Bangalore District Court
State By Magadi Road Traffic Police ... vs Nithin Narayana. A. S/O Ashwath ... on 24 January, 2022
IN THE COURT OF THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
TRAFFIC COURT- II, BENGALURU.
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022
Present: Smt. Rekha. H.C.
B.A.LLB
Metropolitan Magistrate,
Traffic Court-II, Bengaluru.
CC No. 3416/2016
2
Complainant: State by Magadi Road Traffic Police Station,
Bangalore.
(Represented by: Sr. APP)
V/s
Accused:- Nithin Narayana. A. S/o Ashwath Narayana, 21 Yrs,
R/at No. 13/6, 2nd Main Road, 1st Cross,
Chamarajpet, Valmikinagar, Bengaluru.
Rider of Motor cycle bearing Reg. no. KA 01 HH 2747
(Represented by Sri. N.M.N. Adv.)
1. Date of commission of offence: 1.12.2015
2. Offences alleged against accused U/sec. 279, 304-A of IPC
3. Date of recording of evidence: 13.6.2017
4. Date of Judgment: 24.1.2022
JUDGMENT
The Inspector of Police, Magadi Road Traffic P.S. has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/sec. 279 and 304-A of IPC.
2. The brief case of the prosecution is that;
On 1.12.2015 at about 11.15 a.m., within the jurisdiction of Magadi Road Traffic police station, the accused being the rider of Motor cycle bearing Reg. no.
2 CC 3416/2016KA 01 HH 2747 rode the same on Rajajinagar 6th block, 76th "A" cross junction, Dr. Rajkumar road from Prasanna circle towards Basavamantapa circle in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger the human life and dashed against Suzuki Axis Scooter bearing Reg. no. KA 02 HR 5491 who was crossing the road from 76th "A" cross to Dr. Rajkumar road. Due to the impact, the Suzuki Axis rider/Raju. K. fell down and sustained head injury and he was shifted to Victoria hospital for treatment, where the injured did not respond to the treatment and succumbed on 4.12.2015 at about 2.30 a.m. Based on the first information statement given by CW-1, the case came to be registered against the accused in Cr. No. 47/2015, U/sec. 279, 304-A of IPC. The I.O. took up the investigation, visited the spot, drawn the spot mahazar and recorded the statement of witnesses. Further, the I.O. after obtaining the postmortem report and other documents and on completion of investigation he has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/sec. 279 and 304-A of IPC.
3. Upon taking cognizance, case came to be registered against accused for the offences punishable U/sec. 279 and 304-A of IPC. The accused appeared before court engaged counsel and enlarged on bail. Charge sheet copies furnished to the accused and thereby provision U/sec. 207 duly complied with.
4. Plea came to be framed for the offence punishable U/sec. 279 and 304-A of IPC for which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
3 CC 3416/20165. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PWs-1 to 7 and got exhibited documents as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9. On completion of prosecution side evidence, the statement of accused U/sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded and the accused denied all the incriminating evidence appearing against him. No defence evidence led.
6. Heard arguments on both sides.
7. On going through the materials placed by the prosecution in this case, the points that arise for my consideration are as follows:
1. Whether prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 1.12.2015 at about 11.15 a.m., the accused being the rider of Motor cycle bearing Reg. no. KA 01 HH 2747 rode the same on Rajajinagar 6th block, 76th "A" cross junction, Dr. Rajkumar road from Prasanna circle towards Basavamantapa circle in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger the human life. Thereby the accused has committed the offences punishable U/sec. 279 of IPC ?
2. Whether prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above date, time, and place, the accused being the rider of Motor cycle bearing Reg. no. KA 01 HH 2747 dashed against Suzuki Axis Scooter bearing Reg. no. KA 02 HR 5491 who was crossing 4 CC 3416/2016 the road and the rider/Raju. K. fell down and sustained head injury and was shifted to Victoria hospital for treatment where the injured did not respond to the treatment and succumbed on 4.12.2015 at about 2.30 a.m. Thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable U/sec. 304-A of IPC?
3. What Order?
8. Now, my findings to the above points are as follows:
Point Nos.1 & 2 : In the Affirmative Point No.2: As per order, for the following:
REASONS
9. Point Nos. 1 & 2 :- Both points taken together for common discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts and for appreciation of evidence.
