Bangalore District Court
State By K.R.Pura Traffic Police ... vs Murthy.V S/O Venkatesh on 19 May, 2015
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
TRAFFIC COURT - VI, BENGALURU CITY.
C.C. No.3357/2014
Dated: This the 19th day of May, 2015.
Present: Smt.Lavanya H.N., B.Sc.,LL.B
P.O. of MMTC-VI, Bengaluru.
Complainant : State by K.R.Pura Traffic Police Station.
V/s
Accused : Murthy.V S/o Venkatesh,
37 years, R/at # 649,
K.M.Colony, Lalabagh, Siddapura,
Bengaluru City.
JUDGMENT
Police Inspector of K.R.Pura Traffic Police Station filed charge sheet alleging that, the accused has committed offences punishable U/s 279 and 304 (A) of IPC and section 134 (A & B) r/w 187 of IMV Act.
2. The facts of prosecution case in brief are as under :
On 07.08.2014 at about 4.30 p.m. within the jurisdiction of K.R.Pura Traffic Police Station, the accused being the driver of Lorry No.KA-53-A-5391 drove it on White Field Main Road from Tin factory 2 CC.No.3357/2014 towards White Field in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life, near Pinix Mall, dashed to the motor cycle bearing its No.KA-03 HW- 5661 which was proceeding ahead of the lorry, as a result the rider and pillion rider fell down on the road and in the said impact pillion rider, Kum.Mamtha, aged about 20 years sustained grievous injuries on her head and she succumbed to injuries on 08.08.2014 at Vydehi Hospital. It is further case of the prosecution that after the accident the accused did not inform about the accident to the nearest police station and he did not provide medical aid to the injured. Thereby, the accused has committed the offences as stated supra.
3. After Completion of Investigation, I.O. has filed charge sheet against the accused. Thereafter cognizance was taken of the offences punishable under sections U/s 279 and 304 (A) of IPC and sections 134(A & B) read with section 187 of IMV Act and process has been issued to the accused. Accused appeared through counsel in pursuance of process and got enlarged on bail.
3 CC.No.3357/20144. Charge Sheet copies have been furnished to the accused in compliance of Section 207 of Cr.P.C.
5. Substance of accusation has been read over and explained to the accused, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the case is posted for Prosecution evidence.
6. In order to establish its case Prosecution has examined Six witnesses as PW.1 to 6 and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to 13 and closed its side.
7. Statement U/s 313 of Cr.P.C. is recorded. All the incriminating evidence appearing against the accused in the prosecution evidence has been read over and explained to accused who denied the same but, he didn't choose to lead defense evidence.
8. I have heard the arguments and perused the materials available on record. The following points that would arise for consideration :
4 CC.No.3357/20141) Whether prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that on 07.08.2014 at about 4.30 p.m. within the jurisdiction of K.R.Pura Traffic Police Station, the accused being the driver of Lorry No.KA-53-A-5391 drove it on White Field Main Road from Tin factory towards White Field in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life, near Pinix Mall, dashed to the motor cycle bearing its No.KA-03 HW-5661 which was proceeding ahead of the lorry and thereby, the accused has committed the offence punishable U/s 279 of Indian Penal Code ?
2) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that as a result of above said accident, the pillion rider of aforesaid motor cycle succumbed to injuries is not amounting to culpable homicide and thereby committed the offence punishable U/s 304 (A) of Indian Penal Code ?
3) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that after the accident the accused did not inform about the accident to the nearest police station and he did not provide medical aid to the injured and thereby the accused has committed the offence punishable under section 134(A & B) r/w 187 of IMV Act ?
4) What order ?5 CC.No.3357/2014
9. My findings to the above points are as under :
Point No. 1 and 2 : In the Negative;
Point No.3 : In the Affirmative;
Point No. 4 : As per final order for the
following :
REASONS
POINT Nos.1 and 2 :
10. Since these points are interlinked with each and other, they are taken up together for common discussion to avoid repetition of facts, as here under.
In this case the prosecution has examined six witnesses as PW-1 to 6. PW-1 is rider of the motor cycle which subjected to accident. PW-3 and 4 are Eye-witnesses. PW-2 is Spot-mahazar witness. PW- 5 and 6 are Investigation Officers.
