Bangalore District Court
State By Indiranagar Police Station vs S. Parthasarathi S/O Shanmugam on 22 April, 2015
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
TRAFFIC COURT - VI, BENGALURU CITY.
C.C. No.95/2013
Dated: This the 22nd day of April, 2015
Present: Smt.Lavanya H.N., B.Sc.,LL.B
P.O. of MMTC-VI, Bangalore
Complainant : State by Indiranagar Police Station
V/s
Accused : S. Parthasarathi S/o Shanmugam,
26 years, No.1134, Fresh & fresh
HAL 2nd stage, 100 feet Road,
Indiranagar, Bangalore-560038.
JUDGMENT
Police Inspector of Indiranagar 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) read with sec.187 of IMV Act.
2. The facts of prosecution case in brief are as under:
On 26.11.2012 at about 9.30 pm within the jurisdiction of Indiranagar traffic police station, the accused being the driver of TATA ACE Goods 2 CC.No.95/2013 Minitempo No.KA-03-C-3854 drove it on 3rd cross, 2nd stage, Dommalur North to South direction in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life, Perinatal Clinic dashed against the motorcycle bearing its No.KA-03-EA-3935 which was coming in opposite direction as a result of which the rider of the said motorcycle namely Raghunath sustained previous injuries to his head and then he 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.95/20134. 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 11 and closed its side.
7. Statement U/s 313 of Cr.P.C. is recorded. All the incriminating evidence appearing against the accused has been read over and explained to the accused, who denied the same. 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 :
4 CC.No.95/20131) Whether prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that on 26.11.2012 at about
9.30 pm within the jurisdiction of Indiranagar traffic police station, the accused being the driver of TATA ACE Goods Minitempo No.KA- 03-C-3854 drove it on 3rd cross, 2nd stage, Dommalur North to South direction in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life, Perinatal Clinic dashed against the motorcycle bearing its No.KA-03-EA-3935 which was coming in opposite direction 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 motorcycle 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.95/20139. 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 complainant as well as eye witness and mahazar witness. PW-2, 4 and 6 are eye witnesses. PW-3 is eye witness as well as mahazar witness. PW-5 is Investigation Officer.
11. PW-1 has deposed that on 26.11.2012 at about 9.30 pm when he was going on his motorcycle from Dommalur towards Doopanahalli, the accused being the driver of TATA ACE No.KA-03-C-3854 came in speed from 17th main road dashed against the motorcycle which was coming in opposite direction as a result of which the rider of the said motorcycle fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries to 6 CC.No.95/2013 his head. He has further deposed that after the accident the accused fled away from the spot by leaving his vehicle therein. Thereafter, with the help of the public, injured has been taken to Oxon Hospital wherein it is informed that the injured brought dead. In this regard he has lodged complaint at Ex.P.1. He has further deposed that on 27.11.2012 at about 8.00 am the police have conducted spot inspection at accident place in his presence and drawn mahazar at Ex.P.2.
12. PW-2 who is stated to be eye witness has deposed that 26.11.2012 at about 9.30 pm when he was going by walk on 17 main road, 2nd stage, Dommalur, the accused being the driver of TATA ACE No.KA-03-C-854 came in speed dashed against the motorcycle which was coming in opposite direction as a result of which the rider of the said motorcycle fell down on the road and sustained injuries to his head. He has further deposed that after the accident the accused fled away from the spot by leaving his vehicle therein. Thereafter, the public took the injured to Hospital.
7 CC.No.95/201313. PW-3, 4 and 6 who are stated to be eye witnesses have deposed that they did not see the accident. As they have not supported the case of the prosecution, they have been subjected to cross- examination by the learned APP. But, nothing has been elicited from their mouth which supports the case of the prosecution and they are deposing false evidence to help the accused.
14. PW-5 is Investigation Officer has deposed with regard to investigation.
15. PW-1, 2 and 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 he has not caused the accident in question.
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 driver of the motorcycle died in road traffic accident. It is also not in 8 CC.No.95/2013 dispute that the accident in question took place on public road. It is also not in dispute that the offending TATA Ace goods vehicle was driven by accused before the court on the date of alleged accident. On going through the undisputed document at Ex.P.8, 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 questions remain before the court are whether the accused caused the accident and this accident is due to either rash or negligent act of the accused or not.
17. PW-1 and 2 who are the eye witnesses and material witnesses in their examination-in-chief have deposed that the accused who is driver of the offending vehicle came in speed from 17th main road and dashed against the motorcycle which was coming opposite to his vehicle as a result of which rider of the motorcycle sustained grievous injuries.
9 CC.No.95/201318. PW-1 and 2 who saw the accident have identified the accused stating that he is the driver of the offending vehicle which caused the accident. During their cross-examination by the defense nothing has been elicited from their mouth that they were not present at accident spot and they did not see the accident and accused. On going through the entire oral evidence of PW-1 and 2 it can safely be held that the accused who is the driver of the offending vehicle caused the accident.
19. PW-1 during his cross-examination by the defense has admitted that he put signature to spot mahazar at Ex.P.2 in police station. PW-3 who is eye witness and spot mahazar witness has also deposed that on 27.11.2012 he put signature to spot mahazar at Ex.P.2 in police station. From this it appears that the spot mahazar has not been drawn at accident spot and the same was drawn in police station.
20. Further, PW-1 in his cross-examination by the defense has deposed that he saw the accident after hearing the sound of the accident. From this part of evidence it could be said that the PW-1 did not see the 10 CC.No.95/2013 manner in which the accident took place. Apart from that PW-2 in his cross-examination by the defense has clearly admitted that he did not see the accident and he went accident place after the accident. From this part of evidence it could be said that the PW-2 has also not witnessed the accident in question. Therefore, the testimonies of the PW-1 and 2 would not suffice to hold that due to rash and negligent act of the accused the accident in question took place.
21. PW-5 is investigation Officer. Evidence of PW-5 is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution to prove its case that the accused drove his vehicle 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: -
22. 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 11 CC.No.95/2013 and thereby, accused has committed the offences punishable under section 134(A & B ) read with 187 of IMV Act.
23. In this case PW-1 and 2 who are eye witnesses to the incident have identified the accused before the court stating that he is the driver of the offending tempo which caused the accident. Pw-5 investigation officer has deposed that on 27.11.2012 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. Apart from that PW-1 and 2 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.
12 CC.No.95/201324. 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:
25. 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.13 CC.No.95/2013
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.
(Directly typed on laptop by me, revised, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this 22nd day of April, 2015) (Smt.Lavanya H.N.) P.O. OF MMTC-VI, BENGALURU.
14 CC.No.95/2013ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the prosecution :
PW-1 : Narayanappa, PW-2 : Govindaraju, PW-3 : Sadananda, PW-4 : Chidanda, PW-5 : M.C.Kavitha, PW-6 : Manjunatha More.
Documents Exhibited for the prosecution:
Ex.P1 : Complaint, Ex.P2 : Spot-mahazar, Ex.P3 : Statement of PW-3, Ex.P4 : Statement of PW-4, Ex.P5 : Notice issued u/s133 of IMV Act, Ex.P6 : Reply to Ex.P.5, Ex.P7 : PM Report, Ex.P7A : Inquest, Ex.P8 : IMV Report, Ex.P9 : Hand sketch, Ex.P10 : FIR, Ex.P11 : Statement of PW-6. 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.95/2013