Bangalore District Court
State By Airport Traffic Police Station vs Manivasagam.M S/O Late.Murugayan on 26 May, 2015
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
TRAFFIC COURT - VI, BENGALURU CITY.
C.C. No.3184/2014
Dated: This the 26th day of May, 2015.
Present: Smt.Lavanya H.N., B.Sc.,LL.B
P.O. of MMTC-VI, Bengaluru.
Complainant :State by Airport Traffic Police Station
V/s
Accused : Manivasagam.M S/o late.Murugayan,
33 years, R/at # 5/2,
New ASTC Adco, 64th Cross,
Thali Road, Near Krishnappa Poultry
Farm, Hosur, Krishnagiri,
Tamilnadu.
JUDGMENT
Police Inspector of Airport 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 22.06.2014 at about 6.50 p.m. within the jurisdiction of Airport Traffic Police Station, the accused being the driver of Lorry No.KA-51-B-2319 2 CC.No.3184/2014 drove it near Kundalahalli Gate Bus Stand in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life, opp: to New Karnataka Bed house dashed to the Honda Activa motor cycle bearing its No.KA-01-V-6288 which was proceeding ahead of the lorry, as a result the rider Sri.Misri Lal Chowdary, aged about 62 years fell down on the road and then rear wheel of the lorry ran over on him and in the said impact he sustained injuries and on the same day at about 10.00 p.m. injured succumbed to injuries. 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.3184/20144. 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 Five witnesses as PW.1 to 5 and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to 10 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 the accused who denied but he did not 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:
1) Whether prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that on 22.06.2014 at about 6.50 p.m. within the jurisdiction of Airport 4 CC.No.3184/2014 Traffic Police Station, the accused being the driver of Lorry No.KA-51 B-2319 drove it near Kundalahalli Gate Bus Stand in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life, opp: to New Karnataka Bed house dashed to the Honda Activa motor cycle bearing its No.KA-01 V-6288 which was proceeding ahead of the lorry, as a result the rider Sri.Misri Lal Chowdary, aged about 62 years fell down on the road and then rear wheel of the lorry ran over on him 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 rider of the aforesaid Honda Activa 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.3184/20149. 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 other, they are taken up together for common discussion to avoid repetition of facts, as here under:
In this case the prosecution has examined five witnesses as PW-1 to 5. PW-1 and 4 are the Eye- witnesses as well as mahazar witness. PW-3 is Complainant. PW-2 and 5 are Investigation Officers.
11. PW-3 who is Complainant has deposed that on 22.06.2014 at about 8.00 p.m. when he was in his house he received message through phone that his father in-law met with an accident near Kundalahalli Gate and he has been shifted to Yashomathi Hospital by the police. Immediately he rushed to the hospital wherein he saw his father-in-law who succumbed to injuries. He has further deposed that the person who intimated message through phone has informed that 6 CC.No.3184/2014 the driver of the lorry bearing No.KA-51 B-2319 came in high speed and hit the two wheeler of his father-in-
law while he was proceeding ahead of the lorry. In this regard he has lodged complaint as per Ex.P-9. He has further deposed that on the same day when he lodged complaint the police have conducted Spot-Inspection in his presence at accident spot between 8.30 and 9.30 p.m. and drawn spot mahazar as per Ex.P-1.
12. PW-1 who is stated to be eye witness to the incident has deposed that on 22.06.2014 at about 6.30 p.m. when he was going along with CW-2's motor cycle on Varthur road towards Marathahalli from Varthur the accused being the driver of the lorry bearing No. KA-51-B-2319 which was proceeding ahead of him came in high speed and dashed against two wheeler which was proceeding ahead of lorry as a result of which the rider of the two wheeler fell down on the road and then the back wheel of the lorry ran over on him. He has further deposed that after the accident the accused who is the driver of the lorry ran over from the spot by leaving lorry there. Thereafter, injured has been taken to Yashomathi hospital wherein at about 9.30 p.m. it was informed that injured was dead. He 7 CC.No.3184/2014 has further deposed that on next day between 8.30 a.m. and 9.30 a.m. the police have conducted spot inspection at accident spot in his presence and drawn spot mahazar as per Ex.P-1.
