Bangalore District Court
Kumaraswamy Layout Trps vs Sampath Kumar H R on 21 September, 2024
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS (TRAFFIC COURT - IV) AT BENGALURU
PRESENT: SRI GAGAN M.R. B.A.L LLB
JMFC (Traffic Court - IV),
BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024
CC No.11800/2019
COMPLAINANT: State by K.S. Layout Traffic P.S
Bengaluru.
(State by : Learned APP)
V/s
ACCUSED NO.1: Sampath Kumar H.R.,
S/o. H.R. Raju,
Aged about 27 years,
R/at No.194, 7th cross,
Rangegowda Layout,
Kottigepalya, V.N. Post,
Bangalore
(Represented by Sri V. Venkatesh
Adv.,)
ACCUSED NO.2 Smt. Kamala,
W/o. Late Rajappa,
Bangalore
(Accused No.2 : Pleaded Guilty)
2
C.C. No.11800/2019
1 Date of commission of : 23-10-2019
offence
2 Offences alleged against : U/Sec.279, 337, 338 and
accused 304(A) of IPC, Sec.134(a and
b) R/w.187, Sec.3(1) R/w
Sec.181, Sec.146 R/w
Sec.196 and Sec.5 R/w 180,
Sec.58(2)(d) R/w.177 of
IMV Act,
3 Date of recording of : 07-04-2022
evidence
4 Date of closing evidence : 25-07-2024
5 Date of judgment : 21-09-2024
JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector of K.S. Layout Traffic Police Station has filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Sec.279, 337, 338 & 304(A) of IPC, Sec.134(a and b) R/w.187, Sec.3(1) R/w Sec.181 of M.V.Act, against accused No.2 for the offences punishable U/Sec.56 R/w Sec.192. Sec.5 R/w 180 and Sec.58(2)(d) R/w.177 of IMV Act.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under: -
That on 23-10-2019 at about 2.40 p.m. accused No.1 being the driver of BBMP Goods Auto bearing registration No.KA-41-C-1180 drove the same on Turahalli forest main road, from Kanakapura road towards Sompura NICE road in 3 C.C. No.11800/2019 a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life suddenly he took left turn at Turahalli forest, the goods auto fell on right side of the road, due to the impact one Sri Muniswamy, 40 years who was standing behind the goods auto sustained grievous head injuries and succumbed to the death at the spot, C.W.1, 2 sustained simple injuries and C.W.3 sustained grievous injuries. Further the accused No.1 did not provide medical aid to the injured nor he intimated the police about the accident. Further the accused No.1 was not having valid driving license on the day of accident. Further it is alleged that the accused No.2 being the owner of the offending vehicle had permitted to drive the accused No.1 who was not having driving license and the said vehicle was not having valid fitness certificate at the time of accident and the said vehicle was a goods vehicle, he drove his vehicle with three passengers standing behind the goods. Thereby the accused No.1 has committed an offences punishable under Sec.279, 337, 338 & 304(A) of IPC, Sec.134a (a and b) R/w.187, Sec.3(1) R/w Sec.181 of IMV Act and accused No.2 has committed offences punishable under Sec.56 R/w.192, Sec.5 R/w 180 and Sec,58(2)(d) R/w.177 of IMV Act.
3. Upon taking cognizance, case came to be registered against accused No.1 for the offences punishable U/s.279 & 304(A) of IPC, Sec.134(a and b) R/w.187 Sec.3(1) R/w.181 of M.V.Act. The accused No.1 appeared before the court through 4 C.C. No.11800/2019 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 & 304(A) of IPC, Sec.134(a and b) R/w.187, Sec.3(1) R/w.181 of M.V.Act for which accused pleaded not guilty claimed to be tried and accused No.2 pleaded guilty.
5. During the course of trial the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 5 and got marked Ex.P.1 to 11. The statement of accused as per Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded the accused No.1 denied the incriminating evidences recorded against him and submitted he will not lead any defence evidence.
6. Heard arguments on both sides and perused the materials available on record.
7. The point that arises for my determination is as under:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 23-10-2019 at about 2.40 p.m. accused No.1 being the driver of BBMP Goods Auto bearing registration No.KA-
41-C-1180 drove the same on Turahalli forest main road, from Kanakapura road towards Sompura NICE road in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life, thereby accused No.1 committed an offence punishable under Sec.279 of IPC?
