Bangalore District Court
State By P.S.I vs Mahendra.C.G on 2 July, 2015
THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE TRAFFIC
COURT - V, BANGALORE.
PRESENT : RANGEGOWDA C.
B.A.L. LLB.
M.M.T.C - V, BANGALURU.
DATED THIS 2nd DAY OF JULY 2015
C.C.No.5166 - 2015
COMPLAINANT : STATE BY P.S.I
HALSURGATE TR. P.S.
BANGALORE.
// VS //
ACCUSED : MAHENDRA.C.G.,
S/O.GORE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
CHIKKA BHUVANAHALLI,
BHUVANAHALLI POST,
HASAN.
JUDGEMENT
This is a case registered against the accused on the basis of the charge sheet submitted by the P.S.I. Halsurgate Tr. P.S. alleging the offences punishable u/Sec. 279 and 338 of IPC and u/Sec.56(1) r/w 192 of M.V.Act and u/Sec.190 of M.V.Act.
2. The case of the prosecution nutshell as follows:
That on 27.01.2015 at about 8.15 p.m., the accused being driver of the Tempo bearing its registration No.AP-02-V-5312 drove 2 C.C.No.5166 - 2015 the same in the rash and negligent manner at N.R.Road, near Corporation Junction, so as to endanger the human life and dashed to the pedestrian - CW.1. Because of the accident, the said pedestrian -
CW.1 fell down and sustained grievous injuries.
On the basis of the complaint lodged by the C.W.1, the P.S.I has registered the case against the driver of the Tempo bearing its registration No.AP-02-V-5312 alleging offences u/Sec.279 and 337 of IPC. After completion of the investigation P.S.I. has submitted the charge sheet against the accused alleging offence u/Sec. 279 and 338 of IPC and u/Sec.56(1) r/w 192 of M.V.Act and u/Sec.190 of M.V.Act.
3. After filing of the charge sheet it is noticed that the accused was released on police bail. After perusal of the charge sheet cognizance of the above said offence taken against the accused and case is registered. Thereafter presence of the accused is secured by issuing process. Accused was released on bail. Copies of the prosecution papers supplied to the accused. Substance of the accusation framed and read over to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried. His plea recorded accordingly.
4. Thereafter the prosecution in order to prove the accusation leveled against the accused has got examined one witness 3 C.C.No.5166 - 2015 as P.W.1 and in the evidence of the prosecution Ex.p.1 to 7 documents are got marked.
5. Learned counsel for the accused has filed a memo stating that accused is not disputing spot mahazar, sketch, 133 notice and reply to 133 notice, I.M.V. report and Wound certificate. Hence, at the request of learned APP CW.4, 5 and 6 are given up. Learned APP prays for issuance of process to CW.2, 3 and 7. In view of the counsel for the accused filing the memo as above and not cross examining PW.1, this court has come to conclusion no purpose will be served by examining CW.2, 3 and 7. Hence, by rejecting the prayer of Learned APP CW.2, 3 and 7 are dropped.
6. After completion of the evidence of the prosecution statement of the accused as required u/Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. is recorded. The accused has admitted the incriminating evidence in the prosecution evidence. The accused did not choose to adduce defence evidence.
7. Heard Learned APP and Learned counsel for the accused. Perused the materials and evidence on record.
8. The following points arises for my determination; 4 C.C.No.5166 - 2015
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that on 27.01.2015 at about 8.15 p.m., the accused being driver of the Tempo bearing its registration No.AP-02-V-5312 drove the same in the rash and negligent manner at N.R.Road, near Corporation Junction and dashed to the pedestrian - CW.1 and thereby the accused committed the offences punishable u/Sec. 279 of the IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that because of the accident the pedestrian - CW.1 fell down and sustained grievous injuries and thereby the accused committed the offences punishable u/Sec.338 of the IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that at the time of the accident the accused failed to produce fitness certificate and thereby accused has committed the offence punishable and U/s.56(1) r/w 192 of M.V.Act ?
4. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that at the time of the accident the accused failed to produce permit and thereby accused has committed the offence punishable and U/s.190 of M.V.Act ?