It is the specific case of the prosecution that on 1.12.2015 at about 11.15 a.m., within the jurisdiction of Magadi Road Traffic police station, the accused being the rider of Motor cycle bearing Reg. no. KA 01 HH 2747 rode the same on Rajajinagar 6th block, 76th "A" cross junction, Dr. Rajkumar road from Prasanna circle towards Basavamantapa circle in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger the human life and dashed against Suzuki Axis Scooter bearing Reg. no. KA 02 HR 5491 who was crossing the road from 76th "A" cross to Dr. Rajkumar road. Due to the impact, the rider/Raju. K. fell down and sustained head injury and was shifted to Victoria hospital for treatment where the injured did not 5 CC 3416/2016 respond to the treatment and succumbed on 4.12.2015 at about 2.30 a.m.
10. To prove its case, the prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 7 and marked Exs.P.1 to 9 with sub marking and disprove the case of accused, the counsel for accused confronted one document by PW-1 it is marked as Ex.D.1.
11. CW-2 Murali is examined as PW-1 who is eye witness and mahazar witness of this case. He deposed that on 1.12.2015 at about 11.15 a.m. he went to took his bike near Juice shop at Dr. Rajkumar road. At that time one motor cycle came in rash and negligent manner from Prasanna circle towards Basava Mantap circle and dashed against another motor cycle whch was crossing the road from 76th "A" cross towards Dr. Rajkumar road. Due to the impact, both riders of motor cycle were fell down and rider of Suzuki Axis who was crossing the road was sustained head injury and there was bleeding from the ear and rider of offending vehicle was also sustained simple injuries. Then the son of injured shifted his father to Suguna hospital for treatment. He came to know that the name of rider of offending vehicle is Nithin Narayana and injured name is Raju. The registration number of offending vehicle is KA 01 HH 2747 and registration number of injured vehicle Scooter is KA 02 HR 5491. On the next day, at about 1.45 p.m. the police have conducted spot mahazar with the presence of him as per Ex.P.1 and he identified the accused before court.
6 CC 3416/201612. As could be seen from his cross-examination, he deposed that there was a heavy traffic at the spot of accident and there is a specific suggestion from the defence in the cross-examination that for the first time he was seeing the accused before court, but he denied the suggestion made by the counsel for the accused and he specifically deposed that at the time of accident he was already seen the accused at spot. Further in his cross- examination admits that he know the son of the deceased, but he did not gave any evidence before any other court regarding said accident. So far as, the learned counsel for accused shown document to said witness and he admitted the contents of said document which has marked as Ex.D.1. Except this any other relevant suggestions have not put by the learned counsel for the accused.
13. CW-3 Hemanth Kumar is examined as PW-2 who is eye witness and mahazar witness of this case. As per the prosecution he is also eye witness and mahazar witness to the alleged accident. He deposed exactly similar to PW-1 in his examination-in-chief. Wherein, he deposed that on 1.12.2015 at about 11.15 a.m. he was at 76th "A" cross, Karnataka Military hotel. At that time one Suzuki Axis vehicle was crossing the road from 76th "A" circle towards Prasanna circle, on that time the rider of motor cycle came from Prasanna circle towards Basava Mantap circle in high speed and negligent manner and dashed against said Suzuki Axis vehicle. Due to the impact, both riders were fell down and rider of Suzuki 7 CC 3416/2016 Axis was sustained head injury and there was bleeding from ears. Thereafter, the son of injured rushed to the spot and shifted the injured to hospital for treatment. The registration number of offending vehicle is KA 01 HH 2747 and registration number of injured vehicle Scooter is KA 02 HR 5491 and he identified the accused before court. On the same day, at about 1.30 p.m. the police have conducted spot mahazar with the presence of him as per Ex.P.1 and he signed the said mahazar.
14. As could seen from the cross-examination same sought of defence as to status of the accused come to put this witness as a suggestion. However, he has specifically answered in his cross-examination that he was seen the alleged motor cycle at about 30-50 ft away and the Suzuki Axis motor cycle came from north towards south direction. Further he deposed that he came to know the schedule of the spot of the accident. Further he deposed that the alleged motor cycle came from east towards west direction. In his cross-examination, he specifically denied the suggestion that he was not seen the accident and with the influence of police he is giving false evidence before the court.
