Bangalore District Court
State By Madiwala Traffic Police ... vs Chalapathy T.M on 17 July, 2015
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
TRAFFIC COURT - VI, BENGALURU CITY.
C.C. No.563/2014
Dated: This the 17th day of July, 2015
Present: Smt.Lavanya H.N., B.Sc.,LL.B.,
P.O. of MMTC-VI, Bengaluru.
Complainant : State by Madiwala Traffic Police Station
V/s
Accused : Chalapathy T.M.
S/o. Munivenkatappa,
32 years, Thavrekere Village,
Koladevi Post, Mulabigilu Taluk,
Kolar District.
JUDGMENT
Police Inspector of Madiwala Traffic Police Station filed charge sheet alleging that, the accused has committed the offences punishable U/s 279 and 304 (A) of IPC and 134(A & B) r/w 187 of IMV Act.
2. The facts of prosecution case in brief are as under:
On 31.01.2014 at about 11.10 p.m. within the jurisdiction of Madiwala Traffic Police Station, the accused being the driver of Water Tanker No.KA-51-B- 3770 drove it on 14th Main Road, HSR Layout from Green View Hospital towards HSR BDA Complex in a 2 CC.No.563/2014 rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life, at 14th Main Junction dashed to the signal pole and motor cycle bearing No.KA-04 EC-2392 which was proceeding ahead of the water tanker as a result of which Sri.Simal Gagrai, aged about 28 years, fell down on the road and then wheel of the lorry ran over him and succumbed to the injuries. It is further case of the prosecution that the after the accident the accused did not provide medical aid to the injured and he did not inform about the accident to the nearest police station. Thereby, the accused has committed the offences as stated supra.
3. 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 134 (A and B) r/w Sec.187 of IMV Act and process has been issued to the accused. Accused appeared through counsel in pursuance of process and got enlarged himself on bail.
4. Charge Sheet copies have been furnished to the accused in compliance of Section 207 of Cr.P.C.
5. Substance of accusation has been read over and explained to the accused, who pleads not guilty and 3 CC.No.563/2014 claims to be tried. Hence, the case is posted for Prosecution evidence.
6. In order to establish its case Prosecution has examined six witnesses as PW.1 to 6 and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to 12 and closed its side.
7. Statement U/s 313 of Cr.P.C. is recorded. All the incriminating evidence appearing against the accused has been read over and explained to the accused, who denied the same. But, he did not choose to lead defense evidence.
8. I have heard the arguments and perused the materials available on record, following points that would arise for consideration.
1. Whether prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that on 31.01.2014 at about 11.10 p.m. within the jurisdiction of Madiwala Traffic Police Station, the accused being the driver of Water Tanker No.KA-51-B-3770 drove it on 14th Main Road, HSR Layout from Green View Hospital towards HSR BDA Complex in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life, at 14th Main Junction dashed to the signal pole and motor cycle bearing No.KA-04 EC-2392 which was proceeding ahead of the water tanker as a result of which Sri.Simal Gagrai, aged about 28 years, fell down on the road and then wheel of the lorry ran 4 CC.No.563/2014 over him and thereby, accused has committed the offence punishable U/s 279 of IPC ?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that as a result of above said accident, the rider of the motorcycle succumbed to injuries which is not amounting to culpable homicide and thereby the accused has committed the offence punishable U/s 304(A) of IPC ?
3. Whether prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that after the accident the accused did not provide medical aid to the injured and he did not inform about the accident to the nearest police station and thereby, the accused has committed the offence punishable under section 134(A & B) read with section 187 of IMV Act?
4. What Order?
9. My findings to the above points are as under:
Point No. 1 & 2 : In the Negative, Point No.3 : Partly in the Affirmative, Point No. 4 : As per final order for the following:
REASONS POINT Nos.1 & 2 :
10. Since these points are interlinked with each other, they are taken up together for consideration in order to avoid repetition, as here under.
In this case the prosecution has examined six witnesses as PW-1 to 6. PW-2 is Complainant as well 5 CC.No.563/2014 as Part Investigation Officer. PW-3 is Investigation Officer. PW-1 is Mahazar witness. PW-6 is Eye- witness. PW-4 is the owner of the vehicle. PW-5 is IMV Inspector.