5C.C. No.11800/2019
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. While so driving his vehicle suddenly he took left turn at Turahalli forest, the goods auto fell on right side of the road, due to the impact one Sri Muniswamy, 40 years who was standing behind the goods auto sustained grievous head injuries and succumbed to the death at the spot, C.W.1, 2 sustained simple injuries and C.W.3 sustained grievous injuries, thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable U/s.304(A) of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution further proves that on the said date, time and place the 1 st accused did not provide medical aid nor he intimated the police about the accident, thereby the 1st accused committed an offence punishable U/s.134 (a and b) R/w. 187 of I.M.V.Act?
4. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that after the accident accused No.1 was not having valid driving license on the day of accident, thereby the accused No.1 committed an offence punishable under Sec.3(1) R/w Sec.181 of IMV Act?
5. What Order?
8. My answer to the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the Negative Point No.2 : In the Negative Point No.3 : In the AFFIRMATIVE Point No.4 : In the Negative Point No.5 : As per final order For the following 6 C.C. No.11800/2019 REASONS
9. POINT Nos.1 and 2: For the sake of convenience and to avoid repetition of facts, these points are taken up for common discussions to have brevity.
10. The prosecution case against the accused No.1 is that on 23-10-2019 at about 2.40 p.m. accused No.1 being the driver of BBMP Goods Auto bearing registration No.KA- 41-C-1180 drove the same on Turahalli forest main road, from Kanakapura road towards Sompura NICE road in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life suddenly he took left turn at Turahalli forest, the goods auto fell on right side of the road, due to the impact one Sri Muniswamy, 40 years who was standing behind the goods auto sustained grievous head injuries and succumbed to the death at the spot, C.W.1, 2 sustained simple injuries and C.W.3 sustained grievous injuries. Further the accused No.1 did not provide medical aid to the injured nor he intimated the police about the accident. Further the accused No.1 was not having valid driving license on the day of accident. Thereby the accused No.1 has committed an offences punishable under Sec.279, 337, 338 & 304(A) of IPC, Sec.134a (a and b) R/w.187, Sec.3(1) R/w Sec.181 of IMV Act.
7C.C. No.11800/2019
11. In order to prove its case the prosecution examined 5 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.5 and marked 11 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11.
12. C.W.1/ Sri Chandra is examined as P.W.1 who is the complainant and eye witness of this case. He deposed that on 23-10-2019 after finishing meeting at Talghattapura, he along with C.W.2, 3, Muniswamy and accused were proceeding in Garbage collection auto bearing registration No.KA-41-C-1180 at about 2.40 p.m. C.W.3 sat beside the accused, he, C.W.2 and Muniswamy were sitting behind the auto. Near Turahalli forest the auto driver drove his vehicle in a high speed, while taking left turn, the auto rolled over. Due to the impact his right hand finger was broken. Muniswamy sustained grievous head injuries, Krishnaveni sustained injuries on her left shoulder and Ramesh sustained injuries on right hand. Muniswamy succumbed to death at the spot. The general public shifted them to Shankar hospital. The auto driver ran away from the spot. While he was in hospital K.S. Layout traffic police came to hospital and took his statement. Police took him to the accident spot and conducted spot mahazar between 5.30 to 6.30 p.m. in his presence and obtained his signature over the same. The accident has taken place due to the negligent act of the Auto driver Sampath Kumar. The learned APP treated the witness as partly hostile and cross-examined him with the permission 8 C.C. No.11800/2019 of the court. During his cross-examination by the APP he denied the suggestions of the APP he denied the suggestion that he has seen the accused on 04-11-2019 at police station and given further statement with regard to identification of accused.
During his cross-examination by the accused counsel he deposed that he is a BBMP employee and he has to put attendance every day. He submits he has no documents to show about meeting. He admits the meting spot is around 10- 15 kms from the work place. He deposed that they went to meeting in garbage collection auto. He admits in his work place there are 30 such autos and he admits everyday the drivers of the auto will get changed. He deposed that they visited meeting spot in auto and incident has taken place during their return. He deposed that he does not know it is not permissible to travel in garbage collection auto. He admits there is a jack trolley in the behind of the auto. He admits there is no option for carrying passengers in jack trolley. He admits while they were standing in trolley they do not know how vehicles were proceeding in front. He admits they were not able to see what has happening in front of driver. He admits at the time of accident they were talking to each other. He admits he does not know the contents of Ex.P.2. He further admits on the day of accident he was with deceased Muniraju till performance of final rites and he has 9 C.C. No.11800/2019 not visited any where till the completion of same. He denied the suggestions of the accused counsel.
