Bangalore District Court
Hulimavu Trps vs Dhrumil Y Pamar on 2 May, 2024
IN THE COURT OF THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
TRAFFIC COURT - IV, BANGALORE
PRESENT: SRI GAGAN M.R. B.A.L LLB
Metropolitan Magistrate
Traffic Court - IV, BANGALORE
DATED : THIS THE 2nd DAY OF MAY 2024
C.C. No.8416/2018
COMPLAINANT: State by Hulimavu Traffic Police
Station, Bangalore
(Represented by: APP)
V/S.
ACCUSED: 1) Dhrumil Y. Parmar
S/o. Yasvanth B. Parmol.
Age: 22 years,
R/at Simmith nagar,
Behind LIC office,
Alkapuri street,
Sabar Kanth district,
Gujarat
(Represented by: Sri A.M. Iktear Adv.)
1. Date of commission of offence : 22072018
2. Offences alleged against accused : U/s.279 & 338 of IPC,
Sec.134(a and b) R/w.187
and Sec.146 R/w.196
of M.V.Act.
3. Date of recording of evidence : 30052019
4. Date of closing evidence : 19102023
5. Date of judgment : 02052024
***
2
C.C.No.8416/2018
JUDGEMENT
The SubInspector of Hulimavu Traffic Police Station has filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/s.279 and 338 of IPC, Sec.134(a and b) R/w.187 and Sec.146 R/w.196 of M.V.Act.
2. The brief case of the prosecution is that:
On 22072018 at about 22.30 p.m. within the jurisdiction of Hulimavu Traffic police station, the accused being the rider of Motor cycle bearing registration No.KA04/HA3594 drove the same on Bannerghatta main road, from Meenakshi mall towards Gottigere in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and dashed to Yamaha motor cycle bearing registration No.KA05JH7760 which was proceeding in the said road from opposite direction near Kalena Agrahara, in front of Poorva Panorama apartment. Due to the impact the rider C.W.2 sustained grievous injuries. Further on the day of accident the accused did not provide medical aid to the injured nor he intimated the police about the accident. Further the accused vehicle was not having the valid insurance on the day of accident. Thereby the accused is alleged to have committed the offences punishable U/s.279 and 338 of 3 C.C.No.8416/2018 IPC, Sec.134(a & b) R/w.187 and Sec.146 R/w.196 of M.V.Act.
3. Upon taking cognizance, case came to be registered against accused for the offences punishable U/s.279 & 338 of IPC, Sec.134(a and b) R/w.187 and Sec.146 R/w.196 of M.V.Act. The accused appeared before the court through his counsel & got enlarged on bail. Charge sheet copies furnished to the accused and thereby provision U/s..207 of Cr.P.C. duly complied with.
4. Plea came to be framed for the offences U/s.279 & 338 of IPC, Sec.134(a and b) R/w.187 and Sec.146 R/w.196 of M.V.Act for which accused pleaded not guilty claimed to be tried.
5. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined P.W.1 to 6 and got exhibited documents as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10. On completion of prosecution side evidence, the statement of accused U/s.313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded and the accused denied all the incriminating evidence appearing against him and did not choose to lead any defence evidence.
6. Heard arguments on both sides.
4C.C.No.8416/2018
7. The points that arise for my consideration are as follows:
1.Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on On 22072018 at about 22.30 p.m. within the jurisdiction of Hulimavu Traffic police station, the accused being the rider of Motor cycle bearing registration No.KA04/HA3594 drove the same on Bannerghatta main road, from Meenakshi mall towards Gottigere in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life, thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable U/s.279 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place the accused being the driver of the said vehicle, drove his vehicle in the above said manner. While so driving his vehicle he dashed to Yamaha motor cycle bearing registration No.KA05JH7760 which was proceeding in the said road from opposite direction near Kalena Agrahara, in front of Poorva Panorama apartment. Due to the impact the rider C.W.2 sustained grievous injuries, thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable U/s.338 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution further proves that the accused did not provide medical aid to the injured nor he intimated the police about the accident, thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable U/s.134 (a and b) R/w.
Sec.187 of M.V.Act?
4. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the said vehicle was not having valid insurance on the date of 5 C.C.No.8416/2018 accident, thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable U/Sec.146 R/w Sec.196 of IMV Act?
