Bangalore District Court
State By Audgodi Traffic Police Station vs No.1: Konish Naidu S/O P.D.Naidu on 15 February, 2016
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE TRAFFIC
COURT - VI, BENGALURU CITY.
C.C. No.3876/2014
Dated: This the 15th day of February, 2016.
Present: Smt.Lavanya H.N., B.Sc.,LL.B
P.O. of MMTC-VI, Bengaluru.
Complainant : State by Audgodi Traffic Police Station.
V/s
Accused No.1: Konish Naidu S/o P.D.Naidu
Aged about 19 years,
R/at # 2, Friends Colony, 6th Cross,
S.T.Bed, Srinivag Ejipura, Bengaluru City.
Accused No.2: Reema Naidu S/o P.D.Naidu,
Aged about 47 years,
R/at # 2, 9th Main, 6th Cross,
Friends Colony, S.T.Bed Layout,
Koramangala 4th Block, Bengaluru City.
JUDGMENT
Police Inspector of Adugodi Traffic Police Station filed charge sheet alleging that, the accused No.1 has committed offences punishable U/s 279 and 304 (A) of IPC and U/s. 3 (1) r/w 181 of IMV Act and accused No.2 has committed the offence punishable U/s 5 (1) r/w 180 of IMV Act.
The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:
2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 13.09.2014 at about 3.15 p.m. within the jurisdiction of Audgodi Traffic Police 2 CC.No.3876/2014 Station, the accused No.1 being the rider of motor cycle bearing its No.KA-01-HF-3641 without having driving license rode it on Koramangala 100 feet outer ring road in high speed and negligent manner so as to endanger human life, near Lotus St.John Research Centre dashed to the pedestrian Smt.Revathi Shenoy, aged about 44 years, when she was standing to cross the road as a result of which she fell down on the road and sustained injuries to his head and other parts of the body and shifted to St.Johns Hospital while getting treatment she succumbed to the injuries on 15.09.2014 at about 12.25 p.m.
3. It is further case of the prosecution that the accused No.2 who being the owner of the offending vehicle allowed the accused No.1 to ride the vehicle though he has no driving license.
Thereby, the accused No.1 and 2 have committed the offences as stated supra.
4. After Completion of Investigation, I.O. has filed charge sheet against the accused. Thereafter, cognizance was taken of the offences punishable U/s 279 and 304(A) of IPC and section 3(1) r/w 181 and U/s 5 (1) r/w 180 of IMV Act and then process has been issued to the accused No.1 and 2. The accused No.1 and 2 have appeared through counsel in pursuance of process and got enlarged themselves on bail.
5. Charge Sheet copies have been furnished to the accused No.1 and 2 in compliance of Section 207 of Cr.P.C.
3 CC.No.3876/20146. Substance of accusation has been read over and explained to the accused No.1 and 2 who have not pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried. Hence, the case is posted for Prosecution evidence.
7. In order to establish its case the Prosecution has examined six witnesses as PW.1 to 6 and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to 12 and closed its side.
8. Statement U/s 313 of Cr.P.C. is recorded. All the incriminating evidence appearing against the accused No.1 and 2 have been read over and explained to the accused No.1 and 2, who denied the same. On behalf of defense one witness has been examined as DW-1 and got marked the documents atEx.D- 1
9. 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 13.09.2014 at about 3.15 p.m. within the jurisdiction of Audgodi Traffic Police Station, the accused No.1 being the rider of motor cycle bearing its No.KA-01-HF-3641 rode it on Koramangala 100 feet outer ring road in high speed and negligent manner so as to endanger human life, near Lotus St.John Research Centre dashed to the pedestrian Smt.Revathi Shenoy, aged about 44 years, while crossing the road as a result of which she fell down on the road and sustained injuries to his head and other parts of the body and thereby, the accused No.1 has committed the offence punishable U/s 279 of Indian Penal Code?4 CC.No.3876/2014
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that as a result of above said accident, the pedestrian succumbed to injuries is not amounting to culpable homicide and thereby, the accused No.1 has committed the offence punishable U/s 304 (A) of Indian Penal Code ?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that the accused No.1 rode the offending vehicle without having driving license on the date and time of alleged accident and thereby, the accused No.1 has committed the offence punishable U/s 3(1) r/w 187 of IMV Act?
4. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that the accused No.2 who being the owner of the aforesaid vehicle allowed the accused No.1 ride the vehicle through he has not driving license to ride it as on the date and time of alleged accident and thereby, the accused No.2 has committed the offence punishable U/s 5 r/w 187 of IMV Act?
5. What order?
10. The findings to the above points are as under:
Point No. 1 to 4 : In the Negative;
Point No. 5 : As per final order for the
following :
REASONS
POINT Nos.1 and 2:
11. 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 six witnesses as PW-1 to 6. PW-1 is Complainant, eye-witness as well as spot mahazar witness. PW-2 is eye witness. PW.3 is eye-witness as 5 CC.No.3876/2014 well as spot mahazar witness. PW.4 to PW.6 are Investigating Officers.
12. PW.1 has deposed that on 13.9.2014 at about 3.15 pm when he was waiting for his wife at BDA Complex, Koramangala, the accused. No.1 being the rider of the Honda Activa bearing No.KA-01-HF-3641 came in a high speed from Water Tank towards Sony World and dashed against his wife while she was crossing the road from Lotus Research Lab towards where he was standing as a result of which his wife fell down and sustained head injuries. Immediately, his wife has been taken to hospital in CW.3's Car. As he was at shock and his wife has been admitted in hospital in ICU Unit, he did not lodge complaint on the same day and has lodged complaint on the next day as per Ex.P.1. On 15.9.2014 his wife succumbed to injuries. He has further deposed that he put signature to spot mahazar at Ex.P.2 at police station.
13. As he did not support with regard to spot mahazar, he has been treated as hostile witness at the request of the learned APP. He has been subjected to cross-examination by the learned APP wherein he has admitted to the suggestion put to him that on the day when he has given complaint between 9.20 am and 10.20 am the police have conducted spot mahazar at the accident spot and drawn spot mahazar as per Ex.P.2.
14. PW.2 who is alleged to be an eye-witness to the incident has deposed that on 13.9.2014 at about 3.15 pm when he was coming by his car on Water Tank Road near Lotus Research 6 CC.No.3876/2014 Gate the accused No.1 who is the rider of the Honda Activa came in high speed even by overtaking his car and dashed against one pedestrian who was standing near road divider, as a result of which the said lady/pedestrian as well as the accused No.1 fell down on the road. The pedestrian sustained injuries to her head and she has been taken to St. Johns Hospital with the help of her husband who present there in his car.
15. PW.3 who is stated to be an eye-witness to the incident has deposed that on 13.9.2014 at about 3.15 pm when he was doing security duty at Lotus Research Centre main gate the accused No.1, the rider of motor cycle bearing No.KA-01-HF-
3641 came in high speed from Water Tank towards Sony signal and dashed against the pedestrian while she was crossing the road as a result of which the rider as well as the pedestrian fell down on the road. In the said accident the said pedestrian sustained injuries to her head and accused. No.1 sustained simple injuries. Thereafter, the said pedestrian has been taken to hospital in car. He has further deposed that he put signature to spot mahazar at Ex.P.2 at police station.
16. PW-3 has been subjected to cross-examination by the learned APP. During his cross-examination he has denied the suggestion put to him that he has stated before the police that at the time of accident the said lady was standing to cross the road. He has further denied that he has stated before the police that the bike which caused the accident is KA-01-HF-3641. He has further denied the suggestion put to him that on 14.9.2014 7 CC.No.3876/2014 between 9.20 am and 10.20 am the police have conducted spot inspection at accident spot in his presence and drawn spot mahazar as per Ex.P.2.
17. PW.4 to PW.6 have deposed with regard to investigation.
18. In defense one Lakshman has been examined as DW.1. He has deposed that in the month of September 2014 in one Saturday when he was going as a pillion rider along with accused, one lady pedestrian entered the road suddenly, as a result of which the accident in question took place. The accused No.1 was riding the vehicle in normal speed. As the accused No.1 did not possess driving licence and he has learning license in order to help him he was sitting as a pillion rider as he has valid driving license. He has produced his driving license which is marked at Ex.D.1.
