Bangalore District Court
State By R.T. Nagar Traffic P.S vs No.1: Rudra Sony on 21 February, 2023
IN THE COURT OF THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
TRAFFIC COURT - VI, BANGALORE
PRESENT: SRI GAGAN M.R. B.A.L LLB
Metropolitan Magistrate
Traffic Court - VI, BANGALORE
DATED : THIS THE 21st DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023
C.C. No.5396/2021
COMPLAINANT: State by R.T. Nagar Traffic P.S
Bengaluru.
(Represented by Learned APP)
V/s
ACCUSED NO.1: Rudra Sony
S/o Dil Sony,
Aged about 20 years,
#607, Lakshmi Nivasa, 80 feet road,
Opposite to RMV Club, RMV 2nd Stage,
Bengaluru - 560 094.
(Represented by Sri.M.M. Adv.,)
1. Date of commission of offence : 16.01.2018
2. Offences alleged against accused : U/Sec.279, 304(A) of IPC,
Sec.134(A & B) R/w 187,
Sec.3(1) R/w 181, and Sec.197
of IMV Act.
2
C.C.No.5396/2021
3. Date of recording of evidence : 07.06.2022
4. Date of closing evidence : 14.07.2022
5. Date of judgment : 21.02.2023
***
JUDGEMENT
The SubInspector of R.T. Nagar Traffic Police Station has filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/Sec.279 & 304(A) of IPC, Sec.134(A & B) R/w 187, Sec.3(1) R/w 181 and Sec.197 of IMV Act.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 16.01.2018 at 8.50 p.m. the accused No.1 being the rider of motor cycle bearing registration No.KA04TCR153(Engine No.JF50ET5796583 Ch No.ME4JF507KHT796518 rode the same on Sanjaya Nagar 80 feet road from Ashwath Nagar towards New BEL road MS Ramaiah hospital junction in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and near Karur Vaishya Bank ATM at #397, SR Venkatesh's house dashed to Sri.Ravikumar, when he was crossing the road from north to south direction. Due to the impact he sustained grievous injuries on his head and injured was shifted to M.S. Ramaiah hospital and further shifted to Sai Ambika hospital and there on 17.01.2018 at 10.30 3 C.C.No.5396/2021 a.m. he succumbed to death. Further on the day of accident the accused No.1 did not provide medical aid to the injured nor he intimated the police about the accident and the accused was not in a possession of driving license and the said vehicle was not registered. Thereby the accused is alleged to have committed the offences punishable U/Sec.279 & 304(A) of IPC, Sec.134(A & B) R/w 187, Sec.3(1) R/w 181 and Sec.197 of IMV Act.
3. Upon taking cognizance, case came to be registered against accused for the offences punishable U/Sec.279 & 304(A) of IPC, Sec.134(A & B) R/w 187, Sec.3(1) R/w 181 and Sec.197 of IMV 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/Sec.279 & 304(A) of IPC, Sec.134(A & B) R/w 187, Sec.3(1) R/w 181, Sec.146 R/w 146 and Sec.197 of IMV Act for which accused pleaded not guilty claimed to be tried.
5. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined 6 witnesses as P.W.1 to 6 and got exhibited documents as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11. On completion of prosecution side evidence, the statement of accused U/s.313 of Cr.P.C. was 4 C.C.No.5396/2021 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. The learned APP contended that in the instant case the accused does not have a valid driving licence at the time of incident and it shows his negligent act and thereby the prosecution case got proved. In counter the same the learned counsel for the accused argued that in the instant case the deceased person is an aged person and he is crossing the road in the middle where there is no provision for crossing of the road and said suggestion was accepted by the witness. There is no zebra crossing at the place of the accident which supports my case. Hence the contributory negligence on the part of the accused lies heavily and the accused is a show room personnel and vehicle condition is good accident has occurred due to the negligent on the part of the pedestrian. Hence, he contended that the accused is liable for acquittal.