15. CW-10 R. Chandrashekar is examined as PW-3 who is IMV inspector of this case. He deposed that on 3.12.2015 as per the requisition of I.O. of Magadi Road Traffic police station at about 3.30 p.m. he inspected the two motor cycles bearing Reg. no. KA 02 HR 5491 and KA 01 HH 2747. With regard to the damages caused to the said vehicles in the accident and he issued IMV report as 8 CC 3416/2016 per Ex.P.5 and he opining that the alleged accident is not due to any mechanical defect.
So far as in his cross-examination he specifically denied the suggestion put by the learned counsel that he gave false report regarding the inspection conducted by him.
16. CW-4 Manjunath. R is examined as PW-4 he is none other than son of deceased. He deposed that on 1.12.2015 at about 11.15 a.m. public informed him about the accident to his father and he came to know that the accident had happened between two motor cycles on that day his father was proceeding on Axis vehicle and while taking turn from Prasanna circle towards 17th cross, at that time the rider of motor cycle came from Prasanna circle towards Basappa circle and dashed against his father. The registration number of his father's vehicle is KA 02 HR 5491 and the registration number of offending vehicle is Ka 01 HH 2747. When he went to the spot his father was fell on road and rider of offending vehicle was also fell down. His father was sustained injuries to head and bleeding from ears. Thereafter, he was shifted his father to Suguna hospital from there to Victoria hospital for further treatment. On 4.12.2015 his father did not respond to the treatment and succumbed. On the same day, the police have conducted spot mahazar at spot and he was identified the accused before the court.
9 CC 3416/201617. In his cross-examination he answered that since from 2014, he is running a Condiment shop at Dr. Rajkumar road and on that day one Lingaraju has informed him about the accident to his father. Further denied the suggestion made by the learned counsel for accused that due to the negligent driving of his father the accident had happened. He further denied that he is seeing the accused before this court today itself only. Except, this suggestions nothing suggestion has been put by the counsel for the accused.
18. CW-8 Ashwath Narayana is examined as PW-5 who is owner of offending vehicle bearing Reg. no. KA 01 HH 2747. On 1.12.2015 his son/accused was riding said vehicle and the police have issued 133 notice with respect to accident caused by said vehicle. So, he was replied the same which have been marked as per Exs.P.6 & 7. Due to accident his son also sustained head injury and took treatment at hospital.
As could be seen in the cross-examination of PW-5, he admitted that after lapse of four days of the accident, the police have issued notice and after furnishing the indemnity bond he took interim custody of the offending motor cycle.
19. CW-12 Siddalingaiah. T.G. examined as PW-6 Investigating Officer of this case. He deposed that on 1.12.2015, he received the first information regarding the accident from CW-1. Thereafter, he went to the spot and he came to know that the injured was already shifted to 10 CC 3416/2016 hospital. Then he went to Suguna hospital and received written complaint by CW-1 which has been marked as Ex.P.9. On the basis of said information, he registered the case in Cr.No.47/15 and furnished FIR to the court as well to his higher authorities. On the same day, he visited the spot in presence of CWs. 1, 2 and 4 at about 2.00 p.m. to 3.00 p.m., he was conducted spot mahazar as per Ex.P.1 and prepared rough sketch as per Ex.P.10. Thereafter he recorded statements of CWs.2 to 4. He seized alleged two vehicles and gave requisition to IMV authorities on 3.12.2015 to inspect the said vehicles and issued 133 notice to CW-8 and obtained reply from concerned owner of the vehicle which have been marked as Exs.P.6 & 7. After obtaining document of alleged vehicle, he released the vehicle after receiving indemnity bond from owner of vehicle. Then he was arrested the accused and thereafter released him on station bail. The accused before this court was the person who arrested by him. The injured did not respond to the treatment and succumbed on 4.12.2015 at Victoria hospital so he received death memo from Victoria hospital then handed over further investigation to CW-13.
20. In his cross-examination he admits that CW-1 came to police station and informed about the said accident. He further admits that immediately he did not took any complaint regarding the accident because he went to hospital for enquired the injured. He specifically denied that he was not conducted any spot mahazar and rough sketch at spot and he was prepared the same at 11 CC 3416/2016 police station. He further denied that he has not recorded witness statements, not obtained reply and he falsely registered the case against the accused.
