Bangalore District Court
State By Jayanagar Traffic P.S vs ) Krishna R on 18 September, 2017
IN THE COURT OF THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
TRAFFIC COURT - IV, BANGALORE
PRESENT: GAYATHRI.S.KATE, B.com., LLB.,
MMTC - IV, BANGALORE
DATED : THIS THE 18th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017
C.C.No.889/2015
COMPLAINANT: State by Jayanagar Traffic P.S.
(Represented by Learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor)
VS.
ACCUSED: 1) Krishna R.,
S/o Rangappa B.C.,
Age: 27 years,
R/at No.91,
Srinivasappa Vatara,
Konanakunte,
Bengaluru
(Represented by Sri H.S. Shivakumar, adv.)
2) Smt. Usha, D/o Marappa,
Age: 35 years,
R/at No.08/3,
Konanakunte Cross,
Bengaluru
(Pleaded guilty)
***
2 C.C.No.889/15
JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector of Jayanagar Traffic police station has filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/s.279 & 304(A) of IPC, Sec.134(B) R/w. Sec.187, Sec.186 R/w.188, Sec.56 R/w.190, Sec.3(1) R/w. Sec.181 and Sec.5 R/w.180 of M.V.Act.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 25-10-2014 at about 11.40 a.m. the 1st accused being the driver of Auto Rickshaw bearing registration No.KA-01/4414 drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner as to endanger human life on 11th main road. While so driving his vehicle Jayanagara 4th Block, near Adigas hotel he dashed against the pedestrian who crossed the half of the road, in the same road. Due to the impact of accident the said pedestrian sustained grievous injuries on head and face and later he succumbed to the injuries. The accused was attacked by polio disease and has drove the said vehicle in the public road. Further the 1st accused did not intimate the police about the accident. Further the 1st accused was not in a possession of driving license on the day of accident. Further the 1st accused has drove the 3 C.C.No.889/15 vehicle which was not having required fitness certificate on the day of accident, thereby the 1st accused has committed an offence punishable U/s.279 & 304(A) of IPC, Sec.134(B) R/w. Sec.187, Sec.186 R/w.188 and Sec.3(1) R/w. Sec.181, Sec.56 R/w.190 of M.V.Act. Further the 2nd accused being the owner of the Auto Rickshaw bearing registration No.KA-01/4414 had permitted the 1st accused who was not in possession of the driving license to drive the vehicle on the day of accident, thereby the 2nd accused has committed an offence punishable U/s.5 R/w.180.
3. On the basis of the information lodged by the C.W.1, the PSI has registered the case against the driver of Auto Rickshaw bearing registration No.KA- 01/4414, alleging offences U/s.279 & 304(A) of IPC, Sec.134(B) R/w. Sec.187, Sec.186 R/w.188, Sec.56 R/w.190, Sec.3(1) R/w. Sec.181 and Sec.5 R/w.180 of M.V.Act. After completion of the investigation PSI has submitted the charge sheet against the accused alleging offences U/s.279 & 304(A) of IPC, Sec.134(B) R/w. Sec.187, Sec.186 R/w.188, Sec.56 R/w.190, Sec.3(1) R/w. Sec.181 and Sec.5 R/w.180 of M.V.Act.
4 C.C.No.889/154. After filing the charge sheet, this court has registered the case against the accused for the aforesaid offences. In response to service of summons accused has appeared before the court through his learned advocate and got enlarged on bail. Prosecution papers were furnished to the accused as required U/s.207 of Cr.P.C. and proceed with the case. Substance of the accusation was 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 5 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.5 and got marked 12 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12 on their behalf.
6. After the closure of the prosecution case the statement of the accused as required U/s.313 of C.r.P.C. is recorded and read over to the accused. Wherein the accused denied the entire allegations made by the prosecution witnesses and not chosen to lead any defence evidence. Hence this court posted the case for arguments.