5. What order?
8. My answer to the above points are as under:
1. POINT No.1: IN THE NEGATIVE
2. POINT No.2: IN THE NEGATIVE
3. POINT No.3: IN THE AFFIRMATIVE
4. POINT No.4: IN THE AFFIRMATIVE
4. POINT No.5: AS PER THE FINAL ORDER For the following REASONS
9. POINT No.1 and 2: For the sake of convenience and to avoid repetition of facts, these points are taken up for common discussion to have brevity.
10. It is the case of the prosecution that on 22072018 at about 22.30 p.m. within the jurisdiction of Hulimavu Traffic police station, the accused being the rider of Motor cycle bearing registration No.KA04/HA 3594 drove the same on Bannerghatta main road, from Meenakshi mall towards Gottigere in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and dashed to Yamaha motor cycle bearing registration No.KA05JH 7760 which was proceeding in the said road from 6 C.C.No.8416/2018 opposite direction near Kalena Agrahara, in front of Poorva Panorama apartment. Due to the impact the rider C.W.2 sustained grievous injuries. Further on the day of accident the accused did not provide medical aid to the injured nor he intimated the police about the accident. Further the accused vehicle was not having the valid insurance on the day of accident. Thereby the accused is alleged to have committed the offences punishable U/s.279 and 338 of IPC, Sec.134(a & b) R/w.187 and Sec.146 R/w.196 of M.V.Act.
11. In order to prove the contents of complaint the prosecution examined 6 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.6 and marked 10 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10.
12. C.W.2/ Shashank is examined as P.W.1 who is the injured cum eye witness of this case. He deposed that on 22072018 at about 11.30 p.m. while he was going to drop C.W.3 in his bike bearing registration No.KA05JH7760 to their house, while they were proceeding towards Meenakshi mall opposite to Poorva Panorama apartment, Kalena Agrahara, at that time one person came in his motor cycle bearing registration No.KA04HM3594 from opposite direction from Gottigere, Bannerghatta road in a rash and negligent 7 C.C.No.8416/2018 manner and dashed to his motor cycle. Due to the impact he sustained grievous injuries in the said accident. C.W.3 sustained simple injuries. The general public shifted them to Vijayashree hospital. Later he was shifted to Sai Ambika hospital. The accident has taken place due to the negligent act of the accused. He has identified the accused present before the court.
During his crossexamination by the accused counsel he deposed that he was riding the scooter and Pulsar came from opposite direction and dashed to his vehicle. He deposed Pulsar was coming in high speed and it dashed while taking a turn. The witness deposed that due to construction work the said road was reduced to single road and it is a one way road. He further deposed that Pulsar was coming in the opposite lane and he denied the suggestions of the accused counsel.
13. C.W.3/ Rajath Srikanth is examined as P.W.2 who is the victim of this case. He deposed that on 22072018 at about 10.45 p.m. he along with C.W.2 were going to C.W.2's house in their vehicle bearing registration No.KA05JH7760, near Meenakshi Mall, near Purvankara apartment, at that time one Pulsar motor vehicle bearing registration No.KA04HM3594 8 C.C.No.8416/2018 came in a wrong side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to their vehicle. Due to the impact he sustained simple injuries, C.W.2 sustained grievous injuries. Immediately he shifted him to Vijayashree hospital. Later he was shifted to Sai Ambika hospital. The accident has taken place due to the negligent act of the pulsar bike rider. On the next day police conducted spot mahazar in his presence between 8.00 to 9.00 a.m. and obtained his signature. He has identified the accused present before the court.
During his crossexamination by the accused counsel he deposed that no construction work was going on the said road and denied the other suggestions of the accused counsel.
14. C.W.4/ Amith is examined as P.W.3 who is the eye witness of this case. He deposed that on 2207 2018 at about 10.45 p.m. while he was proceeding in his car from Meenakshi Mall towards Gottigere, at that time one Grey colour Pulsar rider came in same direction in a high speed and dashed to two wheeler which was proceeding in opposite direction. Immediately he stopped his car and went to the spot there he found one person sustained injuries on his leg and another person fell unconscious. Later Public gathered there and he 9 C.C.No.8416/2018 informed the police about the accident. On the next day police called him and took him to the accident spot, he informed them how accident occurred and obtained his signature on one document. The accident has occurred due to the negligent act of the pulsar bike rider. He has identified the accused present before the court. The learned APP treated the witness as party hostile and crossexamined him before the court. During his cross examination by the learned APP he admitted the vehicle numbers which involved in the accident and the negligent act of the bike pulsar rider and mahazar conducted by police.
