Bangalore District Court
State By Basavanagudi Traffic P.S vs ) Sri Devanatha Y.K on 30 November, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
TRAFFIC COURT - IV, BANGALORE
PRESENT: GAYATHRI.S.KATE, B.com.,LLB.,
MMTC - IV, BANGALORE
DATED : THIS THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018
C.C.No.2640/2018
COMPLAINANT: State by Basavanagudi Traffic P.S.
VS.
ACCUSED: 1) Sri Devanatha Y.K.,
S/o. Late Krishnappa Y.V.,
Age: 42 years,
R/at No.15, 5th cross,
5th main, 7th block,
4th phase, BSK 3rd stage,
Bengaluru.
1. The date of commission of 12-01-2018
the offence
2. The offences complained of U/s.279 & 338 of IPC, Sec.119
R/w.177 of M.V.Act.
3. Plea of the accused and his Pleaded not guilty
examination
4. Opinion of the judge Acquitted
5. State represented by Learned APP
6. Accused defence by Sri Mahesh Kiran Shetty
7. Date of order 30-11-2018
***
2 C.C.No.2640/18
JUDGEMENT
The Police Sub-Inspector of Basavanagudi Traffic police station has filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/s.279 & 338 of IPC, Sec.119 R/w.177 of M.V.Act.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 12-01-2018 at about 5.45 p.m. the accused being the driver of Car bearing registration No.KA-05/MQ-3347 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner as to endanger human life on R.V. Road. While so driving his vehicle he jumped the signal at R.V. Junction and dashed against the Scooter bearing registration No.KA-05/KE-5692 which was proceeding in Kanakanapalya road. Due to the impact of accident the rider of the Scooter C.W.1 fell down along with vehicle and sustained grievous injuries on his right leg and left hand, thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable U/s.279 & 338 of IPC, Sec.119 R/w.177 of M.V.Act.
3. Cognizance of the offences were taken by perusing the prosecution papers and materials, the accused on receipt of summons accused appeared before the court through his counsel and got himself 3 C.C.No.2640/18 enlarged on bail. Prosecution papers were furnished to the accused as per Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. on the same day and substance of accusation in the form of plea was recorded and read over and explained to him, wherein accused pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.
4. During the course of trial the prosecution examined 4 witnesses out of 6 witnesses on its behalf. The prosecution has examined 4 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.4 and got marked 8 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8. After completion of prosecution evidence the statement of accused as per Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded, read over, explained to the accused in his vernacular language, wherein the accused had no explanation and has denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and has not chosen to lead defence evidence.
5. Heard arguments on both sides and perused the records carefully.
6. The point that arise for my determination is as under:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 12-01-2018 4 C.C.No.2640/18 at about 5.45 p.m. the accused being the driver of Car bearing registration No.KA-
05/MQ-3347 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner as to endanger human life on R.V. Road, 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 jumped the signal at R.V. Junction and dashed against the Scooter bearing registration No.KA-05/KE-5692 which was proceeding in Kanakanapalya road. Due to the impact of accident the rider of the Scooter C.W.1 fell down along with vehicle and sustained grievous injuries on his right leg and left hand, thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable U/s.338 of IPC, Sec.119 R/w.177 of M.V.Act?
3. What order?
7. 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: AS PER THE FINAL ORDER For the following REASONS 5 C.C.No.2640/18
8. POINT No.1 & 2: For the sake of convenience and to avoid repetition of facts, these points are taken up for common discussion to have brevity.
9. It is the case of the prosecution that on 12-01-2018 at about 5.45 p.m. the accused being the driver of Car bearing registration No.KA-05/MQ-3347 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner as to endanger human life on R.V. Road. While so driving his vehicle he jumped the signal at R.V. Junction and dashed against the Scooter bearing registration No.KA-05/KE-5692 which was proceeding in Kanakanapalya road. Due to the impact of accident the rider of the Scooter C.W.1 fell down along with vehicle and sustained grievous injuries on his right leg and left hand, thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable U/s.279 & 338 of IPC, Sec.119 R/w.177 of M.V.Act.
10. In order to prove the contents of complaint, the complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and has reiterated the contents of complaint. The complainant has deposed that on 12-01-2018 at about 5.45 p.m. he was going in his motor cycle from Basavanagudi towards R.V. Teachers college circle. At that time 6 C.C.No.2640/18 one Car came in rash and negligent manner and hit against his vehicle. Due to the impact of accident he sustained grievous injuries in the said accident. He was taken to Mayya hospital by the general publics. By the fault of the accused driver the said accident has occurred. In this regard he has lodged a complaint Ex.P.1.
11. C.W.3 is examined as P.W.2 who is mahazar witness and has deposed that police have drawn mahazar Ex.P.3 on 13-01-2018 at about 4.30 p.m. in the accident spot in his presence. He knew the contents of mahazar Ex.P.3. He has put his signature to mahazar Ex.P.3 on the accident spot.
12. C.W.2 is examined as P.W.4 who is eye witness and mahazar witness and has deposed that on 12- 01-2018 between 5.00 p.m. to 5.30 p.m. he heard a sound of occurrence of accident at R.V. Road junction. Then he went to accident spot and saw that one car came in rash and negligent manner and hit against a motor cycle. Due to the impact of accident the rider of the motor cycle sustained grievous injuries in the said accident. The injured was taken to Mayya hospital. By the fault of the 7 C.C.No.2640/18 accused driver the said accident has occurred. He has further deposed that police have drawn mahazar Ex.P.3 on the next day of occurrence of accident at evening hours in the accident spot in his presence. He knew the contents of mahazar Ex.P.3. He has put his signature to mahazar Ex.P.3 on the accident spot.
13. P.W.1 to P.W.4 were subjected to cross- examination by the learned counsel for the accused. During the course of their cross-examination the complainant P.W.1 has given admissions that there is heavy traffic on the accident spot. At that time the vehicles on the said spot can not move more than 10- 20 speed limit. P.W.4 being the eye witness and mahazar witness has given admissions that he was 30ft far away from the accident spot. He has reached the accident spot after listening to sound of occurrence of accident. He has not seen the accident. Police have taken few signatures on some papers. He do not know the contents mentioned in the said paper. He had been to police station following day of the occurrence of accident.
14. C.W.6 is examined as P.W.2 is the I.O. who has clearly supported the prosecution and has not 8 C.C.No.2640/18 given a single admission in cross-examination by counsel for accused.
15. The evidence of P.W.2 is no where helpful to prosecution because in order to prove the guilt of the 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. The very ingredient of the alleged offences are not proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
16. 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 & 338 of IPC, 9 C.C.No.2640/18 Sec.119 R/w.177 of M.V.Act. Hence for the above discussion, I answer point No.1 and 2 IN NEGATIVE.
17. POINT No.3: In view of the above discussions and findings I proceed to pass the following ORDER Accused is acquitted U/s.255(1) of Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable U/s.279 & 337 of IPC, 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 30TH day of November 2018).
(GAYATHRI.S.KATE) MMTC - IV, BANGALORE.
ANNEXURE
1) LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
P.W.1: Krishnamurthy P.W.2: Krishnappa P.W.3: Vasanth Kumar P.W.4: Muralidhar
2) LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1: Complaint Ex.P.2: FIR Ex.P.3: Spot Mahazar 10 C.C.No.2640/18 Ex.P.4: Rough sketch Ex.P.5: 133 notice Ex.P.6: Reply Ex.P.7: IMV Report Ex.P.8: Wound certificate
3) LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE ACCUSED:
NIL
4) LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE ACCUSED:
NIL (GAYATHRI.S.KATE) MMTC - IV, BANGALORE.