13. PW-4 who is stated to be eye witness to the incident has deposed that on 22.06.2014 at about 6.30 p.m. when he was going on his motor cycle along with pillion rider, PW-1 towards Marathahalli from Varthur near Kundanahalli gate bus stop the accused being the driver of the lorry bearing No. KA-51-B-2319 came in high speed and dashed against two wheeler which was proceeding ahead of lorry as a result of which the rider of the two wheeler fell down on the road and sustained blood injuries. Thereafter, injured has been taken to Yashomathi hospital wherein at about 10.00 p.m. it was informed that injured was dead. He has further deposed that on next day at about 9.00 a.m. the police have conducted spot inspection at accident spot in his presence and drawn spot mahazar as per Ex.P-1. During cross examination by the learned APP he has admitted to the suggestion put to him that he has stated before the police that the back wheel of the lorry ran over on the rider of the two wheeler.
8 CC.No.3184/201414. PW-2 and 5, investigation officers have deposed with regard to investigation.
15. PW-1 to 5 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 two wheeler as the rider of the two wheeler while over taking lorry which was proceeding ahead of him came in negligent manner and hit the left back side of the lorry as a result of which this accident took place. 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-9 and reply given to notice under section 133 of IMV Act by CW-9, spot mahazar, seizer mahazar, P.F and IMV Report have not been denied by the defense. It is not in dispute that the rider of the two wheeler died in road traffic accident. It is also not in dispute that the accident in question took place on public road. It is 9 CC.No.3184/2014 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.6, 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. Therefore, now question remains before the court is whether this accident is due to either rash or negligent act of the accused or not.
18. PW-1 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 two wheeler which was proceeding ahead of the lorry as a result of which this accident happened.
19. During cross-examination by the defense PW- 1 has deposed that prior to the accident he didn't see the two wheeler. However, he has denied the 10 CC.No.3184/2014 suggestion put to him that he has not seen the accident how it had happened. He has also denied the suggestion put to him that the rider of the two wheeler while overtaking the lorry from its left side he himself hit the back side of the lorry as a result of which this accident took place.
20. PW-4 in his cross examination by the defense has deposed that he went accident spot after 2 minutes. He has also deposed that he did not see the lorry and two wheeler prior to the accident. He has deposed that he saw the vehicles after the accident. From this part of evidence it can be said that he has not witnessed the manner in which the accident took place.
21. It is an admitted fact that PW-1 was going on the bike of PW-4 as pillion rider. PW-4 who is the rider of the bike has deposed that he went accident spot after 2 minutes of the accident. When PW-4 has gone to the accident spot after 2 minutes of the accident then it can be said that PW-1 also reached the accident spot after 2 minutes of the accident. From this it could be said that PW-1 has also not witnessed the manner 11 CC.No.3184/2014 in which the accident took place. Therefore, evidence of PW-1 that he saw the lorry it was coming in high speed and hit the two wheeler can't be believed. Therefore, testimony of PW-1 in cannot be believed.
22. Under these circumstances the benefit of doubt should be given to accused as 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. 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.
12 CC.No.3184/201424. As per Section 134(A) of IMV Act it is a duty of the driver of the vehicle to provide medical aid to the injured. In this case the accused has not provided medical aid to the injured. Therefore, it is held that the accused has committed the offence punishable u/s 134(A) r/w 187 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. But, 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 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:
13 CC.No.3184/2014ORDER 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.
Bail 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 26th day of May, 2015) (Smt.Lavanya H.N.) P.O. OF MMTC-VI, BENGALURU.
14 CC.No.3184/2014ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the prosecution:
PW-1 : Kailash Chowdary, PW-2 : B.A.Rangaswamy, PW-3 : Rameshchand.K, PW-4 : Goparam, PW-5 : R.I.Kasim..
Documents Exhibited for the prosecution:
Ex.P1 : Spot Mahazar, Ex.P2 : Inquest, Ex.P3 : P.M.Report, Ex.P4 : Notice, Ex.P5 : Reply, Ex.P6 : I.M.V, Ex.P7 : Seizure Mahazar, Ex.P8 : P.F, Ex.P9 : Complaint, PW-10 : F.I.R. 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.15 CC.No.3184/2014