During his crossexamination by the accused counsel he deposed that he has seen the Pulsar vehicle from 1015ft. He further deposed that after hearing the sound he turned towards the accident spot. He denied the suggestion that due to construction work it is not possible to ride in high speed. He deposed that since accused gone to other lane the accident has taken place. He denied the suggestions of the accused counsel.
15. C.W.9/ M. Yallappa is examined as P.W.4 who is the Investigation Officer of this case. He deposed that on 22072018 at about 11.30 p.m. while he was discharging his duty he received the information about 10 C.C.No.8416/2018 the accident. Immediately he rushed to the spot, nobody was there in the spot, He enquired the local peoples, he came to know that injured was admitted to the Vijayashree hospital. He went to the said hospital there the injured was not in a position to speak, he received the complaint from the brother of the injured, he returned to the police station on the basis of the said complaint registered the case in Crime No.80/18 against the accused. On the next day he visited the spot and conducted spot mahazar and prepared rough sketch. He recorded the statement of the witnesses. He sent a requisition to concerned motor vehicle inspector. He issued 133 notice and received reply for notice. He arrested the accused and released him on bail. He found that the said vehicle was not insured on the day of the accident, in this regard he has seized the said vehicle by way of vehicle seizure mahazar. He received the wound certificate. He received the motor vehicle inspection report. After completion of investigation he has filed a Charge Sheet against the accused. He has identified the accused present before the court.
During his crossexamination he admits that it is a double road and there are several lanes. He deposed that he denied the suggestion that there was construction 11 C.C.No.8416/2018 work in the center of the road. He denied that he has not shown in his report that accused was coming in violation of lane. He denied the other suggestions of the defence counsel.
16. C.W.8/ Shivalingamurthy is examined as P.W.5 who Motor Vehicle Inspector of this case. He deposed that on 31072018 on requisition of Hulimavu Traffic police station he has conducted the inspection of two wheeler bearing registration No.KA04HM3594 and another two wheeler bearing registration No.KA05JH 7760 and he gave the report. Upon examining the Pulsar two wheeler the front mud guard, head light and front crush guard, front wheel and right side foot rest got damaged, upon examining the Yamaha two wheeler the front mud guard, front head light and pannel sheet was damaged. The break system of the two vehicles were in order and in his opinion the accident was not caused due to the mechanical defect of the vehicles. In this regard he has given report. During his crossexamination he denied the suggestions of the accused counsel.
17. C.W.7 / Dr. Srikanth is examined as P.W.6 who is Doctor. He deposed that on 23072018 at about 3.10 in the early morning while he was on duty one 12 C.C.No.8416/2018 Shashank came to his hospital, with a history of road traffic accident. He examined him and found injuries over his body. Upon examining he found the thigh bone was fractured and blood clotting was found on brain, damages found on right side of the brain. In this regard he issued wound certificate as per Ex.P.8. During his cross examination he denied the suggestions of the accused counsel.
18. Out of the documents marked for prosecution Ex.P.1 is the spot mahazar, Ex.P.2 is the complaint, Ex.P.3 is the FIR, Ex.P.4 is the Rough sketch, Ex.P.5 is the vehicle seizure mahazar, Ex.P.6 is the 133 notice, Ex.P.7 is the reply, Ex.P.8 is the wound certificate, Ex.P.9 is the IMV Report and Ex.P.10 is the wound certificate.
19. Upon analyzing the statement of the witnesses and documents submitted by both sides, in the instant case it is not the case of the defence that the accused person was not driving the alleged bike and they are not disputing the injury to the victim was not due to accident. Their contention is the accident occurred due to the negligent act of the victim and in a sense they are highlighting the concept of contributory negligence. In 13 C.C.No.8416/2018 the instant case Rash and negligent driving of the accused driver is the vital point to book him u/s 279 IPC or section 338 IPC.