13. C.W.3 / Smt. Krishnaveni is examined as P.W.2 who is the eye witness and injured of this case. She deposed that deceased Muniswamy is her husband. She knows C.W.1, 2 and accused. On 23-10-2019 at around 2.40 p.m. she along with her husband, C.W.1, 2 and accused, after finishing the meeting in a village near Talaghattapur, she returned in auto No.1180, accused was driving the said auto, she was sitting next to him and others were sitting behind in the auto. The accused was driving the auto in a high speed, while they were proceeding near Forest auto rolled over. Due to the impact she sustained injuries on her neck, chest and back side and she fell unconscious. C.W.1 finger was broken. C.W.2 sustained injuries on his leg. Her husband sustained head injuries and he succumbed to death. Later they went to Shankar hospital. The accident has taken place due to the negligent act of the auto driver. She has identified the accused present before the court. In this regard she has given statement before the police.
During her cross-examination by the accused counsel she deposed that every day she will put biometric attendance in office. She deposed that the meeting spot was situated at a distance of 3km from their work place. She admits they went to meeting in garbage collection tipper. She admits other auto 10 C.C. No.11800/2019 also came to meeting. She admits the rear side of the auto there is a downward shape and she admits she cannot say how peoples were standing in the garbage collection tipper. she admits the rear side of the tipper is below front side and the rear side people cannot see the front side. She denied the suggestions of the accused counsel.
14. C.W.2/ Ramesh is examined as P.W.3 who is the eye witness of this case. He deposed that on 23-10-2019 he had a BBMP work meeting at Talaghattapura, after finishing meeting at around 2.40 p.m. he along with Chandra, Muniswamy and Krishna Veni were coming in Goods Auto bearing registration No.KA-41-C-1800, while the auto was taking right turn on Turahalli forest main road, the auto rolled over, due to the impact Muniswamy sustained grievous injuries. He sustained injuries on chest and hands. Chandra's finger had broken and krishnaveni also sustained injuries. Later general public shifted them to hospital. He took treatment in Shankar hospital. The accident has taken place due to the negligent act of the goods auto driver. He has identified the accused present before the court. The learned APP treated the witness as partly hostile and cross-examined him with the permission of the court. During his cross- examination by the APP he admits the suggestion the meeting was schedule near Bayyanapalya and admits he along with 11 C.C. No.11800/2019 C.W.1 and 3 attended the meeting. He admits the suggestion with regard to accident and injuries.
During his cross-examination he deposed that he deceased and C.W.3 are residents of same cross. He admits BBMP people will take attendance every day. He admits no document is given to attend meeting. He admits he cannot say the exact spot of meeting. He admits since he was behind the auto he cannot say how accused was driving the auto. He admits he has not given any statement before police. He admits he is seeing the accused for the first time in court and he has not seen him anywhere prior to today. He denied the suggestions of the accused counsel.
15. C.W.15/ N. Govardhan Ravo is examined as P.W.4 who is the 1st Investigating Officer of this case. He deposed that while he was discharging duty, his personal staff recorded the statement of complainant in Shankar hospital in the presence of doctor and produced before him. he received the same and on the basis said statement he registered the case in Crime No.165/2019 against the accused. He visited the accident spot and conducted spot mahazar between 5.30 to 6.30 p.m. in the presence of C.W.1, 4 and 5 and prepared one rough sketch. He recorded the statement of eye witnesses C.W.2 and 4. He visited KIMS hospital mortuary and conducted inquest mahazar between 10.00 to 11.00 a.m. and 12 C.C. No.11800/2019 body was sent to postmortem. He formed a team for searching the vehicle involved in the accident. On the same day he conducted scientific examination of the spot. He sent a requisition letter to RTO. At this stage it become a fatal case and for further investigation he has handed over the case file to C.W.16. During his cross-examination he denied the suggestions of the accused counsel.
16. C.W.16/ Vasanth Kumar M.A. is examined as P.W.5 who is the 2nd Investigating Officer of this case. He deposed that on 25-10-2019 he received case file from C.W.15 and conducted further investigation. On 04-11-2019 accused voluntarily appeared before him and he arrested the accused and released him on station bail. The deceased's wife appeared before him and produced death certificate of her husband and she is the present owner of the said vehicle, in this regard he issued Sec.133 notice to the owner of the vehicle and received reply to the said notice. Upon checking the vehicle documents he found that the vehicle was not in possession of fitness certificate on the day of accident. In this regard he has issued police notice to the accused and owner of the vehicle. On the same day he recorded the statement of C.W.3. He collected the postmortem report. He collected the motor vehicle inspection report. After completion of investigation he has submitted a Charge Sheet against the 13 C.C. No.11800/2019 accused. He has identified the accused present before the court.
