Bangalore District Court
State By Mico Layout Traffic P.S vs ) Prince Jose on 8 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 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017
C.C.No.274/2016
COMPLAINANT: State by Mico Layout Traffic P.S.
(Represented by Learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor)
VS.
ACCUSED: 1) Prince Jose,
S/o M.C. Jose,
Age: 22 years,
Building No.98, 38th cross,
26th main, Jayanagara 9th block,
Bengaluru
2) Hareesh Sashidharan
@ Hareesh Sasidharan,
S/o Sasidharan,
Age: 21 years,
No.140, 3rd Main Road,
S.G. Palya, DRC Post,
Bengaluru
(Represented by Sri H.S. Shivakumar, Adv.)
***
2 C.C.No.274/16
JUDGEMENT
The Police Inspector of Mico Layout Traffic police station has filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/s.279 & 304(A) of IPC, Sec.3(1) R/w.181, Sec.146 R/w.196, Sec.119 R/w.177 and Sec.5 R/w.180, of M.V.Act.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 15-06-2015 at about 22.00 p.m. the 1st accused being the rider of motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-04/HS-5360 along with pillion rider drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner as to endanger human life on Saddugunte Palya main road, i.e., from Hosur main road towards S.G. Palya. While so driving his vehicle he changed the opposite lane and dashed against the Hero Honda motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-01/ES-971 which was proceeding in the opposite direction i.e., near public toilet of the said road. Due to the impact of accident the pillion rider fell down and the said vehicle rubbed for few distance and the pillion rider sustained grievous head injuries and other parts of the body. Later he succumbed to the injuries on 16-06-2015. Further the 1st accused was not in a possession of driving license on the day of the accident, thereby the 3 C.C.No.274/16 1st accused is alleged to have committed offences punishable U/s.279 & 304(A) of IPC, Sec.119 R/w.177 and Sec.3(1) R/w.181 of M.V.Act. Further the 2nd accused being the owner of the motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-04/HS-5360 had permitted the 1st accused to drive the said vehicle and who was not in possession of driving license and the vehicle insurance on the day of the accident, thereby the 2nd accused is alleged to have committed an offence punishable U/s.5 R/w.180 and Sec.146 R/w.196 of M.V.Act.
3. On the basis of the information lodged by the C.W.1, the PSI has registered the case against the rider of motor cycle bearing registration No.KA- 04/HS-5360, alleging offences U/s.279 & 304(A) of IPC, Sec.3(1) R/w.181, Sec.146 R/w.196, Sec.119 R/w.177 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.3(1) R/w.181, Sec.146 R/w.196, Sec.119 R/w.177 and Sec.5 R/w.180, of M.V.Act.
4 C.C.No.274/164. 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 9 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.9 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.274/167. 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 15-06-2015 at about 22.00 p.m. the 1st accused being the rider of motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-04/HS-5360 along with pillion rider drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner as to endanger human life on Saddugunte Palya main road, i.e., from Hosur main road towards S.G. Palya, thereby the 1st 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 changed the opposite lane and dashed against the Hero Honda motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-01/ES- 971 which was proceeding in the opposite direction i.e., near public toilet on the said road. Due to the impact of accident the pillion rider fell down and the said vehicle rubbed for few distance and the pillion rider sustained grievous head injuries and other parts of the body. Later he succumbed to the injuries on 16-06-2015, thereby the 1st accused has committed an offence punishable U/s.304(A) of IPC?6 C.C.No.274/16
3. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place the 1st accused changed the lane from the opposite lane while driving the said vehicle and was not having required driving license on the day of accident, thereby the 1st accused has committed an offence punishable U/s.119 R/w.177 and Sec.3(1) R/w. sec.181 of M.V.Act?
4. 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 motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-04/HS-
5360 had permitted the 1st accused to drive the said vehicle and who was not in possession of driving license and vehicle insurance on the day of the accident, thereby the 2nd accused has committed an offence punishable U/s.5 R/w.180 and Sec.146 R/w.196 of M.V.Act?