7. The points that arise for my consideration are as follows:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 16.01.2018 at 8.50 p.m. the accused No.1 being the rider of motor cycle bearing registration No.KA04TCR 5 C.C.No.5396/2021 153(Engine No.JF50ET5796583 Ch No.ME4JF507KHT796518 rode the same on Sanjaya Nagar 80 feet road from Ashwath Nagar towards New BEL road MS Ramaiah hospital junction in a rash and negligent manner as to endanger human life, thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable U/Sec.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 rider of the said vehicle, rode his vehicle in the above said manner. While so riding near Karur Vaishya Bank ATM at #397, SR Venkatesh's house dashed to Sri.Ravikumar, when he was crossing the road. Due to the impact he sustained grievous injuries and while taking treatment at Ambika hospital on 17.01.2018 at 10.30 a.m. he succumbed to death, thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable U/Sec.304(A) of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the day of accident the accused No.1 did not provide medical aid to the injured nor he intimated the police about the accident. Further accused No.1 was not in a possession of driving license and he rode the unregistered the vehicle without having consent of the owner thereof or other lawful authority, thereby 6 C.C.No.5396/2021 the accused has committed an offence punishable U/Sec.134(A&B) R/w 187, U/Sec.3(1) R/w 181 and Sec.197 of IMV Act?
4. What order?
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: AS PER THE FINAL ORDER For the following REASONS
9. POINT No.1 to 3: 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 16.01.2018 at 8.50 p.m. the accused No.1 being the rider of motor cycle bearing registration No.KA04TCR153(Engine No.JF50ET5796583 Ch No.ME4JF507KHT796518 rode the same on Sanjaya Nagar 80 feet road from Ashwath Nagar towards New BEL road MS Ramaiah hospital junction in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and near Karur Vaishya Bank ATM at #397, SR Venkatesh's house dashed to Sri.Ravikumar, when he crossing the road from north to south 7 C.C.No.5396/2021 direction. Due to the impact he sustained grievous injuries on his head and injured was shifted to M.S. Ramaiah hospital and further shifted to Sai Ambika hospital and there on 17.01.2018 at 10.30 a.m. he succumbed to death. Further on the day of accident the accused No.1 did not provide medical aid to the injured nor he intimated the police about the accident and the accused was not in a possession of driving license and the said vehicle was not registered on the date of accident.
11. In order to prove the contents of complaint the prosecution examined 6 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.6 and marked 11 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11.
12. C.W.1/Shivakumar is examined as P.W.1 who is complainant and mahazar witness of this case. He deposed that on 16.01.2018 at 8.50 p.m. he was standing at hopcoms meanwhile one pedestrian was proceeding in front of the bank by that time one two wheeler bearing No.KA04TCR153 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to said pedestrian, due to the impact pedestrian fell on road and sustained grievous injuries on his head and rider also sustained simple injuries and public shifted him to the hospital. With this regard he lodged a complaint before the police as per Ex.P.1. Further on 17.01.2018 between 8.30 to 9.30 a.m. at incident spot police conducted spot mahazar as per Ex.P.2 8 C.C.No.5396/2021 and obtained his signature on it. Further he deposed that accident was occurred due to the fault of the rider of the two wheeler.
During his crossexamination he deposed that the said road is a vide road of 100ft and the pedestrian has crossed 70ft distance on the road, but he did not deposed towards which direction the pedestrian was moving, but admits that the traffic density is high on the road. And further admits that there is a junction ahead of 20ft from the accident spot and admits there is no zebra crossing in the accident spot. Denied that the accident has occurred due to the negligence on the part of the pedestrian.
