Bangalore District Court
State By Jayanagar Traffic P.S vs ) Sri Veeranna on 20 September, 2017
IN THE COURT OF THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
TRAFFIC COURT - IV, BANGALORE
PRESENT: GAYATHRI.S.KATE, B.com.,LLB.,
MMTC - IV, BANGALORE
DATED : THIS THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017
C.C.No.7747/2015
COMPLAINANT: State by Jayanagar Traffic P.S.
(Represented by Learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor)
VS.
ACCUSED: 1) Sri Veeranna,
S/o. Rangappa
Age: 34 years,
Gajamuddanna Halli (Vi)
Koratagere (Tq)
Tumkuru Dt
Tumkuru
(Represented by Sri H.S. Shivakumar, Adv.)
***
JUDGEMENT
The Police Inspector of Jayanagar Traffic police station has filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/s.279 & 304(A) of IPC, Sec.134(A & B) R/w.187 and Sec.115 R/w.177 of M.V.Act.
2 C.C.No.7747/152. It is the case of the prosecution that on 16-06-2015 at about 3.55 p.m. the accused being the driver of Lorry bearing registration No.KA-42/0239 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner as to endanger human life on 24th main road, 1st cross road junction, which was HTV prohibited road. While so driving his vehicle at J.P. Nagar, 2nd stage he dashed against the Honda Activa bearing registration No.KA-05/HE-4814 which was proceeding in the same road. Due to the impact of accident the pillion rider of Honda Activa fell on right side though the public had requested the lorry driver to stop the vehicle, but the accused did not stop the said vehicle and drove the back left wheel of the lorry over the pillion rider's head and she succumbed to the injuries on the spot. Further 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.279 & 304(A) of IPC, Sec.134(A & B) R/w.187 and Sec.115 R/w.177 of M.V.Act.
3. On the basis of the information lodged by the C.W.1, the PSI has registered the case against the driver of Lorry bearing registration No.KA-42/0239, 3 C.C.No.7747/15 alleging offences U/s.279 & 304(A) of IPC, Sec.134(A & B) R/w.187 and Sec.115 R/w.177 of M.V.Act. After completion of the investigation PSI has submitted the charge sheet against the accused alleging offences U/s.279 & 304(A) of IPC, Sec.134(A & B) R/w.187 and Sec.115 R/w.177 of M.V.Act.
4. After filing the charge sheet, this court has registered the case against the accused for the aforesaid offences. In response to service of summons accused has appeared before the court through his learned advocate and got enlarged on bail. Prosecution papers were furnished to the accused as required U/s.207 of Cr.P.C. and proceed with the case. Substance of the accusation was framed and read over to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried. His plea was recorded accordingly.
5. In order to prove the guilt of the accused the prosecution has examined 5 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.5 and got marked 11 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11 on their behalf.
6. After the closure of the prosecution case the statement of the accused as required U/s.313 of 4 C.C.No.7747/15 C.r.P.C. is recorded and read over to the accused. Wherein the accused denied the entire allegations made by the prosecution witnesses and not chosen to lead any defence evidence. Hence this court posted the case for arguments.
7. I have heard the arguments of learned APP for state and learned counsel for the accused and now the case is posted for judgment.
8. Now the points that arise for my consideration are as under:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 16-06-2015 at about 3.55 p.m. the accused being the driver of Lorry bearing registration No.KA-42/0239 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner as to endanger human life on 24th main road, 1st cross road junction, 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 at J.P. Nagar, 2nd stage he dashed against the Honda Activa bearing registration No.KA-05/HE-4814 which was proceeding in the same road. Due to the impact of accident the pillion rider of 5 C.C.No.7747/15 Honda Activa fell on right side though the public had requested the lorry driver to stop the vehicle, but the accused did not stop the said vehicle and drove the back left wheel of the lorry over the pillion rider's head and she succumbed to the injuries on the spot, thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable U/s.304(A) 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 & B) R/w.
Sec.187 of M.V.Act?
4. Whether the prosecution further proves that the accused 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 on the said road, which was HTV prohibited road, thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable U/s.115 R/w.177 of M.V.Act?
5. What order?
9. My answer to the above points are as under:
1. POINT No.1: IN NEGATIVE
2. POINT No.2: IN NEGATIVE
3. POINT No.3: IN NEGATIVE
4. POINT No.4: IN NEGATIVE
5. POINT No.5: AS PER THE FINAL ORDER For the following 6 C.C.No.7747/15 REASONS
10. POINT No.1 and 2: These points are inter related to each other, hence to avoid the repetition of facts, both these points are taken up together for common discussion at one stretch.