5. 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
4. POINT NO.4: IN NEGATIVE
5. POINT NO.5: 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.
7 C.C.No.274/1611. It is the case of the prosecution that on 15-06-2015 at about 22.00 p.m. the 1st accused being the rider of motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-04/HS-5360 along with pillion rider drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner as to endanger human life on Saddugunte Palya main road, i.e., from Hosur main road towards S.G. Palya. While so driving his vehicle he changed the opposite lane and dashed against the Hero Honda motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-01/ES-971 which was proceeding in the opposite direction i.e., near public toilet of the said road. Due to the impact of accident the pillion rider fell down and the said vehicle rubbed for few distance and the pillion rider sustained grievous head injuries and other parts of the body. Later he succumbed to the injuries on 16-06-2015. Further the 1st accused was not in a possession of driving license on the day of the accident, thereby the 1st accused is alleged to have committed offences punishable U/s.279 & 304(A) of IPC, Sec.119 R/w.177 and Sec.3(1) R/w.181 of M.V.Act. Further the 2nd accused being the owner of the motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-04/HS-5360 had permitted the 1st accused to drive the said vehicle 8 C.C.No.274/16 and who was not in possession of driving license and the vehicle insurance on the day of the accident, thereby the 2nd accused is alleged to have committed an offence punishable U/s.5 R/w.180 and Sec.146 R/w.196 of M.V.Act.
12. In order to prove the contents of complaint, the complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and reiterated the contents of complaint. He deposed that "¢B 15.6.2015 gÀAzÀÄ gÁwæ 10.00 UÀAmÉ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è £À£Àß aPÀÌ¥Àà£À£ÀÄß Hj¤AzÀ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §gÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß ¢éZÀPÀæ ªÁºÀ£ÀzÀ°è PÉJ 01 EJ¸ï 0971 ªÁºÀ£ÀzÀ°è ¸ÀÄzÀÝUÀÄAmÉ ¥Á¼ÀåzÀ ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀ ±ËZÁ®AiÀÄzÀ §½ ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛgÀĪÁUÀ £À£Àß «gÀÄzÀÝ ¢QÌø¤AzÀ MAzÀÄ ¢éZÀPÀæ ªÁºÀ£À £ÀA PÉJ 04 ºÉZïJ¸ï 5360 CwªÉÃUÀªÁV ZÁ®£É ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀÄ £À£Àß ¢éZÀPÀæ ªÁºÀ£ÀzÀ JqÀ¨ÁUÀPÉÌ rQÌ ¥Àr¹zÀ ¥ÀjuÁªÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ ªÁºÀ£ÀzÀ JqÀ¨sÁUÀPÉÌ ©¢ÝgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. £À£ÀUÉ rQÌ¥Àr¹zÀ ¢éZÀPÀæ ªÁºÀ£ÀzÀ ZÁ®PÀ£ÀÄ ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀÀ ±ËZÁ®AiÀÄzÀ PÀqÉ ©¢ÝgÀÄvÁÛ£É. £À£Àß JqÀUÁ°UÉ ¥ÉmÁÖVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. £À£ÀUÉ rQÌ¥Àr¹zÀAvÀºÀ ¢éZÀPÀæ ªÁºÀ£ÀzÀ ¸ÀªÁgÀgÀ°è M§âjUÉ §®ªÁV vÀ¯ÉUÉ ¥ÀÉmÁÖVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. £Á£ÀÄ ¥ÉÇð¸ïjUÉ C¥ÀWÁvÀzÀ §UÉÎ zÀÆgÀªÁtô ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ªÀiÁ»w w½¹gÀÄvÉÛãÉ. £ÀAvÀgÀ C°è ¸ÉÃjzÀ ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀgÀÄ vÀ¯ÉUÉ ¥ÉmÁÖzÀ UÁAiÀiÁ¼ÀĪÀ£ÀÄß MAzÀÄ DmÉÄÁÃzÀ°è D¸ÀàvÉæUÉ zÁR®Ä ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. F §UÉÎ ¥ÉÇð¸ïjUÉ £Á£ÀÄ zÀÆgÀÄ ¤ÃrgÀÄvÉÛãÉ". In his cross-examination by learned counsel for accused he admits that 9 C.C.No.274/16 "C¥ÀWÁvÀªÁzÀ gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ°è gÀ¸ÉÛ «¨ÀsdPÀ EzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. £À£Àß ªÁºÀ£ÀzÀ »AzÉ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ¸ÁPÀµÀÄÖ ªÁºÀ£ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛzÀݪÀÅ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¸ÁPÀµÀÄÖ ªÁºÀ£ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ £À£Àß JzÀÄgÀÄ ¢Q̤AzÀ §gÀÄwÛvÀÄÛ. ¸ÀzÀj ªÁºÀ£ÀUÀ¼À §UÉÎ ¸ÀASÉå £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ¸ÀzÀj ¢£ÀzÀAzÀÄ AiÀÄÁgÀÄ ¢éZÀPÀæ ªÁºÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ZÀ¯Á¬Ä¹PÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ rQÌ¥Àr¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ JAzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è. ¸ÁªÀiÁ£ÀåªÁV ªÁºÀ£ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ°è ªÀÄAzÀUÀwAiÀÄ°è §gÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¸ÀzÀj gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ §½ MAzÀÄ dAPÀë£ï EzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. dAPÀë£ï EgÀĪÀ PÁgÀt ªÁºÀ£ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÁªÀiÁ£ÀåªÁV ªÀÄAzÀUÀwAiÀÄ°è ¸ÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. C¥ÀWÁvÀªÁV MAzÀĪÀgÉ UÀAmÉUÀ¼À ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ C¥ÀWÁvÀ ¸ÀݼÀzÀ°è EzÉÝãÀÄ. ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄUÀ¼À ºÉÆgÀvÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÛÉ E£ÀÄß AiÀÄÁªÀ ¢£ÀªÀÇ ¸ÀºÀ £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀݼÀPÉÌ ºÉÆÃVgÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj".
