and 2 are answered in the Negative.
POINT No.3: -
22. In view of findings on point No.1 and 2, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER Acting U/s 255 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, accused is acquitted for the offences punishable under sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC.
Bail bond and surety bond stands cancelled. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript computerized by him, revised, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 20th day of January, 2016) (Smt.Lavanya H.N.) P.O. OF MMTC-VI, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the prosecution:
PW-1 : R.Subramani, PW-2 : Adarsha, PW-3 : Dinesh, PW-4 : K.Ravi Shankar, PW-5 : B.N.Venkatesh.9 CC.No.420/2015
Documents Exhibited for the prosecution:
Ex.P1 : Complaint, Ex.P2 : Spot-mahazar.
Ex.P3 : Inquest, Ex.P4 : P.M.Report, Ex.P5 : I.M.V.Report, Ex.P6 : Notice u/s 133 of IMV Act, Ex.P7 : Reply to Ex.P.6, Ex.P8 : F.I.R., Ex.P9 : Sketch.
Witness examined for the defense : Nil. Documents exhibited for the defense : Nil.
Material object got marked in this case : Nil.
P.O. of MMTC-VI, Bengaluru City.