11. It is the case of the prosecution that on 16-06-2015 at about 3.55 p.m. the accused being the driver of Lorry bearing registration No.KA-42/0239 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner as to endanger human life on 24th main road, 1st cross road junction, which was HTV prohibited road. While so driving his vehicle at J.P. Nagar, 2nd stage he dashed against the Honda Activa bearing registration No.KA-05/HE-4814 which was proceeding in the same road. Due to the impact of accident the pillion rider of Honda Activa fell on right side though the public had requested the lorry driver to stop the vehicle, but the accused did not stop the said vehicle and drove the back left wheel of the lorry over the pillion rider's head and she succumbed to the injuries on the spot. Further 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.279 & 7 C.C.No.7747/15 304(A) of IPC, Sec.134(A & B) R/w.187 and Sec.115 R/w.177 of M.V.Act.
12. In order to prove the contents of the complaint, the complainant examined himself as P.W.1. In his cross-examination by learned counsel for accused, he has admitted that "C¥ÀWÁvÀ ºÉÃUÉ D¬ÄvÀÄ JAzÀÄ PÀuÁÚgÉà £ÉÆÃr®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. C¥ÀWÁvÀ «ZÁgÀ ºÉýzÀ ªÀåQÛAiÀÄ ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è. C¥ÀWÁvÀ DzÀ 5 ¤«ÄµÀzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ £Á£ÀÄ WÀl£Á ¸ÀܼÀPÉÌ ºÉÆÃVgÀvÉÛãÉ. WÀl£Á ¸ÀܼÀPÉÌ ºÉÄÁÃV £ÉÆÃrzÁUÀ C°èzÀÝ ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀgÀi AiÀiÁgÀÄ JAzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. AiÀiÁªÀ ªÁºÀ£ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ EvÀÛÄ JAzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj".
13. P.W.3 is eye witness and mahazar witness who has turned hostile to the prosecution. P.W.3 has denied each and every suggestion put by the learned APP. Hence the efforts of learned APP turned into vain.
14. P.W.5 is the I.O. who has clearly supported the prosecution and has not given a single admission in cross-examination by counsel for accused.
15. The evidence of P.W.5 is no where helpful to prosecution because in order to prove the guilt of the 8 C.C.No.7747/15 accused, the prosecution has to examine the material witness properly. The prosecution has to prove the very ingredients of alleged offences, they are identification of accused, the said accused must have drove the offender vehicle in rash and negligent manner and the said offender vehicle must have been involved in the accident. If either of the one of the ingredient is not fulfilled by the prosecution then benefit of doubt would give raise to acquittal of accused in consequence. The law is very much clear that unless contrary is proved, the accused is to be treated as innocent.
16. There are lots of contradicting statements between the complainant and eye witness evidences. The contradicting statements among prosecution witness gives raise to benefit of doubt to the accused.
17. On the perusal of the oral as well as documentary evidence, at the outset it can be said that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, for the offences punishable U/s.279 & 304(A) of IPC. Hence for the above discussion, I answer point No.1 & 2 IN NEGATIVE.
9 C.C.No.7747/1518. POINT NO.3: Further it is the case of the prosecution that accused did not provide medical aid to the injured nor he intimated the police about the accident. It is already held that prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec. 279 & 304(A) of IPC. Hence there is no question proceeding against the accused for the offence punishable U/sec.134(A and B) R/w Sec.187 of M.V.Act. Hence I answer POINT No.3 IN NEGATIVE.
19. POINT No.4: Further it is the case of the prosecution that the accused 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 on the said road, which was HTV prohibited road. It is already held that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/s.279 & 304(A) of IPC. Hence, there is no question proceeding against the accused for the offences punishable U/s.115 R/w.177 of M.V.Act. Hence I answer point No.4 IN NEGATIVE.
20. POINT No.5: In view of the above discussions and findings I proceed to pass the following:
10 C.C.No.7747/15ORDER Accused is acquitted U/s.255(1) of Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable U/s.279 & 304(A) of IPC, Sec.187 and Sec.177 of M.V.Act.
The bail bond and surety bond of the accused 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 20th day of September 2017).
(GAYATHRI.S.KATE) MMTC - IV, BANGALORE.
ANNEXURE
1) LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
P.W.1: Nagaraju P.W.2: Iliyaraja P.W.3: Ashvaq P.W.4: Sri Mahesh P.W.5: Uma Mahesh
2) LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1: Complaint Ex.P.2: Statement of P.W.2 Ex.P.3: Statement of P.W.3 Ex.P.4: Inquest Mahazar Ex.P.5: P.M. Report Ex.P.6: IMV Report Ex.P.7: 133 notice Ex.P.8: Reply Ex.P.9: FIR Ex.P.10: Spot Mahazar Ex.P.11: Rough sketch 11 C.C.No.7747/15
3) LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE ACCUSED:
NIL
4) LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE ACCUSED:
NIL (GAYATHRI.S.KATE) MMTC - IV, BANGALORE.