21. CW-13 Raghavendra. S. is examined as PW-7 who is also Investigating Officer of this case. He deposed that on 14.12.2015 he received death memo of injured and on its basis gave requisition before court to register the case u/sec. 304-A of IPC. On the same day, visited the Victoria hospital and conducted inquest mahazar with presence of CWs. 5 to 7 and gave requisition to doctor to conduct postmortem. Further, he recorded further statement of CW-1 and statements of CWs.2 & 3. On 15.12.2015 obtained IMV report and on 29.12.2015 obtained postmortem report and on conclusion of investigation he filed the charge sheet against the accused.
22. In his cross-examination, he specifically denied that without conducting proper investigation, he falsely filed the charge sheet against the accused.
22. Out of the exhibits marked for prosecution Ex.P.1 is the spot mahazar, Ex.P.2 is inquest mahazar, Ex.P.3 is Postmortem report, Ex.P.4 is copy of requisition, Ex.P.5 is IMV report, Ex.P.6 is copy of 133 notice, Ex.P.7 is reply, 12 CC 3416/2016 Ex.P.8 is FIR, Ex.P.9 is complaint, Ex.P.10 is rough sketch.
Ex.D.1 is certified copy of examination-in-chief of PW-1 in MVC no. 1538/2016.
As could be seen from the order sheet the learned Sr. APP has given up CWs. 5 to 7, 9 & 11 are given up.
The learned counsel for the accused also has relied upon the evidence.
23. In the light of the above material available on record, the learned Sr. APP argued that there is sufficient material on record to convict the accused.
24. The learned counsel for the accused argued that there is no evidence to show rash or negligent riding on the part of the accused. Further, he argued that the material and evidence available on record is not sufficient to believe the case of prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. More over, the prosecution has utterly failed to examine the complainant of this case. Therefore, he prayed to acquit the accused.
25. It is appropriate to ascertain, whether the prosecution is successful in proving that the incident took place at the instance of the accused. Further, the accused is duty bound to prove that, at the time of the alleged incident, he was not driving the said vehicle in rash and negligent manner.
13 CC 3416/201626. 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.
27. For an offence punishable U/sec. 304-A of IPC the point to be established is that the act of accused was responsible for resulting in the death and such act of accused was rash and negligent although it did not amount to culpable homicide. To establish either of Sec. 279 or 304-A of IPC, rash and negligent has to be established, but only distinction is that in Sec. 279 rash and negligent act relates to the manner of driving or riding on a public way, while offence punishable U/sec. 304-A of IPC extends to any rash and negligent act falling short of culpable homicide. As indicated above, rashness or negligence to be established must be more than an error of judgment. Distinction between rashness and 14 CC 3416/2016 negligence is that negligence connotes want of proper care while rashness conveys an idea of reckless doing of an act without consideration of any consequences.
28. After the considering the evidence led by the witnesses one thing is clear that the accused claims that he did not rode his vehicle in rash and negligent manner at the time of accident. He specifically stated that due to negligent riding of the deceased the accident had happened. Therefore, one thing is clear that there is no dispute in respect of accident and death of the deceased. More over, the accused was also suffered injuries.
29. So far as, I have carefully gone through the charge sheet materials and also evidence made available in the file. PW-1 is none other than eye witness cum mahazar witness of this case. In view of evidence of PW- 1, on 1.12.2015 at about 11.45 a.m. he was parked his two wheeler near juice shop at Dr. Rajkumar road. On that day, when he was went to took his two wheeler, at that time one motor cycle came from Prassanna circle towards Basava Mantapa in rash and negligent manner and dashed against rider of another motor cycle who was crossing the road from 76th "A" cross road towards Dr. Rajkumar road. Due to the impact, the rider of motor cycle who was tried to cross the road sustained head injury and rider of offending vehicle also sustained simple injuries. Thereafter, the son of injured was rushed to the spot and shifted the injured to hospital. On the next day, the police have conducted spot mahazar at spot at about 1.45 p.m. as per Ex.P.1. He further specifically 15 CC 3416/2016 admits that he seen the accused at spot and he identified the accused before court.
