Bangalore District Court
Jayanagar Trps vs Sathish Madhavanaryanan on 18 September, 2024
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS
(TRAFFIC COURT - IV) AT BENGALURU
PRESENT: SRI GAGAN M.R. B.A.L LLB
JMFC (Traffic Court - IV),
BENGALURU
DATED : THIS THE 18th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024
C.C. No.10118/2019
COMPLAINANT: State by Jayanagar Traffic Police
Station, Bangalore
(Represented by: APP)
V/S.
ACCUSED: 1) Satish Madhava Narayanan,
S/o. Madhava Narayanan,
Age: 48 years,
R/at No.700, 11th main road,
5th Block, Jayanagara,
Bangalore
(Represented by: Sri Thanudeep P.P. Adv.)
1. Date of commission of offence : 24-08-2019
2. Offences alleged against accused : U/s.279 & 338 of IPC,
Sec.134(b) R/w.187
and Sec.146 R/w.196
of M.V.Act.
3. Date of recording of evidence : 11-11-2021
4. Date of closing evidence : 26-06-2024
5. Date of judgment : 18-09-2024
***
2
C.C.No.10118/2019
JUDGEMENT
The Sub-Inspector of Jayanagar Traffic Police Station has filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/s.279 and 338 of IPC, Sec.134(b) R/w.187 and Sec.146 R/w.196 of M.V.Act.
2. The brief case of the prosecution is that:
On 24-08-2019 at about 5.15 p.m. within the jurisdiction of Jayanagar Traffic police station, the accused being the driver of Hyundai I-10 Car bearing registration No.KA-05/MS-2128 drove the same on Jayanagar 4th Block, 6th main road, from north to south direction in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and dashed to Honda Activa bearing registration No.KA-03-EE-6257 which was proceeding in the said road from west to east direction. Due to the impact the rider C.W.1 sustained grievous injuries. Further on the day of accident the accused did not intimate the police about the accident. Further the accused vehicle was not having the valid insurance policy on the day of accident. Thereby the accused is alleged to have committed the offences punishable U/s.279 and 338 of IPC, Sec.134(b) R/w.187 and Sec.146 R/w.196 of M.V.Act.3
C.C.No.10118/2019
3. Upon taking cognizance, case came to be registered against accused for the offences punishable U/s.279 & 338 of IPC, Sec.134(b) R/w.187 and Sec.146 R/w.196 of M.V.Act. The accused appeared before the court through his counsel & got enlarged on bail. Charge sheet copies furnished to the accused and thereby provision U/s..207 of Cr.P.C. duly complied with.
4. Plea came to be framed for the offences U/s.279 & 338 of IPC, Sec.134(b) R/w.187 and Sec.146 R/w.196 of M.V.Act for which accused pleaded not guilty claimed to be tried.
5. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined P.W.1 to 4 and got exhibited documents as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9. On completion of prosecution side evidence, the statement of accused U/s.313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded and the accused denied all the incriminating evidence appearing against him and did not choose to lead any defence evidence.
6. Heard arguments on both sides.
7. The points that arise for my consideration are as follows:
1.Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 24-08-2019 at about 5.15 p.m. within the jurisdiction of 4 C.C.No.10118/2019 Jayanagar Traffic police station, the accused being the driver of Hyundai I-10 Car bearing registration No.KA-05/MS-2128 drove the same on Jayanagar 4th Block, 6th main road, from north to south direction in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life, 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 he dashed to Honda Activa bearing registration No.KA-03-EE-6257 which was proceeding in the said road from west to east direction. Due to the impact the rider C.W.1 sustained grievous injuries, thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable U/s.338 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?
4. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the said vehicle was not having valid insurance on the date of accident, thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable U/Sec.146 R/w Sec.196 of IMV Act?
5. What order?5
C.C.No.10118/2019
8. My answer to the above points are as under:
1. POINT No.1: IN THE NEGATIVE
2. POINT No.2: IN THE NEGATIVE
3. POINT No.3: IN THE AFFIRMATIVE
4. POINT No.4: IN THE AFFIRMATIVE
4. POINT No.5: AS PER THE FINAL ORDER For the following REASONS
9. POINT No.1 and 2: For the sake of convenience and to avoid repetition of facts, these points are taken up for common discussion to have brevity.