20. 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. Regarding rash or negligent driving Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravi Kapur Vs State of Rajasthan in AIR 2012 SC 2986 observed as follows : 14 C.C.No.8416/2018 "10. In order to examine the merit or otherwise of contentions (b) and (c) raised on behalf of the Appellant, it is necessary for the Court to first and foremost examine (a) what is rash and negligent driving; and (b) whether it can be gathered from the attendant circumstances. Rash and negligent driving has to be examined in light of the facts and circumstances of a given case. It is a fact incapable of being construed or seen in isolation. It must be examined in light of the attendant circumstances. A person who drives a vehicle on the road is liable to be held responsible for the act as well as for the result. It may not be always possible to determine with reference to the speed of a vehicle whether a person was driving rashly and negligently. Both these acts presuppose an abnormal conduct. Even when one is driving a vehicle at a slow speed but recklessly and negligently, it would amount to 'rash and negligent driving' within the meaning of the language of Section 279 Indian Penal Code. That is why the legislature in its wisdom has used the words 'manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life'. The preliminary conditions, thus, are that (a) it is the manner in which the vehicle is driven; (b) it be driven either rashly or negligently; and (c) such rash or negligent driving should be such as to endanger human life. Once these ingredients are satisfied, the penalty contemplated Under Section 279 Indian Penal Code is attracted.
11. 'Negligence' means omission to do something which a reasonable and prudent person guided by the considerations which ordinarily regulate human affairs would do or doing something which a prudent and reasonable person guided by similar considerations would not do. Negligence is not an absolute term but is a relative one; it is rather a comparative term. It is difficult to state with precision any mathematically exact formula by which negligence or lack of it can be infallibly 15 C.C.No.8416/2018 measured in a given case. Whether there exists negligence per se or the course of conduct amounts to negligence will normally depend upon the attending and surrounding facts and circumstances which have to be taken into consideration by the Court. In a given case, even not doing what one was ought to do can constitute negligence.
12. The Court has to adopt another parameter, i.e., 'reasonable care' in determining the question of negligence or contributory negligence. The doctrine of reasonable care imposes an obligation or a duty upon a person (for example a driver) to care for the pedestrian on the road and this duty attains a higher degree when the pedestrian happen to be children of tender years. It is axiomatic to say that while driving a vehicle on a public way, there is an implicit duty cast on the drivers to see that their driving does not endanger the life of the right users of the road, may be either vehicular users or pedestrians. They are expected to take sufficient care to avoid danger to others.
13. The other principle that is pressed in aid by the courts in such cases is the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. This doctrine serves two purposes one that an accident may by its nature be more consistent with its being caused by negligence for which the opposite party is responsible than by any other causes and that in such a case, the mere fact of the accident is prima facie evidence of such negligence. Secondly, it is to avoid hardship in cases where the claimant is able to prove the accident but cannot prove how the accident occurred. The courts have also applied the principle of res ipsa loquitur in cases where no direct evidence was brought on record. The Act itself contains a provision which concerns with the consequences of driving dangerously alike the provision in the Indian Penal Code that the vehicle 16 C.C.No.8416/2018 is driven in a manner dangerous to public life. Where a person does such an offence he is punished as per the provisions of Section 184 of the Act. The courts have also taken the concept of 'culpable rashness' and 'culpable negligence' into consideration in cases of road accidents. 'Culpable rashness' is acting with the consciousness that mischievous and illegal consequences may follow but with the hope that they will not and often with the belief that the actor has taken sufficient precautions to prevent their happening. The imputability arises from acting despite consciousness (luxuria). 'Culpable negligence' is acting without the consciousness that the illegal and mischievous effect will follow, but in circumstances which show that the actor has not exercised the caution incumbent upon him and that if he had, he would have had the consciousness. The imputability arises from the neglect of civic duty of circumspection. In such a case the mere fact of accident is prima facie evidence of such negligence. This maxim suggests that on the circumstances of a given case the res speaks and is eloquent because the facts stand unexplained, with the result that the natural and reasonable inference from the facts, not a conjectural inference, shows that the act is attributable to some person's negligent conduct. [Ref. Justice Rajesh Tandon's 'An Exhaustive Commentary on Motor Vehicles Act, 1988' (First Edition, 2010].
21. In order to prove the allegation of rash and negligent driving of accused the prosecution relied on P.W.1 to 3. P.W.1 and 2 are the injured persons and P.W.3 is the eye witness. PW.1 was the rider of the scooter which met with accident. P.W.1 deposed accused came from opposite direction and dashed to his vehicle.