11. PW-2 has deposed that on 03.01.2014 at about 11.20 p.m. he received message from control room with regard to accident at 14th Main, HSR Layout. Immediately he rushed to the at spot wherein he came to know that the accident took place in between motor cycle No.KA-04-EC-2392 and water tanker No.KA-51-B- 3770 and he also saw the rider of the motor cycle was laying dead. On enquiry he came to know about the accident. Thereafter, he has lodged complaint as per Ex.P-2. Thereafter, he has registered the case in police station Crime No.36/2014 and then he has forwarded the FIR at Ex.P-3 and Ex.P-2 to the Court as well as his higher officer. On 01.02.2014 he conducted inquest of deceased and drawn inquest mahazar as per Ex.P-4. Further, investigation of this case has been handed over to CW-16. He has further deposed that on the same day he has shown the accident place to the CW-16, who conducted Spot-Inspection in his presence at accident spot and drawn Spot-mahazar in his presence as per Ex.P-1.
6 CC.No.563/201412. PW-6 who is Eye-witness to the incident has deposed that on 31.01.2014 at about 11.30 p.m. when he was standing near BDA Complex of HSR Layout which is on 14th main road the accused being the driver of the water tanker No.KA-51-B-3770 came in high speed from Green View Hospital towards BDA Complex and dashed against electrical pole which was at left side and then he proceeded further and dashed against two wheeler as a result of which the rider of the motorcycle fell down on the road and then the left rear wheel of the tanker ran over him. After the accident the driver of the tanker ran over from the spot. He has been subjected to cross-examination by the learned APP wherein he has denied the suggestion put to him that he has stated before the Police that the accused who is the driver of the lorry dashed to the signal light.
13. PW-1 who is mahazar witness has deposed that on 01.02.2014 the police have conducted Spot- mahazar in his presence at 14th Main Junction fly over of HSR Layout and drawn mahazar as per Ex.P-1.
14. PW-4 who is the owner of the offending water tanker has deposed that he is the owner of the Water Tanker No.KA-51-B-3770. The said water tanker has been driving by accused who is present before the 7 CC.No.563/2014 Court. On 31.01.2014 the accused was driving his water tanker. He has further deposed that the police has caused notice as per Ex.P-9 calling upon him to furnish details who was driving his water tanker on 31.01.2014 and accordingly, he has given reply at Ex.P- 10 stating that on the said date the accused was driving his water tanker.
15. PW-5 who is IMV Inspector has deposed that on 03.02.2014 with the request of Police Inspector of Madiwala Traffic Police Station he inspected Water Tanker bearing No.KA-51-B-3770 and motor cycle bearing No.KA-04-EC-2392 in police station premises. He has recorded the damages noticed by him during his inspection. He has expressed his opinion that this accident is not due to mechanical defect of the vehicles involved in the accident. Accordingly, he has given report at Ex.P-11.
16. PW-3 who is the Investigation Officer has deposed that on 01.02.2014 he has received further investigation of this case from PW-2. On the same day between 11.30 a.m. and 12.30 p.m. he conducted Spot- Inspection and drawn Spot-mahzar as per Ex.P-1 and prepared Hand-sketch at Ex.P-8. On the same day he has seized the offending water tanker as per Ex.P-6 and 8 CC.No.563/2014 prepared P.F. as per Ex.P-7. On the same day he has recorded statements of CW-2 to 5. On 03.02.2014 the accused has come to the police station on Court bail. Thereafter, he has recorded the statement of CW-4 with regard to identification. On the same day he has caused notice U/s 133 of IMV Act at Ex.P-9 to the CW- 12 who is the owner of the offending water tanker and received reply from him as per Ex.P-10. On 15.02.2014 he received IMV Report at Ex.P-11 and also received P.M.Report at Ex.P-5. Thereafter, he submitted charge- sheet to the Court.
17. PW-1 to 7 have been subjected to cross- examination by the defense wherein entire case of the prosecution has been denied. But, Inquest, P.M. Report, Seizure mahazar and P.F. have not been denied by the defense. It is also not in dispute that the accident in question took place on public road. It is also not in dispute that deceased rider of the motorcycle died in road traffic accident. It is not the defense of the accused that this accident is due to mechanical defect of the vehicles involved in the case on hand. It is specific defense of the accused that the false case has been lodged against the accused though he has not caused the accident. Therefore, the prosecution is required to prove the following points:
9 CC.No.563/2014a. Whether the accused is the driver of the offending lorry?
b. Whether the accused has caused the accident in question?
c. Whether this accident is due to rash or negligent driving of the accused?