10. It is the case of the prosecution that on 24-08-2019 at about 5.15 p.m. within the jurisdiction of Jayanagar Traffic police station, the accused being the driver of Hyundai I-10 Car bearing registration No.KA- 05/MS-2128 drove the same on Jayanagar 4th Block, 6th main road, from north to south direction in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and dashed to Honda Activa bearing registration No.KA-03- EE-6257 which was proceeding in the said road from west to east direction. Due to the impact the rider C.W.1 sustained grievous injuries. Further on the day of accident the accused did not intimate the police about the accident. Further the accused vehicle was not having the valid insurance policy on the day of accident. Thereby 6 C.C.No.10118/2019 the accused is alleged to have committed the offences punishable U/s.279 and 338 of IPC, Sec.134(b) R/w.187 and Sec.146 R/w.196 of M.V.Act.
11. In order to prove the contents of complaint the prosecution examined 4 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.4 and marked 9 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9.
12. C.W.1/ Abhishek is examined as P.W.1 who is the complainant of this case. He deposed that on 28-08-2019 between 5.00 to 5.15 p.m. while he was proceeding in his two wheeler bearing registration No.KA- 03-EE-6257 from Jayangar 4th cross to 33rd cross, at that time accused vehicle bearing registration No.KA-05-MS- 2128 came from 6th cross in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to left side of his vehicle. Due to the impact he fell down and sustained grievous head injuries and left leg was fractured. The general public first taken him to two hospital, but due to non availability of doctors, further the car driver dropped him in front of Rajshekar hospital and he went away from there. Police came to hospital and recorded his statement.
During his cross-examination by the accused counsel he deposed that he was proceeding in 4 th main towards 33rd cross. He admits other vehicles were passing in his 7 C.C.No.10118/2019 front and by his side. He admits he has not seen the accused vehicle prior to accident. He admits at the time of accident in the said road all vehicles were moving in slow speed. He denied the suggestion that the accused in order to help him on humanity grounds has taken him to hospital, but further deposed since public objected him hence he has taken him to hospital and he denied the suggestions of the accused counsel.
13. C.W.2/ Gourav is examined as P.W.2 who is the eye witness of this case. He deposed that on 24-08- 2019 at about 5.15 p.m. while he was proceeding in his Bullet vehicle bearing registration No.KA-05-JW-8168 in Jayanagar 4th Block, from Coffee day junction towards Banashankari, near Mayyas hotel, one Activa bearing registration No.KA-03-EE-6257 proceeding in his opposite direction, at that time one I-10 car came from right side and dashed to Honda Activa from left side. Due to the impact the rider fell down and sustained injuries. He helped the injured and sent him to the hospital along with the driver of the car. He gave his number to the injured. They told him, they will take the injured to the hospital, so he left there. On 25th police called and told him come to near the accident spot, he explained to the police about the accident. Police told him that the person 8 C.C.No.10118/2019 who caused the accident admitted the injured to Rajshekar hospital and left from there. Police prepared one rough sketch between 12.00 to 1.00 p.m. and obtained his signature. The accident has taken place due to the negligent act of the car driver.
During his cross-examination by the accused counsel he deposed that he has seen the accident and he seen the same from 20mtrs. He admits the accident has taken place in a junction and there is no traffic signal at that spot. He deposed that the accused vehicle came from right side and dashed to left side, the car is blue in colour. He denied that the accused was not the driver of the said car. He denied that accused came to help the injured and on humanitarian grounds he has taken him to hospital. He deposed that the front side bumper of the car was damaged and the left side of the scooter was damaged. He denied the other suggestions of the accused counsel.