30. So far as, the advocate for accused argued that PW-1 was not present at the time of accident and he did not seen the accident on that day and he don't know from whose fault the accident had happened. But, he is the friend of PW-4 who is son of deceased. So, PW-1 gave false evidence before the court. Even though, PW-1 gave evidence before other courts regarding the accident. In this regard, the learned counsel for accused produced one document which has marked as per Ex.D.1. So, I have carefully perused the contents of Ex.D.1. The said document clearly established that deceased was slowly and consciously crossing the road, at that time the rider of motor cycle bearing Reg. no. KA 01 HH 2747 rode his vehicle in rash and negligent manner without observing the traffic rules and dashed against Suzuki Axis scooter which was crossing the road. Further, the contents of Ex.D.1 specifically establishes that at the time of accident, PW-1 was present at spot and seen the accident.
31. Further, I have perused evidence of PW-2 who was examined by the prosecution as eye witness cum spot mahazar witness. He was also narrated exactly similar to the evidence of PW-1, except, the date of mahazar conducted by the police. As per evidence of PW- 1, the police have conducted the spot mahazar and on the next day of accident at about 1.45 p.m. But, in view of evidence of PW-2, on the same day of accident, at 16 CC 3416/2016 about 1.30 p.m. the police have conducted the mahazar at spot. So, in this regard I have perused the contents of mahazar which has marked as Ex.P.1. As per prosecution on 1.12.2015 at about 2.05 to 3.05 p.m. the police have conducted the mahazar in the presence of PWs. 1, 2 & 4. So, inveiw of evidence of PWs. 1 & 2, there is contradiction between the evidence of PWs. 1 & 2 regarding date of mahazar conducted by the police. But, learned counsel for accused did not cross examine these witnesses regarding the said fact. Even though, mahazar is not main criteria to prove the guilt of accused. Except, this PWs.1 & 2 are fully supported the case of prosecution and they specifically deposed that on that day and at that time, they were present at the spot and they seen the accident and also they identified the accused at spot.
32. Further, I have perused contents of Ex.P.5 which has produced by the prosecution as IMV report. The said report the concerned IMV official (PW-3) is mentioned damages caused to both vehicles. As per Ex.P.5 the following damages found in Suzuki Axis no. KA 02 HR 5491 (injured vehicle):
1. Front right side brake lever broken.
2. Right rear view mirror broken.
3. Right side center portion of the body damaged.
Damages found on motor cycle bearing Reg. no. KA 01 HH 2747 (Offending vehicle).
1. Front head light broken.17 CC 3416/2016
The contents of Ex.P.5 discloses that the accident had happened between two vehicles from opposite direction and damages caused to deceased vehicle shows that the accused rode his vehicle in rash and negligent manner and dashed to Suzuki Axis vehicle.
More over, the evidence of PW-5 who is owner of offending vehicle which discloses that on the date and time of accident the accused was rider of offending vehicle.
33. Further, I have perused the contents of rough sketch which has marked by prosecution as Ex.P.10. The contents of Ex.P.10 discloses that the accident had happened in junction. So, there is heavy traffic in the said junction. At that place, the riders who proceeding from main road, they should observed the traffic rules and proceed their vehicle. In this present case, Suzuki Axis vehicle came from 76th "A" cross road and offending vehicle was proceeding in main road and the rider of Suzuki Axis was almost crossing the road, but the accused did not observed the said vehicle and rode his vehicle rash and negligent manner and dashed against said vehicle so due to fault of accused the accident had happened. Hence, the contents of Exs.P.5 and 10 discloses that due to rash and negligent act of accused the accident had happened.
34. The witnesses P.Ws.1 & 2 are being the alleged eye witnesses and spot mahazar witnesses to this incident, they have supported the case of the prosecution 18 CC 3416/2016 and they have specifically deposed that, the accused was driving the said offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner as on the date and time of the incident and at his instance, the incident took place. He has committed a crime.
35. It is further case of the prosecution that due to the said rash act of driving by the accused the deceased sustained head injuries as such he succumbed to the same. Hence, the prosecution alleged that the accused has committed an offence punishable U/s.304(A) of IPC. In this regard as noted above P.Ws.1 & 2 have categorically deposed that due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused the deceased sustained grievous injuries. This version stands corroborated by postmortem report which has been marked as Ex.P.3. The said P.M. report has been marked through Investigating Officer. The doctor who has prepared the said report has opined that the death is due to head injury sustained. Hence the evidence of P.Ws.1 & 2 stands corroborated. Further the occurrence of accident has not been disputed. PWs. 3 to 7 have also supported the case of prosecution. Even though counsel for the accused cross examined them in detail, but single admission not given by the said witnesses.