17C.C.No.8416/2018 During his crossexamination he deposed that Pulsar vehicle dashed to his vehicle while taking turn and further stated that at the time of the incident the metro construction work was going on in the said road and it is a one way road and he admits the suggestion that metro construction work was going on in the center of the road and pulsar was coming in the other lane. According to this witness it is a two lane road in between the lanes the metro construction work was going on and accused who was proceeding in the other lane taken a right turn and dashed to his vehicle. With regard to said aspect P.W.2 who was also the injured eye witness deposed that the accused driven his bike in a wrong side and dashed to their scooter. He deposed that no construction work was going on in the said road. The other eye witness P.W.3 deposed that the Pulsar bike over take his vehicle and dashed to scooter which was coming in the opposite lane and later when he visited the spot he noticed the rider was unconscious. As per the version of P.W.1 and 3 it is a double road and accused gone to other road and caused accident. P.W.2 deposed accused came in wrong side which is similar to that of P.W.1 and 2. The investigating officer P.W.4 in his crossexamination also admitted it is a double road and there are several lanes, but he denied the construction work. As per sketch map i.e., Ex.P.4 it 18 C.C.No.8416/2018 is not a double road and no construction work was going on in the said road. It is a single road with a width of 25ft. IF the version of IO is compared with eye witnesses the story narrated by the prosecution completely looses its sight. The version of eye witness and the sketch map does not match with each other. Even if it is considered about other lane and omission to mention the same in the sketch map is not possible since on both sides properties are situated and footpath is in existence. The IO did not mention anything about violation of traffic rules or one way traffic in the said road. Then how come wrong side according to P.W.2 will come. How come other lane according to P.W.1 and 3 is in existence this raises doubt about the case of the prosecution.
22. In the instant case as well the prosecution though established that the accused person was driving the alleged bike on the said date it did not conclusively established that how the accident has occurred, the prosecution contend it is an head to head collusion between the accused bike and victim bike. Prosecution alleged that accused gone to the extreme right and dashed to victim bike. The narration of the prosecution that due to impact of accident the victim fell down and sustained injuries. As admitted by all the witnesses the 19 C.C.No.8416/2018 said road is not wide road and there is dispute with regard to whether it is two way traffic road or one way traffic road, because the injured and investigating officer deposed it is a double road, but as per sketch map it is a single road. The victim was proceeding in the opposite direction. Prosecution allege accused came to extreme right. But P.W.1 deposed accident has taken place while taking a turn no turn is shown in the sketch map. The other eye witness deposed who was proceeding in the other lane and he stopped his vehicle and came to see the injured people. Here the lane itself is not shown in the sketch map and on both side properties are shown along with footpath. Injured admits construction work was going on eye witness deposed due to construction work the traffic was left on one side, but no such thing is noticed in sketch map. Even the IO did not depose in clarity about the sketch. This raises doubt about the genuineness of the sketch itself. Prosecution alleged accused drove his bike in a rash and negligent manner, but accused contended due to negligence of the injured untoward incident occurred.
23. When the prosecution or the defence fails to narrate how the untoward incident happened and when defence alleged fault on opponent the concept of res ipsa 20 C.C.No.8416/2018 loquitor comes into picture Hon'ble Supreme court in case of Md. Ainuddin vsState of Andhra Pradesh 2007 SCC 72 discussed the principle of 'res ipsa loquitur' as under;
"9.A rash act is primarily an overhasty act. It is opposed to a deliberate act. Still a rash act can be a deliberate act in the sense that it was done without due care and caution. Culpable rashness lies in running the risk of doing an act with recklessness and with indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negligence is the failure to exercise duty with reasonable and proper care and precaution guarding against injury to the public generally or to any individual in particular. It is the imperative duty of the driver of a vehicle to adopt such reasonable and proper care and precaution.
In light of the above, now we have to examine if negligence in the case of an accident can be gathered from the attendant circumstances. We have already held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is equally applicable to the cases of accident and not merely to the civil jurisprudence. Thus, these principles can equally be extended to criminal cases provided the attendant circumstances and basic facts are proved. It may also be noticed that either the accident must be proved by proper and cogent evidence or it should be an admitted fact before this principle can be applied. This doctrine comes to aid at a subsequent stage where it is not clear as to how and due to whose negligence the accident occurred. The factum of accident having been established, the Court with the aid of proper evidence may take assistance of the attendant circumstances and apply the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. The mere fact of occurrence of an accident does not necessarily imply that it must be owed to someone's negligence. In cases where negligence is the primary cause, it may not always be that direct evidence to prove it exists. In such cases, the circumstantial evidence may be adduced to prove negligence. Circumstantial evidence consists of facts that necessarily point to negligence as a logical conclusion rather than providing an 21 C.C.No.8416/2018 outright demonstration thereof. Elements of this doctrine may be stated as:
The event would not have occurred but for someone's negligence. The evidence on record rules out the possibility that actions of the victim or some third party could be the reason behind the event. Accused was negligent and owed a duty of care towards the victim.