13. C.W.2 Sri.Umesh examined as P.W.2 who is eye witness and mahazar witness of this case. He deposed that on 16.01.2018 at 8.50 p.m. he was proceeding by walk at Ramaiah hospital by that time one two wheeler bearing No.KA04TCR153 came from Ashwath Nagar towards Ramaiah hospital in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to one pedestrian when he proceeding from Nexun car show room towards Karur Vaishya bank, due to the impact pedestrian sustained injuries on his head and public shifted injured to Ramaiah hospital. With regard to the accident he has given his statement before the police. Further he deposed that at the time of accident rider of the two wheeler did not wore helmet. Further on 17.01.2018 between 8.30 to 9.30 a.m. at incident spot police conducted spot mahazar as per Ex.P.2 and obtained his 9 C.C.No.5396/2021 signature on it and by that time C.W.1 also signed on it. Further he deposed that accident was occurred due to the fault of the rider of the two wheeler.
During his crossexamination he deposed that the road is a main road and he denied there is a traffic density on the said road. Admits that the accident has taken place while crossing the road. Further admits that he has not seen the pedestrian prior to accident. He denied the suggestion putforth by the accused counsel .
14. C.W.11/ Devarajaiah H.S. is examined as P.W.5 who is the 1st Investigating officer of this case. He deposed that on the basis of information given by C.W.1 he received the complaint and registered the case in Crime No.13/2018 against the accused. On the next day of the incident between 8.30 to 9.30 a.m. he visited the incident spot and conducted spot mahazar and prepared rough sketch and on the same day he has received death memo and he handed over case file to C.W.12.
15. C.W.12/ Firoz Khan is examined as P.W.3 who is the 2 nd Investigating officer of this case. He deposed that on 17.01.2018 he received the case file from C.W.1 and on the same day he conducted the inquest mahazar and dead body was handed over to the relatives of the deceased. He has issued 133 notice to 2 nd 10 C.C.No.5396/2021 accused and in the reply it is found that 2nd accused has given possession to 3rd accused and 4th accused is the invoice owner. He has received P.M. report. After completion of investigation he has filed a Charge Sheet against the accused. After completion of investigation he has filed a Charge Sheet against the accused.
16. C.W.4/ Harikrishna is examined as P.W.4 who is the eye witness of this case. He deposed that on 16.01.2018 at 8.50 p.m. he discharging his security duty at 80 feet road Karur Vyshya bank ATM by that time one pedestrian was crossing the road meanwhile one two wheeler bearing NO.KA04TCR153 came from Ashwath nagar towards Ramaiah hospital and dashed to said pedestrian, due to the impact pedestrian sustained grievous injuries on his head and rider of the two wheeler sustained simple injuries and public shifted injured to Ramaiah hospital. With this regard he has given statement before the police. Further he deposed that by the time of incident accused has not wore helmet.
During his crossexamination he admits that the accident spot is in main road, he admits there isa high density of traffic in the said road. And admits that he came to know about the accident only after hearing the sound and prior to that he has not seen the accident.
11C.C.No.5396/2021
17. C.W.4 Sri.Karthik examined as P.W.6 who is an hearsay witness of this case, he deposed that on 16.01.2018 at 9.00 p.m his friend informed through phone that his father met with an accident at Sanjay Nagar 80 feet road and he was admitted to Ramaiah hospital. By receiving the information he went to hospital there there he came to know that his father taking treatment at ICU and accident was caused by two wheeler bearing No.KA04TCR153 when his father proceeding by walk. Further he shifted his father to Ambika Sony hospital there his father succumbed. With this regard he has given his statement before the police.
During his crossexamination he admits that C.W.1 to 3 are his neighbours and he knows them from last 5 years and denied the suggestion of the accused counsel
18. Out of the documents marked for prosecution Ex.P.1 is the complaint, Ex.P.2 is the Spot mahazar, Ex.P.3 is the inquest mahazar, Ex.P.4 & 5 are the Notice and reply U/Sec.133 of IMV Act, Ex.P.6 is the P.M. report, Ex.P.7 is the indemnity bond, Ex.P.8 is the IMV report, Ex.P.9 is the wound certificate, Ex.P.10 is the FIR & Ex.P.11 is the rough sketch.