36. Further, I have carefully gone through the cross examination conducted by the learned counsel for accused. It is noticed that the counsel for accused not put any suggestion to prosecution witnesses who has examined as PWs. 1 & 2 with regard to rash and 19 CC 3416/2016 negligent act of the accused and he never denied the accused has not driver of offending vehicle and the said accused has not drove the said vehicle on the date and time of alleged accident. The learned counsel for accused stands only one point that the complainant was not examined by the prosecution. But, as per prosecution, the complainant was died on 31.8.2016. In this regard, the prosecution has produced the death of the complainant. Though, if the complainant is not examined, it is not the criteria to disprove the guilt against the accused. More over, the complaint has been marked through Investigating Officer as per Ex.P.9
37. It is settled principle that the accused has to prove that he has not drove his vehicle in rash and negligent manner and has to prove that the accident has not happened due to fault of accused. In this case, the learned counsel for the accused not prove that the accused does not drove his vehicle in rash and negligent manner and endangering the human life.
38. It so far as P.Ws.1 & 2 witnesses have deposed that they have seen the driver of the vehicle. These witnesses have also identified the accused before the court as being the driver of the said vehicle on the said date of offence. Hence, on perusal of the statement made by the witnesses before this court it is significant to note that the entire case of prosecution is based on eye witnesses. Among these eye witnesses and mahazar witness P.Ws.1, 2 & 4 are material witnesses who have deposed corroborating the theory of prosecution in the 20 CC 3416/2016 manner of accident as alleged therein. Though P.Ws.1 & 2 are an eye witnesses of this case. As it is settled principles of law that criminal law can be set into motion by any person. There is no material statement elicited from the mouth of P.Ws.1 to 7 in order to discredit their statements of being unbelievable.
39. P.Ws.1 & 2 are eye witnesses, PW.4 mahazar witness, PW-5 owner of the vehicle, PW.3 is IMV inspector and PWs. 5 & 7 are official witnesses who have clearly supported the prosecution and they have not given a single admission in cross-examination by counsel for accused. In so far as the discharge of prosecution's burden to prove its version, examining the eye witnesses including one mahazar witness and as their evidence has not been shaken by the defense, this court opines that, the prosecution has discharged its burden.
40. It is to be noticed that this is the case involving traffic offences. It is a matter of general inference that when such offence occur it is rare chances to see witnesses being available who are known either to the victim or to the offender. Such being the case naming the accused in the complaint would not be possible in the ordinary course of things. However, in this case, there is no dispute that the accused was driving the said vehicle because there is no suggestion put forth to any of the witnesses by the defence in this regard. Hence, in the absence of their being specific denial or a specific defence there would be no doubt created on the theory of 21 CC 3416/2016 prosecution. More so, when the oral testimony of unrelated witness is available on record.
41. It is settled principle of law is that no innocent person is to be punished for his no faults but in the circumstances where the accused has not at all made a single efforts to disprove the alleged offences then the theory of prosecution becomes absolute.
42. In Sudip Kr. Sen @ Bittu Vs. State of W.B. and others reported in 2016(1) crimes 1 SC. Hon'ble Apex court has observed the following in para 12 of the said case that
12.Observing that there is no impediment for recording conviction based on the testimony of a single witness provided it is reliable in Prithipal Singh and Others. Vs. State of Punjab and Another it was observed as under:
"49. This court has consistently held that as a general rule the court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness provided he is wholly reliable. There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness. That is the logic of Section 134 of the Evidence Act. But if there are doubts about the testimony, the court will insist on corroboration. In fact, it is not the number of the quantity, but the quality that is material. The time-honored principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy or otherwise. The legal system has laid emphasis on value, weight and quality of evidence, rather than on quantity, multiplicity or plurality of witness. It is, therefore, open to a competent court to fully and completely rely on a solitary witness and record conviction. Conversely, it may acquit the accused in spite of testimony 22 CC 3416/2016 of several witness if it is not satisfied about the quality of evidence".