During his cross-examination he deposed that he does not know accused possess valid driving license. He further submits he did not produce the same before him. When shown the driving license he submits it is valid one, but they have not produced before him. He denied the suggestions of the accused counsel.
17. Out of the documents marked for prosecution Ex.P.1 is the complaint, Ex.P.2 is the Spot mahazar, Ex.P.3 is the FIR, Ex.P.4 is the Rough sketch, Ex.P.5 is the Inquest mahazar, Ex.P.6 is the 133 notice, Ex.P.7 is the Reply, Ex.P.8 is the P.M. report, Ex.P.9 is the wound certificate, Ex.P.10 is the wound certificate and Ex.P.11 is the Motor vehicle inspection report.
18. In the instant case the prosecution is alleging that the accused No.1 being the driver of BBMP goods auto drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner on a public road and toppled down the auto due to which the deceased who was standing in the trolley of the auto succumbed to death and other persons were traveling in the auto sustained injuries. Hence prosecution is alleging that accused has committed the offences punishable U/s.279 and 304(a) of IPC. Section 279 IPC deals with rash and negligent driving of 14 C.C. No.11800/2019 any vehicle or riding on a public way in a 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/s.279 of IPC, it must be established that the accused was driving the vehicle on a public way in rash and negligent manner to endanger human life or to likely cause to hurt or injury to any other person. For the purpose of section 279 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 section 279 are: (1) rash and negligent driving or riding on a public way,
(ii) The act must be such as to endanger human life or likely to cause hurt or injury to any person.
19. In order to constitute offence U/s.304(a) of IPC the prosecution must establish the essential ingredients of Sec.304(A) of IPC which are as follows: (I) The death of the person must be in question (ii) The death must have caused by the accused; and (iii) The act of the accused was rash or negligent and it did not amount to culpable homicide.
20. The prosecution in order to prove its case has relied on P.W.1 to 3 and contended they are the eye witnesses of this case and they have supported the case of the prosecution. P.W.1 is the complainant who is the passenger of the auto and he complains that he was standing in the trolley 15 C.C. No.11800/2019 of the auto and accused due to his high speed and negligent driving near Turahalli forest toppled down the auto and due to which his friend sustained head injury and later succumbed to death. He deposed that the meeting spot is 15km away from the work place and he deposed meeting was held at Talghattapura. P.W.2 is also injured and eye witness she deposed that she was seated by the side of the driver and near Turahalli forest in a turn the auto toppled down and she sustained injuries and her husband and P.W.3 sustained injuries. Later her husband succumbed to death. She deposed meeting spot is 3km from her work place. She admits about existence of trolley and jack behind the auto and it is a garbage collection auto. She admits the rear side is below front side and rear side seated person cannot see what has happen in front side. She admits in her work place auto drivers change every day.
21. Prosecution further examined P.W.3 claiming himself as inmate of auto and eye witness. The said witness apart from incident turned hostile he was subjected to cross- examination by APP he admits the every suggestion of APP with regard to incident, when he was subjected to cross- examination he admits the suggestions by accused counsel which are adverse to the case of the prosecution. He deposed that he cannot say how accused was driving the vehicle he admits he has not given any statement before police and he 16 C.C. No.11800/2019 clearly admits he is seeing the accused for the first time in the court. Apart from them the prosecution examined 2 investigating officers who deposed about their duty. The prosecution in the instant case has listed out another eye witness i.e., c.W4. Who is an independent eye witness and pedestrian of the road who has witnessed the accident. The said witness was not examined by the prosecution for the best reasons known to them.
22. In the instant case the burden is upon the prosecution to prove that the accused facing trial is the driver of the alleged auto on the day of accident, the said person driven the auto in a rash and negligent manner and thereby caused accident. The examined eye witnesses PW..1 and 2 identify the accused, P.W.3 did not identify the accused before the court. According to prosecution PW..3 has given further statement with regard to identification of accused in police station, but the said witnesses deposed that he has not given any statement before police with regard to identification or with regard to accident.
23. The learned APP argued that examined P.W.1 to 3 are the inmates of the alleged auto and they are competent to deposed with regard to identification and negligence. In the case on hand P.W.1 to 3 and investigating officers clearly admits the vehicle involved in the accident is a goods auto 17 C.C. No.11800/2019 and it is designed for collection of garbage and the shape on the rear side is inclined towards inside which means no flat base in the rear side of the auto. As per the definition annexed to motor vehicles act "Goods vehicle" has been defined in Sub-clause (8) of the same section which is as follows: 'Goods vehicle' means any motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use for the carriage of goods, or any motor vehicle not so constructed or adapted when used for the carriage of goods solely or in addition to passengers."