14. C.W.9/ Shankarappa is examined as P.W.3 who is the Investigation Officer of this case. He deposed that on 25-08-2019 he received the MLC Report from Rajashekar hospital. Immediately he rushed to the hospital where the injured was taking treatment and recorded the statement of C.W.1 in the presence of 9 C.C.No.10118/2019 doctor. On the basis of said statement he registered the case in Crime No.48/19 against the accused. On the same day he visited the spot and conducted spot mahazar and prepared rough sketch in the presence of C.W.3 and 4 between 12.00 to 1.00 p.m. on the same day he recorded the statement of the witnesses. He issued 133 notice to the owner of the vehicle and received reply to the said notice. He sent a requisition to concerned motor vehicle inspector. Upon perusal of the notice he found that the said vehicle was not having valid insurance policy on the day of accident. In this regard he seized the vehicle by drawing seizure mahazar in the presence of C.W.5 and 6 between 5.45 to 6.30 p.m. He arrested the accused and released him on bail. He received the wound certificate. He received the motor vehicle inspection report. After completion of investigation he has submitted Charge Sheet against the accused. He has identified the accused present before the court. During his cross-examination he denied the other suggestions of the defence counsel.
15. C.W.7/ Sai Prasad G. is examined as P.W.4 who Motor Vehicle Inspector of this case. He deposed that on 29-08-2019 he received requisition from Jayanagar Traffic police station for inspection of motor 10 C.C.No.10118/2019 vehicles which involved in the accident. Upon receipt of request he visited the premises of Jayanagar traffic police station and examined one light motor vehicle and one two wheeler. The car bearing registration No.KA-05-MS-2128 which is in orange colour, the front bumper of the car was damaged and no other visible damages is found on the vehicle. He examined one scooter without gear bearing registration No.KA-03-EE-6257, the left side body of the scooter got damaged and n other damage is found. The break system of the two vehicles were in order and in his opinion the accident has not caused due to the mechanical defect of the vehicles. In this regard he has given report. During his cross-examination he admitted the suggestions of the accused counsel.
16. Out of the documents marked for prosecution Ex.P.1 is the Statement of P.W.1, Ex.P.2 is the spot mahazar, Ex.P.3 is the Rough sketch, Ex.P.4 is the FIR, Ex.P.5 is the 133 notice, Ex.P.6 is the reply, Ex.P.7 is the vehicle seizure mahazar, Ex.P.8 is the wound certificate and Ex.P.9 is the IMV Report.
17. In the instant case the prosecution is alleging that accused being the driver of the car drove his car in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to motor cycle, due to the impact the rider sustained grievous 11 C.C.No.10118/2019 injuries. Hence accused has committed the offences punishable U/s.279 and 338 of IPC. Sec.279 of IPC deals with rash and negligent driving any vehicle or riding on a public way in rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life or likely to cause hurt or injury to any person. In order to constitute an offence U/sec. 279 of IPC, it must be established that the accused was driving the vehicle on a public way in a rash and negligent manner to endanger human life or to likely cause hurt or injury to any other person. For the purpose of section 279 of IPC, rash and negligent may be described as criminal rashness or criminal negligence. It must be more than mere carelessness of error of judgment. The essential ingredients of Sec. 279 of IPC are; i) Rash and negligent driving or riding on public way.
(ii) The act must be such as to endanger human life or likely to cause hurt or injury to any person. Regarding rash or negligent driving Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravi Kapur -Vs-State of Rajasthan in AIR 2012 SC 2986 observed as follows :-
"10. In order to examine the merit or otherwise of contentions (b) and (c) raised on behalf of the Appellant, it is necessary for the Court to first and foremost examine (a) what is rash and negligent driving; and (b) whether it can be gathered from the attendant circumstances. Rash and negligent driving has to be examined in light of the facts and circumstances of a given case. It is a fact 12 C.C.No.10118/2019 incapable of being construed or seen in isolation. It must be examined in light of the attendant circumstances. A person who drives a vehicle on the road is liable to be held responsible for the act as well as for the result. It may not be always possible to determine with reference to the speed of a vehicle whether a person was driving rashly and negligently. Both these acts presuppose an abnormal conduct. Even when one is driving a vehicle at a slow speed but recklessly and negligently, it would amount to 'rash and negligent driving' within the meaning of the language of Section 279 Indian Penal Code. That is why the legislature in its wisdom has used the words 'manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life'. The preliminary conditions, thus, are that (a) it is the manner in which the vehicle is driven; (b) it be driven either rashly or negligently; and (c) such rash or negligent driving should be such as to endanger human life. Once these ingredients are satisfied, the penalty contemplated Under Section 279 Indian Penal Code is attracted.