5 C.C.No.889/157. I have heard the arguments of learned APP for state and learned counsel for the accused and now the case is posted for judgment.
8. Now the points that arise for my consideration are as under:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 25-10-2014 at about 11.40 a.m. the 1st accused being the driver of Auto Rickshaw bearing registration No.KA-01/4414 drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner as to endanger human life on 11th main road, thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable U/s.279 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place the accused being the driver of the said vehicle, drove his vehicle in the above said manner. While so driving his vehicle Jayanagara 4th Block, near Adigas hotel he dashed against the pedestrian who crossed the half of the road, in the same road. Due to the impact of accident the said pedestrian sustained grievous injuries on head and face and later he succumbed to the injuries, thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable U/s.304(A) of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution further proves that the accused did not intimate the police about the accident, thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable U/s.134 (B) R/w. Sec.187 of M.V.Act?6 C.C.No.889/15
4. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place the 1st accused was not having required driving license, thereby the 1st accused has committed an offence punishable U/s.3(1) R/w. sec.181 of M.V.Act?
5. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place the 1st accused was attacked by polio disease and has drove the said vehicle in the public road, thereby the 1st accused has committed an offence punishable U/s.186 R/w. sec.188 of M.V.Act?
6. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place the 1st accused has drove the vehicle which was not having required fitness certificate on the day of accident, thereby you committed offence punishable U/s.56 R/w.190 of M.V.Act.
7. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place the 2nd accused being the owner of the Auto Rickshaw bearing registration No.KA-
01/4414 had permitted the 1st accused who was not in possession of the driving license to drive the vehicle on the day of accident, thereby you committed offence punishable U/s.5 R/w.180 of M.V.Act.
8. What order?
9. My answer to the above points are as under:
1. POINT NO.1: IN NEGATIVE
2. POINT NO.2: IN NEGATIVE
3. POINT NO.3: IN NEGATIVE 7 C.C.No.889/15
4. POINT NO.4: IN NEGATIVE
5. POINT NO.5: IN NEGATIVE
6. POINT NO.6: IN NEGATIVE
7. POINT No.7: IN NEGATIVE
8. POINT NO.8: 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. It is the case of the prosecution that on 25-10-2014 at about 11.40 a.m. the 1st accused being the driver of Auto Rickshaw bearing registration No.KA-01/4414 drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner as to endanger human life on 11th main road. While so driving his vehicle Jayanagara 4th Block, near Adigas hotel he dashed against the pedestrian who crossed the half of the road, in the same road. Due to the impact of accident the said pedestrian sustained grievous injuries on head and face and later he succumbed to the injuries. The accused was attacked by polio disease and has drove the said vehicle in the public road. Further the 1st accused did not intimate the police 8 C.C.No.889/15 about the accident. Further the 1st accused was not in a possession of driving license on the day of accident. Further the 1st accused has drove the vehicle which was not having required fitness certificate on the day of accident, thereby the 1st accused has committed an offence punishable U/s.279 & 304(A) of IPC, Sec.134(B) R/w. Sec.187, Sec.186 R/w.188 and Sec.3(1) R/w. Sec.181, Sec.56 R/w.190 of M.V.Act. Further the 2nd accused being the owner of the Auto Rickshaw bearing registration No.KA-01/4414 had permitted the 1st accused who was not in possession of the driving license to drive the vehicle on the day of accident, thereby the 2nd accused has committed an offence punishable U/s.5 R/w.180.
12. In order to prove the contents of the complaint, the complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and reiterated the contents of complaint. In his cross- examination by the learned counsel for accused he has admitted that "C¥ÀWÁvÀ «ZÁgÀ w½¹zÀ ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀgÀ ºÀɸÀgÀÄ UÉÆwÛ®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¤.¦.1£Àß £Á£ÀÄ ²æäªÁ¸ï ¦J¸ïLgÀªÀjUÉ §gÉzÀÄPÉÆnÖgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. zÀÆj£À°è DgÉÆæAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃrzÉÝÃ£É £ÉÆÃrzÀgÉ 9 C.C.No.889/15 UÀÄgÀÄw¸ÀÄvÉÛÃ£É JAzÀÄ ºÉý®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj, DzÀgÉ D¸ÀàvÉæAiÀ°è DgÉÆæAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃrzÉÝãÉ".