19. In the instant case Rash and negligent driving of the accused driver is the vital point to book him u/s 279 IPC or section 12 C.C.No.5396/2021 304(A) IPC. There is no any dispute regarding the accidental death of the deceased person as it was not denied by the defence.
20. 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 VsState 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 incapable of being construed or seen in isolation. It must be 13 C.C.No.5396/2021 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.
12. The Court has to adopt another parameter, i.e., 'reasonable care' in determining the question of negligence or contributory negligence. The doctrine of 14 C.C.No.5396/2021 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 their happening. The imputability arises from acting despite consciousness (luxuria). 'Culpable negligence' is acting without the consciousness that the illegal and 15 C.C.No.5396/2021 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].
21. In the instant case as well the prosecution though established that the accused person was driving the alleged bike 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, but the said version is not supported by either IMV Report or photographs of the vehicle which involved in the accident. The narration of the prosecution that due to impact of accident the victim sustained injuries and the said injuries resulted in death, but the witness as well as the prosecution case is that the pedestrian was crossing the road in a place which is not designated for crossing the road and he is an aged person, the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased cannot brushed out completely. Even the eye witness did not disclose the said fact in clarity some inconsistency found in their deposition as well.
16C.C.No.5396/2021
22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Naresh Giri Vs. State of M.P. (2008)1 SCC 791 Hon'ble Supreme court discussed section 304(A) IPC as follows:
"Section 304A Indian Penal Code applies to cases where there is no intention to cause death and no knowledge that the act done in all probability will cause death. The provision is directed at offences outside the range of Sections 299 and 300 Indian Penal Code. Section 304A applies only to such acts which are rash and negligent and are directly the cause of death of another person. Negligence and rashness are essential elements Under Section 304A.
23. "What constitutes negligence has been analysed in Halsbury's Laws of England (4thEdn) Vol 34 Para 1 (p.3) as follows:
'General principles of the law of negligence Negligence is a specific tort and in any given circumstances is the failure to exercise that care which the circumstances demand. What amounts to negligence depends on the facts of each particular case. It may consist in omitting to do something which ought to be done or in doing something which ought to be done either in a different manner or not at all. Where there is no duty to exercise care, negligence in the popular sense has no legal consequences. Where there is a duty to exercise care, reasonable care must be taken to avoid acts or omissions which can be reasonably foreseen to be likely to cause physical injury to persons or property. The degree of care required in the particular case depends on the surrounding circumstances, and may vary according to the amount of the risk 17 C.C.No.5396/2021 to be encountered and to the magnitude of the prospective injury. The duty of care is owned only to those persons who are in the area of foreseeable danger ; the fact that the act of the Defendant violated his duty of care to a third person does not enable the Plaintiff who is also injured by the same act or omission may accordingly in some circumstances involve liability as being negligent , although in other circumstances it will not do so. The material considerations are the absence of care which is on the part of the Defendant owed to the Plaintiff in the circumstances of the case and damage suffered by the Plaintiff together with the demonstrable relation of cause and effect between the two.
24. 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 vsState of Andhra Pradesh 2007 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 18 C.C.No.5396/2021 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 reason behind the event. Accused was negligent and owed a duty of care towards the victim.
25. Generally speaking no person will watch the accident live unless in exceptional circumstances the accident scene was 19 C.C.No.5396/2021 witnessed by the individuals. In cases of road accidents by fast moving vehicles it is ordinarily difficult to find witnesses who would be in a position to affirm positively the sequence of vital events during the few moments immediately preceding the actual accident, from which its true cause can be ascertained. When accidents take place on the road, people using the road or who may happen to be in close vicinity would normally busy in their own work and in the normal course their attention would be attracted only by the noise or the disturbance caused by the actual impact resulting from the accident itself. It is only then that they would look towards the direction of the noise and see what had happened.