11. 'Negligence' means omission to do something which a reasonable and prudent person guided by the considerations which ordinarily regulate human affairs would do or doing something which a prudent and reasonable person guided by similar considerations would not do. Negligence is not an absolute term but is a relative one; it is rather a comparative term. It is difficult to state with precision any mathematically exact formula by which negligence or lack of it can be infallibly measured in a given case. Whether there exists negligence per se or the course of conduct amounts to negligence will normally depend upon the attending and surrounding facts and circumstances which have to be taken into consideration by the Court. In a given case, even not doing what one was ought to do can constitute negligence.13
C.C.No.10118/2019
12. The Court has to adopt another parameter, i.e., 'reasonable care' in determining the question of negligence or contributory negligence. The doctrine of reasonable care imposes an obligation or a duty upon a person (for example a driver) to care for the pedestrian on the road and this duty attains a higher degree when the pedestrian happen to be children of tender years. It is axiomatic to say that while driving a vehicle on a public way, there is an implicit duty cast on the drivers to see that their driving does not endanger the life of the right users of the road, may be either vehicular users or pedestrians. They are expected to take sufficient care to avoid danger to others.
13. The other principle that is pressed in aid by the courts in such cases is the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. This doctrine serves two purposes -one that an accident may by its nature be more consistent with its being caused by negligence for which the opposite party is responsible than by any other causes and that in such a case, the mere fact of the accident is prima facie evidence of such negligence. Secondly, it is to avoid hardship in cases where the claimant is able to prove the accident but cannot prove how the accident occurred. The courts have also applied the principle of res ipsa loquitur in cases where no direct evidence was brought on record. The Act itself contains a provision which concerns with the consequences of driving dangerously alike the provision in the Indian Penal Code that the vehicle is driven in a manner dangerous to public life. Where a person does such an offence he is punished as per the provisions of Section 184 of the Act. The courts have also taken the concept of 'culpable rashness' and 'culpable negligence' into consideration in cases of road accidents. 'Culpable rashness' is acting with the consciousness that mischievous and illegal consequences may follow but with the hope that they will not and often with the belief that the actor has taken sufficient precautions to prevent 14 C.C.No.10118/2019 their happening. The imputability arises from acting despite consciousness (luxuria). 'Culpable negligence' is acting without the consciousness that the illegal and mischievous effect will follow, but in circumstances which show that the actor has not exercised the caution incumbent upon him and that if he had, he would have had the consciousness. The imputability arises from the neglect of civic duty of circumspection. In such a case the mere fact of accident is prima facie evidence of such negligence. This maxim suggests that on the circumstances of a given case the res speaks and is eloquent because the facts stand unexplained, with the result that the natural and reasonable inference from the facts, not a conjectural inference, shows that the act is attributable to some person's negligent conduct. [Ref. Justice Rajesh Tandon's 'An Exhaustive Commentary on Motor Vehicles Act, 1988' (First Edition, 2010].
18. In order to prove the allegation of rash and negligent driving of accused the prosecution relied on P.W.1 and 2. P.W.1 is the injured and P.W.2 is the eye witness. PW.1 was the rider of the scooter which met with accident. P.W.1 deposed accused came from that side and dashed to his vehicle. During his cross-examination he deposed that car dashed to his vehicle while he was proceeding towards 33rd cross road. According to this witness it is a single road with two way traffic and accident has taken place in a junction. With regard to said aspect P.W.2 who is the eye witness deposed that the accused was proceeding in his front and at that time the 15 C.C.No.10118/2019 car came from other side in a junction and dashed to two wheeler.
19. The contention of the accused is accused has not caused any accident. Accused was proceeding in the said road upon seeing the accident he stopped his vehicle and general public asked him to take the injured to hospital, hence he has taken the injured to hospital, but complainant lodged complaint against him. The said contention was taken before all the witnesses, but all witness denied the said suggestion and contended accused was the driver of the car and hence he has taken the injured to hospital. The accused was not successful in establishing that his vehicle does not met with accident.