5. What order ?
9. After hearing both sides and after appreciation of the evidence placed on record my findings on the above said points are as under:
5 C.C.No.5166 - 2015
Point No.1: In the AFFIRMATIVE;
Point No.2: In the AFFIRMATIVE;
Point No.3: In the AFFIRMATIVE;
Point No.4: In the AFFIRMATIVE;
Point No.5: As per final order
for the following:
:REASONS:
10. POINT NO.1 to 4 : Since these points are inter
connected with each other, hence taken together for consideration in order to avoid repetition.
11. In this case, the prosecution has examined the injured as PW.1. Learned counsel for the accused has filed a memo stating that accused is not disputing spot mahazar, sketch, 133 notice and reply to 133 notice, I.M.V. report and Wound certificate. Hence, at the request of learned APP CW.4, 5 and 6 are given up. Learned APP prays for issuance of process to CW.2, 3 and 7. In view of the counsel for the accused filing the memo as above and not cross examining PW.1, this court has come to conclusion no purpose will be served by examining CW.2, 3 and 7. Hence, by rejecting the prayer of Learned APP CW.2, 3 and 7 are dropped.
6 C.C.No.5166 - 2015
12. The PW.1 - the injured has deposed that on 27.01.2015 at about 8.15 p.m. when he was going from S.R.Nagar, a tempo came from N.R.Road side in a high speed and dashed him. Because of the accident, he fell down and sustained grievous injuries to his right leg. PW.1 further deposed that after the accident police have admitted him to Martha's Hospital for treatment. PW.1 has identified the accused before the court and stated the number of the tempo. PW.1 further deposed that he lodged complaint regarding the accident to the police in the hospital. PW.1 further deposed because of the mistake of the accused, the accident has happened. PW.1 further deposed that at the time of accident, there was a green signal for pedestrians to cross the road and there was a red signal for the vehicles. Learned counsel for the accused has not cross-examined the PW.1.
13. The evidence of PW.1 inspires the confidence of the court as to rash and negligent driving of the tempo by the accused. Moreover, the accused in his statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C has admitted the incriminating evidence. It is not brought on record that the tempo driven by the accused was having fitness certificatenand permit at the time of accident. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, this court has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the accusation leveled against the accused 7 C.C.No.5166 - 2015 beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, Point No.1 to 4 are answered in the AFFIRMATIVE.
14. Point No.5: For forgoing discussion and findings on point No.1 to 4, following order is passed:
ORDER Exercising powers u/Sec.255 (2) of the Cr.P.C., accused is hereby convicted for the offences punishable u/Ss. 279 and 338 of the IPC and u/Ss.56(1) r/w 192 of M.V.Act and u/Ss.190 of M.V.Act.
The accused sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (one thousand) for the offence punishable u/Sec. 279 of the IPC. I/D S.I. for the period of 30 days.
Further the accused sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (one thousand) for the offence punishable u/Sec. 338 of the IPC. I/D S.I. for the period of 30 days.
Further the accused sentenced to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- (two thousand) for the offence punishable u/Sec.192 of the M.V.Act. I/D S.I. for the period of 30 days.
Further the accused sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (one thousand) for the offence punishable u/Sec.190 of the M.V.Act. I/D S.I. for the period of 30 days.
In total fine of Rs.5,000/- (Five thousand) All the default sentences shall run separately.8 C.C.No.5166 - 2015
Supply free copy of this judgment to the accused as per law.
The bail bond of the accused stands cancelled.
(The judgment dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, transcribed and typed by him and corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this 2nd day of July 2015) (RANGEGOWDA C.) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, TRAFFIC COURT- V, BANGALORE.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION:
P.W.1 Venkatesh.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION Ex.P.1 Complaint.
Ex.P1(a) Signature of PW.1. Ex.P.2 Spot Mahazar. Ex.P.3 Sketch. Ex.P.4 I.M.V. Report. Ex.P.5 Wound Certificate. Ex.P.6 & 7 Notice & Reply u/Sec. 133 of M.V.Act.
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR ACCUSED:
NIL (RANGEGOWDA C.) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, TRAFFIC COURT- V, BANGALORE.9 C.C.No.5166 - 2015