24. The said goods auto is transformed into a garbage collection vehicle and a jack is affixed to the auto which is altered. Alteration of vehicles is considered as articulated vehicle which means a new thing is affixed to the existing body as per the need. Here as per the above mentioned definition carrying passenger in auto which is not a passenger auto is itself not tenable and the altered portion clearly shows that since it is designed for collection of garbage and jack is affixed it is difficult to stand or seat in the said auto.
25. The learned prosecutor contended solely that they were the inmates of the auto and they are competent to depose about negligence and they deposed about negligence. P.W.1 to 3 the injured passengers of the goods vehicle have also supported the case of the prosecution that the vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner and that by itself would not be sufficient to hold that the vehicle was indeed being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The 18 C.C. No.11800/2019 passengers of this particular goods vehicle, which is popularly called as garbage collection auto would have a goods compartment, in which the passengers could have been accommodated and unauthorizedly carried as passengers, who would possibly be sitting down on the floor that too in uncomfortable position and would hardly be in a position to witness the manner in which the vehicle was being driven, the same is also admitted by the witnesses. Except feel the speed at which it was moving. The vehicle at speed need not necessarily be driven in a rash and negligent manner. It could also be driven in a safe and controlled manner. Therefore, for passengers, who were not in a position to witness the manner in which the vehicle was moving, could not be witnesses to support the case of the prosecution with regard to negligent act. As discussed earlier P.W.3 did not supported the case of the prosecution in cross-examination, P.W.1 and 2 are the residents of same lane and work in common place. The examined P.W.1 and 2 only deposed about high speed and they did not depose about negligent aspect.
26. Whether high speed alone constitutes negligence Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled "State of Karnataka Vs. Satish ((1998) 8 SCC 493)" wherein the Apex Court observed: "merely because the truck was being driven at a high speed does not bespeak of either "negligence or rashness" by itself. None of the witness examined by the 19 C.C. No.11800/2019 prosecution could give any indication, even approximately, as to what they meant by "high speed". High speed is a relative term. It was for the prosecution to bring on record material to establish as to what it meant by high speed in the facts and circumstances of the case. In a criminal trial, the burden of providing everything essential to the establishment of the charge against an accused always rests on the prosecution and there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused until the contrary is proved. Criminality is not to be presumed subject of course to some statutory exceptions. There is no statutory exception pleaded in the present case. In the absence of any material on record, no presumption of rashness or negligence could be drawn by invoking the maxim "res ipsa loquitur". Mere fact that an innocent died in a road accident cannot be a reason to raise any presumption of rashness and negligence in absence of any other cogent evidence.
27. The prosecutor contending that the accused in the instant case caused death of a innocent man due to his negligent act and thereby committed the offence punishable U/s.304(a) of IPC which reads as follows:
"304-A. Causing death by negligence.- Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."20
C.C. No.11800/2019
28. In order to attract the aforesaid section, the prosecution is required to prove; (i) that the accused had caused the death of any person, (ii) that such death was caused by the accused doing any rash act or that such death was caused by the accused doing any negligent act; and (iii) that such a death did not amount to culpable homicide. In order to attract this provision of law, the prosecution is required to prove that; (i) It is the accused who did some act which was rash or negligent; (ii) it entailed death of any person; (iii) this death is the direct result of the rashness or negligence; (iv) that this rash and negligent act did not amount to culpable homicide. Whether the prosecution has satisfied the above ingredients they simply proved accused driven the vehicle in high speed and apart from that nothing is spoken.
29. In the case of Sayyad Akbar Vs. State of Karnataka - AIR 1979 S.C. 1848, it is observed that; "As a rule, mere proof that an event has happened or an accident has occurred, the cause of which is unknown, is not evidence of negligence. But the peculiar circumstances constituting the event or accident, in a particular case, may themselves proclaim in concordant, clear and unambiguous voices the negligence of somebody as the cause of the event or accident. In the case on hand as per the sketch map the accident has taken place in a road towards the left side. The auto has 21 C.C. No.11800/2019 toppled down and the reason for toppling down is shown as high speed. But prosecution did not establish that accused was driving the vehicle in negligent manner as discussed earlier the examined witnesses are the inmates and they seeing the incident is quite not possible though prosecution listed out other witness who are present outside the vehicle is not examined which is fatal to their case. Merely because accident has taken place and a person was succumbed to death cannot be considered as negligent death. In view of the dictum of the supreme court as discussed above.