20. The prosecution has the burden to prove that the accused drove his car in a rash and negligent manner and thereby caused accident. Upon perusal of the sketch map as per Ex.P.3 admittedly the accident has taken place in a junction, where two roads meet accused was proceeding in one road i.e., 36th cross road and complainant was proceeding in 33rd cross road. The accident spot is situated exactly in the center of the junction. The car came and dashed to left side of the two wheeler. The complainant and eye witness both admits since it is a busy road there was slow moving traffic and 16 C.C.No.10118/2019 both of them did not alleged that accused came in high speed and caused accident. Since accident has taken in a junction the scooter rider should also take care before entering a junction and contributory negligence on his part cannot be brushed out completely. Here the prosecution has burden to establish rash and negligent on the part of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. To prove that aspect apart from one eye witness no other witness is examined. The P.W.2 claims he has seen the accident, but admits since accident has taken place in his front he went there. Since accident has taken place in a junction and he was coming from opposite road to accident spot he is not competent to depose who was at fault and he did not complain about any high speed or an attempt to over take by accused without such things rash and negligence cannot be established beyond reasonable doubt.
21. In the instant case as well the prosecution though established that the accused person was driving the alleged car on the said date it did not conclusively established that how the accident has occurred, the prosecution contend it is an head to head collusion between the accused car and victim bike. Prosecution alleged that accused drove his vehicle in rash and 17 C.C.No.10118/2019 negligent manner and dashed to victim bike. The narration of the prosecution that due to impact of accident the victim fell down and sustained injuries. As admitted by all the witnesses the said road is not wide road and there is dispute with regard to whether it is two way traffic road or one way traffic road, because the injured and investigating officer deposed it is a double road, but as per sketch map it is a single road. The victim was proceeding in the opposite direction. Prosecution allege accused came without intimation, but as per sketch map both were proceeding in the designated roads and accident has taken place in the middle of the junction. The other eye witness deposed who was proceeding in the other lane and he stopped his vehicle and came to see the injured people. Here the lane itself is not shown in the sketch map and on both side properties are shown along with footpath. Prosecution alleged accused drove his car in a rash and negligent manner, but accused contended due to negligence of the injured untoward incident occurred.
22. When the prosecution or the defence fails to narrate how the untoward incident happened and when defence alleged fault on opponent the concept of res ipsa loquitor comes into picture Hon'ble Supreme court in case of Md. Ainuddin vs-State of Andhra Pradesh 2007 18 C.C.No.10118/2019 SCC 72 discussed the principle of 'res ipsa loquitur' as under;
-"9.A rash act is primarily an overhasty act. It is opposed to a deliberate act. Still a rash act can be a deliberate act in the sense that it was done without due care and caution. Culpable rashness lies in running the risk of doing an act with recklessness and with indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negligence is the failure to exercise duty with reasonable and proper care and precaution guarding against injury to the public generally or to any individual in particular. It is the imperative duty of the driver of a vehicle to adopt such reasonable and proper care and precaution.
In light of the above, now we have to examine if negligence in the case of an accident can be gathered from the attendant circumstances. We have already held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is equally applicable to the cases of accident and not merely to the civil jurisprudence. Thus, these principles can equally be extended to criminal cases provided the attendant circumstances and basic facts are proved. It may also be noticed that either the accident must be proved by proper and cogent evidence or it should be an admitted fact before this principle can be applied. This doctrine comes to aid at a subsequent stage where it is not clear as to how and due to whose negligence the accident occurred. The factum of accident having been established, the Court with the aid of proper evidence may take assistance of the attendant circumstances and apply the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. The mere fact of occurrence of an accident does not necessarily imply that it must be owed to someone's negligence. In cases where negligence is the primary cause, it may not always be that direct evidence to prove it exists. In such cases, the circumstantial evidence may be adduced to prove negligence. Circumstantial evidence consists of facts that necessarily point to negligence as a logical conclusion rather than providing an outright demonstration thereof. Elements of this doctrine may be stated as:
The event would not have occurred but for someone's negligence. The evidence on record rules out the possibility that actions of the victim or some third party could be the 19 C.C.No.10118/2019 reason behind the event. Accused was negligent and owed a duty of care towards the victim.