13. P.W.2 and P.W.3 are eye witnesses who have completely turned hostile to the prosecution. The learned APP has conducted cross-examination of both P.W.2 & P.W.3, but nothing could be elicited by learned APP. P.W.2 and P.W.3 both deposed that "¢B 15.6.2015 gÀAzÀÄ gÁwæ 10.00 UÀAmÉ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è JgÀqÀÄ ªÁºÀ£ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ rQÌ¥Àr¹zÀ ¸ÀzÀÄÝ PÉý §AzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÀݼPÀ ÉÌ ºÉÆÃVgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. 15 Cr zÀÆgÀzÀ°è C¥ÀWÁvÀ ¸ÀA¨Às«¹gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀ ±ËZÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ªÀÄÄA¨sÁUÀzÀ°è M§â ªÀåQÛ wêÀæªÁV UÁAiÀÄUÉÆAqÀÄ £ÀgÀ¼ÀÄwÛzÀÝ£ÀÄ. ¸ÀzÀj UÁAiÀiÁ¼ÀĪÀ£ÀÄß DmÉÄÁÃzÀ°è PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV D¸ÀàvÉæUÉ zÁR®Ä ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÉÛêÉ. ¸ÀzÀj 10 C.C.No.274/16 UÁAiÀÄÁ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄÈvÀgÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. C¥ÀWÁvÀªÀÅ AiÀiÁgÀ vÀ¦à¤AzÀ DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀÄ £À£ÀUÀÉ UÉÆwÛ®è".
14. P.W.4 to P.W.6 are mahazar witnesses and P.W.7 and P.W.9 are the I.Os. who have clearly supported the prosecution and have not given a single admission in cross-examination by counsel for accused.
15. The evidence of said prosecution witnesses 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.
11 C.C.No.274/1616. There are lots of contradicting statements between the complainant and eye witness evidences. The contradicting statements among prosecution witness gives raise to benefit of doubt to the accused.
17. 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 and 2 IN NEGATIVE.
18. POINT No.3: Further it is the case of the prosecution that the accused No.1 has changed the lane from the opposite lane while driving the said vehicle and was not having required driving license on the day of accident. It is already held that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/s.279 & 304(A) of IPC. Hence, there is no question proceeding against the accused for the offences punishable, Sec.3(1) R/w.181 and Sec.119 R/w.177 of M.V.Act. Hence I answer point No.3 IN NEGATIVE.
12 C.C.No.274/1619. POINT No.4: Further it is the case of the prosecution that the 2nd accused being the owner of the motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-04/HS- 5360 had permitted the 1st accused to drive the said vehicle who was not in possession of driving license and vehicle insurance on the day of the accident. It is already held that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/s.279 & 304(A) of IPC, Sec.3(1) R/w.181 and Sec.119 R/w.177. Hence, there is no question proceeding against the accused No.2 for the offences punishable U/s.5 R/w.180 and Sec.146 R/w. 196 of M.V.Act. Hence I answer point No.4 IN NEGATIVE.
20. POINT No.5: In view of the above discussions and findings I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Accused is acquitted U/s.255(1) of Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable U/s.279 & 304(A) of IPC, Sec.181, Sec.196, Sec.177 and Sec.180, 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 8th day of September 2017).
(GAYATHRI.S.KATE) MMTC - IV, BANGALORE.13 C.C.No.274/16
ANNEXURE
1) LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
P.W.1: Sri Balaji P.W.2: Sri Venkatesh P.W.3: Sri Shiva Prasad P.W.4: Muni Lingegowda P.W.5: Purushottam P.W.6: Asif Ulla Sharif P.W.7: Sanjeev Murthy P.W.8: Archan P.W.9: Lakshmi Narayana
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: IMV report Ex.P.7: 133 notice Ex.P.8: Reply Ex.P.9: FSL Report Ex.P.10: Rough sketch Ex.P.11: FIR Ex.P.12: Rough sketch
3) LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE ACCUSED:
NIL
4) LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE ACCUSED:
NIL (GAYATHRI.S.KATE) MMTC - IV, BANGALORE.