19. PW.1 to PW.6 have been subjected to cross-examination by the defense, wherein denied the case of the prosecution. It is the specific defense of the accused that this accident is due to negligent act of the pedestrian, as pedestrian entered the road suddenly without observing the vehicles on the road, though it is not permitted to cross the road where the accident took place. But, it is not due to either rash or negligent riding of the accused No.1.
20. In this case, the accident in question i.e., in between the motor bike of accused No.1 and lady pedestrian is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that on the date and time of 8 CC.No.3876/2014 accident the accused No.1 was riding the offending motor cycle. It is also not in dispute that in the said accident the said pedestrian succumbed to injuries on 15.9.2014. It is also not in dispute that the road in question where the accident took place is a public road.
21. Further, it is not the defense of the accused that this accident is due to mechanical defect of the offending motor bike. On going through the Ex.P.8, IMV report it could be seen that the IMV inspector who inspected the offending motor bike has expressed his opinion that this accident is not due to any mechanical defect of the offending motor bike. Hence, it can safely be held that this accident is not due to mechanical defect of the offending vehicle. Now, the question remains before the court is that whether this accident is due to either rash or negligent riding of the accused No.1 or not.
22. In this case PW-1 to 3 are material witnesses. It is the defense of the accused that PW-1 to 3 are interested witnesses as such there evidence can not be considered. It is admitted fact that PW-1 is none other than husband of deceased pedestrian. PW-2 is doctor under whom deceased pedestrian was working. PW-3 is security guard of Lotus research centre wherein which deceased pedestrian was working. Only on the ground that PW-1 to 3 are interested witnesses, their evidence can not be brushed aside. But, evidence of PW-1 to 3 should be scrutinized carefully and vigilantly.
9 CC.No.3876/201423. It is the case of the prosecution that this accident took place while deceased pedestrian was standing to cross the road. According to the case of the prosecution the pedestrian was standing at the edge of the road. PW-1 who is none other than husband of deceased pedestrian in his examination-in-chief has deposed that at the time of accident his wife was crossing the road whereas PW-2 has deposed that at the time of the accident the pedestrian was standing to cross the road at road divider whereas PW-3 in his examination-in-chief has deposed that the pedestrian was crossing the road at the time of accident.
24. Further PW-1 has admitted that he came to know the accident after hearing the sound. PW-3 has also admitted that he did not see the accident how it happened but he saw the accident after hearing sound of the accident. From this part of evidence of PW-1 and 3, it could be said that neither PW-1 nor PW-3 witnessed the accident on whose fault it had happened.
25. As has already been noticed PW-2 has deposed that at the time of the accident the pedestrian was standing at road divider which is contrary to the case of the prosecution as according to the case of the prosecution the pedestrian was standing at left edge of the road. From this it could be said that he has not witnessed the accident and he might have gone to the place of accident after the incident.
26. Apart from it on going through documentary evidence at Ex.P.2, Spot Mahazar and Ex.P.10, Rough Sketch prepared by 10 CC.No.3876/2014 Investigating Officer carefully and closely it could be gathered that the accident in question happened on main road which is straight road and there is no provision for the pedestrian to cross the road at accident place. PW-1 to 5 in their evidence deposed that there is no provision for the pedestrian to cross the road. This being the fact and circumstances it shows that this accident took place while the pedestrian entered the road suddenly without observing the approaching vehicles on main road where it is not permitted. In such a circumstance, it is not possible to avoid the accident even if the vehicle comes slowly as no driver/rider anticipate that pedestrian may cross the road where there is no pedestrian crossing.
27. The testimonies of the PW-1 to 6 would not suffice to hold that due to rash and negligent act of the accused No.1 the accident in question took place. It is no doubt that Smt.Revathi Shanai aged about 44 years died in road traffic accident. However, in view of the aforesaid reasons the benefit of doubt should be given to accused No.1. In this case the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused No.1 has caused this accident due to his rash and negligent riding. Hence, Point No.1 and 2 are answered in the Negative.