11. PW-1 has deposed that on 07.08.2014 when he was going along with pillion rider Mamatha in his bike from Pinixmall towards white field near Pinixmall, the accused being the driver of the lorry No.KA-53 A-5391 came in his behind in high speed and hit his bike as a result of which pillion rider fell down at left front wheel of the lorry and he fell down in front of the lorry. In the said impact his friend 6 CC.No.3357/2014 Mamatha sustained injuries to her head and heart. Thereafter, she has been taken to Vydehi Hospital. On the same day night his friend Mamtha died in hospital. In this regard he has lodged complaint as per Ex.P-1. He has further deposed that on the same day between 8.30 p.m. and 9.30 p.m. the Police have conducted Spot-Inspection at accident spot in his presence and drawn mahazar as per Ex.P-2. He has been subjected to cross-examination by the learned APP. During his cross-examination by the learned APP he has admitted to the suggestion put to him that he has stated in Ex.P-1 that the lorry was coming in high speed and zigzag manner and caused the accident and he has also admitted to the suggestion put to him that after the accident the driver of the lorry ran away from the spot by leaving lorry.
12. PW-3 and 4 who are alleged to be Eye- witnesses to the incident have deposed that on 07.08.2014 at about 4.30 p.m. when they were going on their respective bikes on Whit Field road near Pinix Mall the accused being the driver of the lorry bearing No.KA-53 A-5391 came in high speed and hit the Pulsar bike which was proceeding ahead of the lorry as a result of which the rider and the 7 CC.No.3357/2014 pillion rider fell down on the road. In the said impact pillion rider sustained injuries. Thereafter, injured has been taken to Vydehi Hospital. It is further deposed that the driver of the lorry ran away from the spot by leaving the lorry therein.
13. PW-2 who is stated to be mahazar witness has deposed that he put signature to Ex.P-2, Spot- mahazar in hospital. He has been treated as hostile witness at the request of the learned APP. Though he has been subjected to lengthy cross-examination by the learned APP, nothing has been elicited from his mouth which supports the case of the prosecution.
14. PW-5 and 6 are Investigation Officers have deposed with regard to investigation.
15. PW-1 to 6 have been subjected to cross- examination by the defense. It is specific defense of the accused that the false case has been lodged against the accused though this accident is due negligent act of the rider of the motor cycle as the rider of the motor cycle came in negligent manner by talking with pillion rider without observing the lorry which was taking right turn by putting indication 8 CC.No.3357/2014 and hit the lorry . It is specific defense of the accused that this accident is not due to rash and negligent driving of the accused.
16. In this case inquest, post-mortem report, notice issued under section 133 of IMV Act to CW-11 and reply given to notice under section 133 of IMV Act by CW-11 and IMV Report have not been denied by the defense. It is not in dispute that the pillion rider of the motorcycle died in road traffic accident. It is also not in dispute that the accident in question took place on public road. It is also not in dispute that the aforesaid lorry was driven by accused before the court on the date of alleged accident.
17. On going through the undisputed document at Ex.P.10, IMV report it could be seen that the IMV Inspector has expressed his opinion that this accident is not due to mechanical defect of the vehicles involved in this case. Apart from that it is not the defense of the accused that this accident is due to mechanical defect of the vehicles involved in the accident. Now question remains before the court is whether this accident is due to either rash or negligent act of the accused or not.
9 CC.No.3357/201418. PW-1 who is the rider of the motor cycle in his cross-examination has deposed that he did not see the lorry prior to the accident. He has also deposed that he did not see the indication put by the accused while taking 'U' turn. He has expressed his ignorance that which part of the lorry hit his motor cycle. From this part of evidence it is difficult to believe his examination-in-chief that the lorry came in high speed and Zigzag manner and hit his bike.
19. PW-3 and 4 who are Eye-witness to the prosecution in their chief-examination have deposed that the aforesaid lorry came in high speed and hit the motor cycle of PW-1 which was proceeding ahead of the lorry as a result of which this accident happened. During cross-examination by the defense PW-3 has deposed that he went accident spot after 3-4 minutes. He has also deposed that he did not see which part of the lorry hit the motor cycle and he has also deposed that the motor cycle was preceding right side of the lorry. From this part of evidence it can be said that he has not witnessed the manner in which the accident took place. When PW-3 has deposed that he reached the accident place after 3-4 minutes then it can be said that he has not 10 CC.No.3357/2014 witnessed the manner in which the accident took place.