13. P.W.4 and P.W.5 are the I.Os. who have clearly supported the prosecution and have not given a single admission in cross-examination by counsel for accused.
14. The evidence of P.W.4 and P.W.5 are no where helpful to prosecution because in order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to examine the material witness properly. The prosecution has to prove the very ingredients of alleged offences, they are identification of accused, the said accused must have drove the offender vehicle in rash and negligent manner and the said offender vehicle must have been involved in the accident. If either of the one of the ingredient is not fulfilled by the prosecution then benefit of doubt would give raise to acquittal of accused in consequence. The law is very much clear that unless contrary is proved, the accused is to be treated as innocent.
15. There are lots of contradicting statements between the complainant and eye witness evidences.
10 C.C.No.889/15The contradicting statements among prosecution witness gives raise to benefit of doubt to the accused.
16. 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 & 304(A) of IPC. Hence for the above discussion, I answer point No.1 & 2 IN NEGATIVE.
17. POINT No.3: Further it is the case of the prosecution that accused did not intimate the police about the accident. It is already held that prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec. 279 & 304(A) of IPC. Hence there is no question proceeding against the accused for the offence punishable U/s.134(B) R/w Sec.187 of M.V.Act. Hence I answer POINT No.3 IN NEGATIVE.
POINT No.4 to 6: Further it is the case of the prosecution that the accused was attacked by polio disease and has drove the said vehicle in the public road. Further the 1st accused was not in a possession of driving license on the day of accident. Further the 11 C.C.No.889/15 1st accused has drove the vehicle which was not having required fitness certificate on the day of accident It is already held that prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec. 279 & 304(A) of IPC. Hence there is no question proceeding against the accused for the offence punishable Sec.186 R/w.188, Sec.56 R/w.190, Sec.3(1) R/w. Sec.181 of M.V.Act. Hence I answer POINT No.4 to 6 IN NEGATIVE.
18. POINT No.7: Further it is the case of the prosecution that the 2nd accused being the owner of the Auto Rickshaw bearing registration No.KA- 01/4414 had permitted the 1st accused who was not in possession of the driving license to drive the vehicle on the day of accident. As accused No.2 had already pleaded guilty on 10-09-2015. Hence this point No.7 does not arise for the consideration and hence answered IN NEGATIVE.
19. POINT No.8: In view of the above discussions and findings I proceed to pass the following:
12 C.C.No.889/15ORDER Accused No.1 is acquitted U/s.255(1) of Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable U/s.279 & 304(A) of IPC, Sec.187, Sec.181, Sec.188 and Sec.190 of M.V. Act.
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 18th day of September 2017).
(GAYATHRI.S.KATE) MMTC - IV, BANGALORE.
ANNEXURE
1) LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
P.W.1: M.V. Lakshmi Narayan P.W.2: Putte Gowda P.W.3: Kumar P.W.4: Srinivas P.W.5: Uma Mahesh
2) LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1: Complaint Ex.P.2: Spot Mahazar Ex.P.3: Inquest Mahazar Ex.P.4: Death memo Ex.P.5: P.M. Report Ex.P.6: 133 notice Ex.P.7: Reply Ex.P.8: IMV Report Ex.P.9: FIR 13 C.C.No.889/15 Ex.P.10: Rough sketch Ex.P.11: Vehicle mahazar Ex.P.12: Physical handicap certificate
3) LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE ACCUSED:
NIL
4) LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE ACCUSED:
NIL (GAYATHRI.S.KATE) MMTC - IV, BANGALORE.