POINT No.3 and 3 :
28. These two points are taken up together for common discussion to avoid repetition of facts.
It is further case of the prosecution that the accused No.1 who is rider of the motorcycle was riding the motorcycle without 11 CC.No.3876/2014 having driving license and thereby, he has committed the offence punishable u/s 3(1) r/w 181 of IMV Act. It is further case of the prosecution that accused No.2 who is owner of the offending motor cycle allowed the accused No.1 to ride the motorcycle though he has no DL for riding the motorcycle. Hence, the accused No.2 has committed the offence punishable under section 5 r/w 180 of IMV Act.
29. It is in dispute that the accused N.2 is owner of the offending motorcycle. It is no doubt that the accused No.2 is none other than mother of accused No.1. It is also not in dispute that at the time of accident the accused No.1 was riding the offending motorcycle. PW-4, Investigation Officer has also admitted that at the time of accident the accused No.1 was possessing learner license. But, he has denied that the accused No.1 has been accompanied with pillion rider who has driving license. It is also come on record that DW-1 has driving license.
30. At this stage it is relevant to go through the evidence of PW-1. PW-1 in his cross-examination admitted that there was a pillion rider in the motorcycle. However, he has stated that he did not see the pillion rider. From this part of evidence of PW-1 it could be said that the accused No.1 was accompanied with pillion rider.
31. It is the defense of the accused that the said pillion rider has driving license to ride the motorcycle and it is specific defense of the accused that the accused No.1 was riding the 12 CC.No.3876/2014 motorcycle along with DW-1 who has driving license. In this regard accused have also examined DW-1. DW-1 in his evidence has deposed that on the date and time of alleged accident he was sitting as a pillion rider in the motorcycle which was riding by the accused No.1 as he has driving license. His driving license has also been marked at Ex.D.1. Hence, it can be said that the accused No.1 was riding the offending motorcycle along with pillion rider who has driving license. When the accused No.1 was riding the vehicle along with pillion rider who has driving license then it can not be said that he has not committed the offence punishable under section 3(1) read with 181 of IMV Act as the person who has learner license can drive/ride the vehicle along with a person who has driving license under his instruction. Therefore the accused No.1 and 2 are entitled to acquittal for the alleged offences. Hence, point No.3 and 4 are answered in the Negative.
POINT No.5:
32. In view of findings on point No.1 to 4, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER Acting U/s 255 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, accused No.1 is acquitted for the offences punishable U/s 279, and 304 (a) of IPC 3 (1) r/w 181 of IMV. Act.13 CC.No.3876/2014
Acting U/s 255 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, accused No.2 is acquitted for the offences punishable 5 (1) r/w 180 of IMV. Act.
Bail bond executed by the accused shall stands cancelled.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript computerized by him, revised corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 29th day of February, 2016) (Smt.Lavanya H.N.) P.O. OF MMTC-VI, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the prosecution :
PW-1 : G.Narasimha Murthy, PW-2 : Dr.M.M.Balasubramanyam, PW-3 : Prashanth Belai, PW-4 : A.V.Laxminarayan, PW-5 : Narasimharaju Arsu, PW-6 : V.Rajendra.
Documents Exhibited for the prosecution:
Ex.P1 : Complaint,
Ex.P2 : Spot-mahazar,
Ex.P3 : Statement of PW-3,
Ex.P4 : Death Intimation,
Ex.P5 : Police report,
Ex.P6 : Inquest mahazar,
Ex.P7 : PM Report,
Ex.P8 : IMV Report,
Ex.P9 : FIR,
Ex.P10 : Rough sketch.
Ex.P11 : Notice U/s 133 of IMV Act,
Ex.P12 : Reply.
14 CC.No.3876/2014
Witness examined for the defense :
DW-1 : Sri.Laxman.
Documents exhibited for the defense :
Ex.D-1 : Driving license of DW-1.
Material object got marked in this case : Nil.
P.O of MMTC-VI, Bengaluru City.