23. In present case the eye witness who supported the case of the prosecution is P.W.2 who clearly admits that he was proceeding in opposite direction to the accident spot, accident has taken place and injured fell down he came to know about the accident. He has not seen the accident live and upon seeing the injured felling down he went there. He stated he was proceeding in the other lane and he stopped his vehicle and then gone to opposite lane. No other independent eye witness is examined by prosecution. In the instant case the defence also failed to establish their projection by adducing any reliable evidence from their side. But they are successful in creating a doubt regarding contributory negligence. So rash and negligent driving is not proved against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, in this circumstances of the case, the case of prosecution regarding rash and negligent act and also regarding the injury was caused by the vehicle of accused could not be made out beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, looking to the evidence available on record and the materials placed by way of oral and exhibits, the case of prosecution appears to be doubtful. There is a doubt as to whether the accused had 20 C.C.No.10118/2019 driven the said vehicle in a rash or negligent manner. Therefore, in the circumstances of the case, the prosecution has failed to prove the alleged offence against the accused. Accordingly, the points under consideration are answered point No.1 and 2 IN THE NEGATIVE.
24. POINT No.3 and 4: The prosecution in the instant case has further alleged that the accused being the driver of the car after the commission of the accident did not intimated the same to the concerned police. The prosecution further alleged in the charge sheet that the accused vehicle was not having valid insurance policy as on the date of accident. The accused counsel in order to deny the allegation of the prosecution about providing first aid has not suggested anything to the witness. The accused left the injured in front of hospital and went away from there is not disputed by the defence. When they admit the same they cannot deny the after acts. He claims his vehicle does not met with accident, but when IO served 133 notice he did not resisted the same and during cross-examination as well he did not place any documentary evidence is placed to support the said contention. Hence the said defence falls flat.
25. The IO in his charge sheet has stated that the accused vehicle was not having valid insurance policy 21 C.C.No.10118/2019 as on the date of accident. The defence counsel in his cross-examination to IO has clearly made suggestion that the vehicle was not possessing valid insurance policy on the date of accident. It amounts to admission and the defence has not led any defence evidence to deny the allegations made by the prosecution under Indian Motors Vehicles Act. Hence point No.3 and 4 is answered IN AFFIRMATIVE.
26. POINT No.5: In view of the above discussions and findings I proceed to pass the following ORDER Acting U/s.255(1) of Criminal Procedure code, the accused is hereby acquitted of the offences alleged against him punishable U/s.279 & 338 of IPC.
Acting U/s.255(2) of Criminal Procedure code, the accused is hereby convicted of the offences alleged against him punishable U/s.134(b) R/w.187 and Sec.146 R/w.196 of M.V.Act.
The accused is directed to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offences punishable U/s.134(b) R/w.187 of M.V.Act.
22C.C.No.10118/2019 The accused is directed to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offences punishable U/s.146 R/w.196 of M.V.Act.
In total the accused shall pay a fine of Rs.7,000/-. In default shall under go SI for a period of 3 months.
The bail bonds of accused and surety bonds 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 18 th day of September 2024).
(GAGAN M.R.) JMFC (Traffic Court - IV), BENGALURU ANNEXURE
1. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
P.W.1: Abhishek P.W.2: Gourav P.W.3: Shankarappa P.W.4: Sai Prasad
2. LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1: Statement of P.W.1 Ex.P.2: Spot mahazar Ex.P.3: Rough Sketch Ex.P.4: FIR Ex.P.5: 133 notice 23 C.C.No.10118/2019 Ex.P.6: Reply Ex.P.7: Vehicle seizure mahazar Ex.P.8: Wound certificate Ex.P.9: IMV Report
3. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE ACCUSED:
NIL
4. LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE ACCUSED:
NIL (GAGAN M.R.) JMFC (Traffic Court - IV), BENGALURU