2. As per Vadivelu Thewar Vs. The State of Madras (1957 SCR 981) the Hon'ble S.C. had divided the nature of witnesses in three categories, namely, wholly reliable, wholly unreliable and lastly neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. The first two categories they pose little difficulty, but in the case of the third category of witnesses, corroboration would be required. It is sound and well established rule of law that the court is concerned with the quality and not with the quantity of the evidence necessary for proving or disproving a fact. Generally speaking, oral testimony in this context may be classified into three categories, namely;
(i) Wholly reliable
(ii) Wholly unreliable
(iii) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly
unreliable.
In the first category of proof, the court should have no difficulty in coming to its conclusion either way it may convict or may acquit on the testimony of a single witness, if it is found to be above reproach or suspicion or interestedness, incompetence, or subornation. In the second category, the court equally has no difficulty in coming to its conclusion. It is in the third category 23 CC 3416/2016 of cases, that the court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particular by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial. There is another danger is insisting on plurality of witnesses. Irrespective of the quality of the oral evidence of a single witness, if courts even to insist on plurality of witness in proof of any fact, they will be indirectly encouraging subornation of witnesses.
3. The Hon'ble SC in Jagdish Prasad Vs. State of M.P. (AIR 1994 SC 1251) has held that as a general rule the court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness provided he is a wholly reliable. There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness. That is the logic of Sec.134 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. But if there are doubts about the testimony the courts will insist on corroboration. It is for the court to act upon the testimony of witnesses. It is not the number, the quantity, but the quality that is material. The time honored principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. On this principle stands the edifice of Sec.134 of Evidence Act. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy or other wise.
4. I have carefully gone through the charge sheet materials and also evidence made 24 CC 3416/2016 available in the file. The witnesses have stated regarding the number of vehicle involved in the alleged accident. Further witnesses have stated rash and negligent act on the part of the accused on the date of alleged incident. Further, there is evidence against the accused to show his involvement. Therefore, the case of prosecution regarding rash and negligent act and also regarding involvement of the vehicle of accused made out beyond reasonable doubt.
In view of the evidence let in by the prosecution being strong and considering its incriminating nature for the above discussed reasons, I am of the firm opinion that, the accused is guilty of the offence punishable U/sec.279 and 304(A) of IPC. Hence, at the outset it can be said that the prosecution has successfully proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, for the offences punishable U/sec.279 and 304(A) of IPC. Therefore for the above discussion, I answer point Nos.1 and 2 IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
43. POINT No.3: In view of the above discussions and findings I proceed to pass the following ORDER Accused is Convicted U/sec 255 (2) of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable U/s. U/sec. 279 and 304(A) of IPC.
The accused shall pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable 25 CC 3416/2016 U/s.279 of IPC in default he shall undergo S.I. for 15 days.
Secondly, with respect to offence
punishable U/s.304-A of IPC the
accused shall undergo Simple
Imprisonment for a period of six
months also he shall pay a fine of
Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment fine, he shall undergo S.I. for three months.
Above sentences shall run concurrently.
Bail bonds and surety bonds of accused shall stand cancelled.
The office is directed to furnish copy of the judgment free of cost to the accused forthwith.
(Dictated to the stenographer, directly on the computer, typed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 24th day of January 2022).
(Rekha. H.C.) [ M.M.T.C-II, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for Prosecution:-
PW-1 Murali
PW-2 Hemanth Kumar
PW-3 Chandrashekar
PW-4 Manjunath. R.
PW-5 Ashwatha Narayana
PW-6 Siddalingaiah. T.G.
PW-7 Raghavendra. S
26 CC 3416/2016
List of documents marked for Prosecution:
Ex.P.1: Spot mahazar Ex.P.2 Inquest mahazar Ex.P.3 Postmortem report Ex.P.4 Copy of requisition Ex.P. 5 IMV report Ex.P. 6 Copy of 133 notice Ex.P.7 Reply Ex.P.8 FIR Ex.P.9 Complaint Ex.P.10 Rough sketch
List of witnesses examined for Accused:-
NIL List of documents marked for Defence:
Ex.D.1 Certified copy of examination-in-
chief of PW-1 in MVC no. 1538/2016 M.M.T.C-II, Bengaluru.