24. In present case the eye witness who supported the case of the prosecution is P.W.3 who clearly admits upon hearing the sound he came to know about the accident. He has not seen the accident live and upon sound he went there. He stated he was proceeding in the other lane and he stopped his vehicle and then gone to opposite lane. AS per sketch there is no double road, then the version of the eye witness is not believable one. No other independent eye witness is examined by prosecution. In the instant case the defence also failed to establish their projection by adducing any reliable evidence from their side. But they are successful in creating a doubt regarding contributory negligence. So rash and negligent driving is not proved against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, in this circumstances of the case, the case of prosecution regarding rash and negligent act and also regarding the injury was caused by the vehicle of accused could not be made out beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, looking to the evidence available on record and the materials placed 22 C.C.No.8416/2018 by way of oral and exhibits, the case of prosecution appears to be doubtful. There is a doubt as to whether the accused had driven the said vehicle in a rash or negligent manner. Therefore, in the circumstances of the case, the prosecution has failed to prove the alleged offence against the accused. Accordingly, the points under consideration are answered point No.1 and 2 IN THE NEGATIVE.
25. POINT No.3 and 4: The prosecution in the instant case has further alleged that the accused being the driver of the two wheeler after the commission of the accident has not provided medical aid to the injured and did not intimated the same to the concerned police. The prosecution further alleged in the charge sheet that the accused vehicle was not having valid insurance policy as on the date of accident. The accused counsel in order to deny the allegation of the prosecution about providing first aid has not suggested anything to the witness. The accused left the bike at accident spot and went away from the spot is not disputed by the defence. When they admit the same they cannot deny the after acts. The other defence taken was even he was injured and admitted to hospital, but no documentary evidence is placed to 23 C.C.No.8416/2018 support the said contention. Hence the said defence falls flat.
26. The IO in his charge sheet has stated that the accused vehicle was not having valid insurance policy as on the date of accident. The defence counsel in his crossexamination to IO has clearly made suggestion that the vehicle was not possessing valid insurance policy on the date of accident and it was expired on previous day. It amounts to admission and the defence has not led any defence evidence to deny the allegations made by the prosecution under Indian Motors Vehicles Act. Hence point No.3 and 4 is answered IN AFFIRMATIVE.
27. POINT No.5: In view of the above discussions and findings I proceed to pass the following ORDER Acting U/s.255(1) of Criminal Procedure code, the accused is hereby acquitted of the offences alleged against him punishable U/s.279 & 338 of IPC.
Acting U/s.255(2) of Criminal Procedure code, the accused is hereby convicted of the offences alleged against him punishable U/s.134(a and b) R/w.187 and Sec.146 R/w.196 of M.V.Act.
24C.C.No.8416/2018 The accused is directed to pay fine of Rs.1,000/ for the offences punishable U/s.134(a and b) R/w.187 of M.V.Act.
The accused is directed to pay fine of Rs.1,000/ for the offences punishable U/s.146 R/w.196 of M.V.Act.
In total the accused shall pay a fine of Rs.2,000/. In default shall under go SI for a period of 3 months.
The bail bonds of accused and surety bonds shall stands cancelled after the appeal period.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court this the 2 nd day of MAY 2024).
(GAGAN M.R.) MMTC - IV, BANGALORE.
ANNEXURE
1. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
P.W.1: Shashank P.W.2: Rajath P.W.3: Amith P.W.4: M. Yallappa P.W.5: Shivalinga Murthy P.W.6: Dr. Srikanth A.V.S. 25 C.C.No.8416/2018
2. LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1: Spot mahazar Ex.P.2: Complaint Ex.P.3: FIR Ex.P.4: Rough Sketch Ex.P.5: Vehicle seizure mahazar Ex.P.6: 133 notice Ex.P.7: Reply Ex.P.8: Wound certificate Ex.P.9: IMV Report Ex.P.10: Wound certificate
3. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE ACCUSED:
NIL
4. LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE ACCUSED:
NIL (GAGAN M.R.) MMTC - IV, BANGALORE.