26. It is very rare possibility and it is only a matter of coincidence that a person may already be looking in the direction of the accident and may for that reason be in a position to see and later describe the sequence of events in which the accident occurred. In some incidents it can not be brushed out that after hearing the sound or noise of the injured the people in the nearby vicinity may go to the accident spot either in curiosity or with an intention to help the injured may form an opinion or they create their own theory about the accident about what might have happen and the result is accident. Those persons are listed as witnesses and when death has occurred generally a compassion is tilted in their mind about the death of person and evidence of such persons, 20 C.C.No.5396/2021 therefore,such evidence requires close scrutiny for finding out what they actually saw and what may be the result of their imaginative inference. In such circumstances the court has to rely on the person who can be considered to be truly capable of satisfactorily explaining as to the circumstances leading to accidents, in the case on hand the best person to explain such facts is only driver the other one is the person who died in the accident, he is obviously not available for giving evidence.
27. In present case the only eye witness who supported the case of the prosecution is P.W.1 to 3 who appears to be the relative or neighbour of the deceased/ P.W.5. The other panch witness and complainant all appears to be the residents of same locality where the deceased was residing. As per judgement reported in 2001(4) crimes 307 Jagannath Vs. State of Hariyana wherein the Hon'ble Court has held that the two eye witnesses of the accident belong to community of the deceased and when their presence at sight appears to be doubtful conviction on the basis of their testimony could not be sustained, because admittedly they belong to same community and locality and they being a chance witness cannot be believed. 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 it is found that due to rash and negligent crossing of 21 C.C.No.5396/2021 road and accident took place and he died on the spot cannot be brushed out completely. 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 death 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 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 No.1 and 2 are answered in the negative.
28. POINT No.3: In the instant case it is alleged that the accused was failed to provide medical aid to the injured nor he intimated the police about the accident and not having driving license on the date of accident and he driven the unregistered the vehicle without having consent of the owner thereof or other lawful authority. The said vehicle was used by accused No.1 and caused untoward incident. The accused has not contested this aspect and did not crossexamine the witnesses on this aspect, and they did not furnish any documents to deny the case of the prosecution 22 C.C.No.5396/2021 with regard to the allegations levelled against them. Hence, the court answer this point IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
29. 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/Sec.279 & 304(A) of IPC, Sec.134(A & B) R/w 187 of IMV Act.
Acting under Sec.255(2) of Cr.P.C.
accused No.1 is hereby convicted of the offence alleged against him punishable U/Sec.134(A & B) R/w 187 of IMV Act.U/Sec.3(1) R/w 181 and Sec.197 of IMV Act.
Accused No.1 is hereby directed to pay fine of Rs.1,000/ for the offences punishable U/s.134(A & B) R/w 187 of IMV Act. Further pay a fine of Rs.500/ for the offence punishable U/s.3(1) R/w.181 of IMV Act. Further pay a fine of Rs.500/ for the offences punishable U/s.197 of IMV Act.
23C.C.No.5396/2021 In total the accused No.1 shall pay a fine of Rs.2,000/ in default shall undergo SI for 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 21 st day of February 2023).
(GAGAN M.R.) C/c MMTC - VI, BANGALORE.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION:
PW.1 Shivakumar PW.2 Umesh PW.3 Firoz Khan PW.4 Harikrishna PW.5 Devarajaiah H.S. PW.6 Karthik
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 Complaint Ex.P.2 Spot mahazar Ex.P.3 Inquest mahazar Ex.P.4 Notice U/s 133 of IMV Act 24 C.C.No.5396/2021 Ex.P.5 Reply to the notice U/s 133 of IMV Act Ex.P.6 PM report Ex.P.7 Indemnity bond Ex.P.8 IMV report Ex.P.9 Wound certificate Ex.P.10 FIR Ex.P.11 Rough sketch
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR ACCUSED:
Nil LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR ACCUSED:
Nil (GAGAN M.R.) C/c MMTC - VI, BANGALORE.