20. PW-4 during his cross-examination by the defense has deposed that he went accident spot after one or two minutes. He has also deposed that prior to the accident he did not see the motor cycle. He has also deposed that he didn't see which part of the lorry touched the motor cycle. From this part of evidence it can be said that he has also not witnessed the manner in which the accident took place.
21. Apart from that it is to be noted here that PW-1 has deposed that PW-3 and 4 came to the accident spot after five minutes of the accident. PW- 3 has deposed that he reached the accident spot after four or five minutes. PW-4 has deposed that he reached the accident spot after one or two minutes. From this part of evidence it can be said that neither PW-3 nor PW-4 was present at the time of the accident alleged to have taken place. Therefore, there testimonies in their examination-in-chief cannot be believed.
11 CC.No.3357/201422. As has already been noticed the evidence of PW-1, 3 and 4 cannot be believed for the reasons stated above. Therefore, it is held that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused who is the driver of the lorry came either in rash or in negligent manner and caused the accident. Therefore, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. In view of aforesaid discussion, it is held that the prosecution has failed to prove that this accident is due to rash and negligent driving of the accused. Hence, Point No.1 and 2 are answered in the Negative.
POINT No.3 :
23. It is further case of the prosecution that after the said accident the accused did not inform about the accident to the nearest police station and he did not arrange for medical treatment to the injured and thereby, accused has committed the offences punishable under section 134 (A & B ) read with 187 of IMV Act.
24. In this case the accused has not denied the accident. It is not the defense of the accused that after the accident he provided medical aid to the injured and he has also informed about the accident 12 CC.No.3357/2014 to the nearest police station. Apart from that PW-3 and 4 have deposed that after the accident the accused who is driver of the offending vehicle ran away from the spot by leaving his vehicle. From this it appears that accused did not provide medical aid to the injured. As per section 134(A) of IMV Act it is the duty of the driver of the offending vehicle to see the victim of the accident get medical aid. In this case the accused did not arrange for medical aid to the injured also. Hence, accused has committed the offence punishable under section 134(A) of IMV Act.
25. As per section 134 (B) of the IMV Act it is the duty of the driver of the offending vehicle to inform about the accident to the nearest police station. PW-6 investigation officer has deposed that on 13.08.2014 he has arrested the accused. From this part of evidence it could be said that on the date of accident the accused has not gone to police station and he has not informed about the accident to the police. Further, in this case the accused did not inform about the accident to the nearest police station as required under section 134(B) of IPC and further he has not given explanation why he has not informed about the accident to the nearest police station. Hence, accused has committed the offence 13 CC.No.3357/2014 punishable under section 134(B) read with section 187 of IMV Act. In view of aforesaid discussion point No.3 is answered in the affirmative.
POINT No.4:
26. In view of findings on point No.1 to 3, this Court proceeds to pass the following :
ORDER Acting under Section 255 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, accused is acquitted for the offences punishable Under Section 279 and 304(A) of IPC.
Acting under section 255 (2) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 accused is convicted of the offences punishable under section 134 (A & B) read with section 187 of IMV Act.
The accused is sentenced for the offence punishable under section 134(A) & (B) read with 187 of IMV Act to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to pay the fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 30 days.
2 CC.No.3357/2014Bail bond and surety bond stands cancelled. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript computerized by him, revised corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 19th day of May, 2015) (Smt.Lavanya H.N.) P.O. OF MMTC-VI, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the prosecution :
PW-1 : Rajnikanth, PW-2 : Prabhakar, PW-3 : Shashidhar, PW-4 : Prasanna Kumar, PW-5 : Shivaramu.G.M, PW-6 : R.M.Ajay.
Documents Exhibited for the prosecution:
Ex.P1 : Complaint, Ex.P2 : Spot Mahazar, Ex.P3 : Inquest, Ex.P4 : Notice issued u/s 133 of IMV Act, Ex.P5 : Reply to Ex.P-4, Ex.P6 : Death Intimation, Ex.P7 : P.M.Report, Ex.P8 : Seizure Mahazar, Ex.P9 : P.F, Ex.P10 : I.M.V, PW-11 : F.I.R, PW-12 : Rough Sketch. PW-13 : Report. 1 CC.No.3357/2014 Witness examined for the defense : Nil. Documents exhibited for the defense : Nil.
Material object got marked in this case : Nil.
P.O of MMTC-VI, Bengaluru City.2 CC.No.3357/2014