30. Upon perusal of overall evidence of the prosecution in the instant case though P.W.1-3 supports prosecution case as discussed earlier there are several discrepancies in their evidence which does not inspire confidence. The witnesses have not stated rash and negligent act on the part of the accused on the date of alleged incident. Further eye witnesses have not stated the rash and negligent act of the accused to show his involvement. Upon perusal of the scene of the accident and the manner in which the victim is standing in the auto shows he was not standing comfortably and he was standing in a restricted vehicle which is unfit for carrying passengers. The negligence on the part of the victim cannot brushed out completely. Therefore, in this circumstance of the case, the case of prosecution regarding rash and negligent act of accused could not be made out 22 C.C. No.11800/2019 beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, in this circumstance of the case, the case of prosecution regarding rash and negligent act and also regarding driving of the alleged vehicle by accused could not be made out beyond reasonable doubt.
31. Therefore, looking to the evidence available on record and the materials placed by way of oral and exhibits, the case of prosecution appears to be doubtful. There is doubt as to whether the accused had driven the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, so as to endanger the human life and personal safety of others. Therefore, in the circumstances of the case, as per the rules of criminal justice if any doubt arise about the commission of the act then such doubt shall be in favour of accused. 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.
32. POINT No.3: In the instant case it is alleged that the accused has failed to provide medical aid to the injured nor he has intimated the police about the accident on the date of the accident. Accordingly he has committed the offence punishable U/s.134(a and b) R/w.187 of M.V.Act. The accused has not contested this aspect and did not cross- examine the witnesses on this aspect, and they did not furnish any documents to deny the case of the prosecution 23 C.C. No.11800/2019 with regard to the allegations leveled against him. Hence, the court answer this point IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
33. POINT No.4: In the case on hand the prosecution further alleged that the accused does not possess valid driving license on the day of the accident. The accused counsel contended that the accused was possessing valid driving license when it was produced before the IO he refused to receive the same. The same question was put to investigating officer during cross-examination for which he submitted accused did not produced the driving license before him upon showing the license he submits it was not brought to his knowledge and it is a valid driving license. Further submits the vehicle owner did not mention about existence of DL with accused No.1 and hence he has included that section. The original DL was produced before the court upon perusal of the same the accused was possessing driving license to drive motor cycle without gear, light motor vehicle, three wheeler from 13-05-2015 and his DL No.20150008308 and the date of issue is 13-05-2015 the alleged incident has taken place on 23-10-2019 which means accused was possessing valid driving license and the investigating officer has not conducted investigation on these aspects. Upon his version in cross-examination it can be gathered at he did not enquired on that aspect and based on the information 24 C.C. No.11800/2019 provided by the vehicle owner he proceeded further which is not tenable. Hence point No.4 is answered in negative.
34. POINT No.5: In view of the above discussions and findings I proceed to pass the following ORDER Acting U/sec. 255(2) of Criminal procedure code, the accused is hereby acquitted of the offences alleged against him punishable U/sec. 279, 337, 338, 304(A) of IPC, Sec.3(1) r/w.181 of M.V.Act.
Acting U/s.255(2) of Criminal Procedure code, the accused No.1 is hereby convicted of the offences alleged against him punishable U/s.134(a and b) R/w.187 of M.V.Act.
Accused is hereby directed to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offences punishable U/s.134(a and b) R/w.187 of M.V.Act in default he shall undergo SI for 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 on this the 21st day of September 2024).
(GAGAN M.R.) JMFC (Traffic Court -IV), BENGALURU.
25C.C. No.11800/2019 ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION:
PW.1 Chandra PW.2 Smt. Krishnaveni PW.3 Ramesh PW.4 N. Govardhan Rao PW.5 Vasanth Kumar M.A.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 Complaint
Ex.P.2 Spot mahazar
Ex.P.3 FIR
Ex.P.4 Rough Sketch
Ex.P.5 Inquest mahazar
Ex.P.6 133 Notice
Ex.P.7 Reply
Ex.P.8 PM Report
Ex.P.9 Wound certificate
Ex.P.10 Wound certificate
Ex.P.11 IMV report
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR ACCUSED:
Nil
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR ACCUSED:
Nil
(GAGAN M.R.)
JMFC (Traffic Court -IV),
BENGALURU.