18. As has already been noticed, the accused has denied the complete case of the prosecution. At this stage, it is to be note here that PW-2 who lodged the complaint has immediately rushed to the spot and he saw the offending water tanker lorry, motorcycle of the deceased and deceased rider at the spot and thereafter he has sent the motorcycle and offending tanker to the Police Station. Thereafter, the I.O has seized the motorcycle and water tanker as per Ex.P-6. From this it could be said that the accident took place in between the offending tanker and motor cycle of the deceased rider. Apart from that PW-4, who is the owner of the water tanker lorry has deposed that the accused has been driving his offending tanker. He has also further deposed that on the date of the alleged accident the accused was driving the offending water tanker. Though he has been subjected to cross-examination, nothing has been elicited from his mouth by the defense that as on the date of the accident the accused was not driving the offending tanker and he is deposing false evidence. On scrutiny of entire evidence of prosecution, it could 10 CC.No.563/2014 be said that the accused was driving the offending tanker on the date of alleged accident and the accident took place in between the offending tanker and motor cycle of deceased.
19. The prosecution has examined only one Eye- witness in this case. PW-6 who is alleged to be Eye- witness to the incident has supported the case of the prosecution and has deposed that the accused who is the driver of the Water tanker No.KA-51-B-3770 drove his vehicle in high speed and dashed against light pole which was at left side and thereafter he has dashed against the two wheeler which was proceeding ahead of the lorry as a result of which the rider of the two wheeler fell down on the road and then the left rear wheel of the lorry ran over him. During his cross- examination it is suggested to him that he was not present at accident spot at the time of the alleged accident and he has not seen the accident and no accident took place as alleged by him. It is also suggested to him that he is deposing false evidence against the accused though there is no connection between the accused and this case. It is also suggested to him that he has seen the accused at first time in the Court. It is also suggested to him he and the Investigation Officer of this case are residing in the 11 CC.No.563/2014 same locality. He is deposing false evidence at the instance of the Investigation Officer. These defensive suggestions have been denied by the PW-6.
20. As per the case of the prosecution the accused who is the driver of the offending Water Tanker lorry hit the signal pole which was at centre of the road and thereafter he hit the motor cycle which was proceeding ahead of him as a result of which the accident took place whereas PW-6 has deposed that the accused has hit the electrical pole which was situated at the left side of the road and thereafter, he hit the motor cycle. At this stage it is relevant to go through the Ex.P-1, Spot- mahazar, Ex.P-8, Hand Sketch prepared by the I.O wherein it could be seen that there is no electric pole either on the left side or on the right side of the road. As per the sketch and mahazar prepared by I.O there was no electric pole at accident spot. It could be seen at Ex.P-8 that the signal pole is at centre of the road but not left side of the road. But, according to the PW-6 the accused first hit electrical pole which is at left side of the road. Even if it is considered, due to passage of time PW-6 could have stated electrical pole instead of signal pole then also the evidence of the PW-6 is not consistent with documentary evidence and case of the prosecution 12 CC.No.563/2014 as the said signal pole is not at left side of the road but, in fact it is at centre of the road. Under these circumstances, it requires corroboration to the evidence of PW-6. But, there is no corroborative evidence available on record. The oral evidence of PW-6 is inconsistent with documentary evidence.
21. Further, as per the case of the prosecution the rear left wheel of the water tanker ran over the rider of the motor cycle. If the tanker came and hit the two wheeler on its behind there should be damage on backside of the motorcycle. But, in this case as per Ex.P-11, IMV Report there is no damage to the motorcycle on its backside. If the offending water tanker came in high speed as per the case of the prosecution and hit the motorcycle behind it then there is no chance that the rear wheel of the tanker ran over on deceased rider of the motorcycle. From this also it creates doubt about the case of the prosecution. Under these circumstances, the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused. Hence, it is held that the prosecution has failed to prove that this accident is due to rash and negligent driving of the accused. Hence, the point No.1 and 2 are answered in the Negative.
13 CC.No.563/2014POINT No.3:
22. It is further case of the prosecution that after the accident the accused did not provide medical aid to the injured and he did not inform about the accident to the nearest police station as required U/s 134 (a and b) of IMV Act.
23. While answering Point No.1 and 2, this Court has come to the conclusion that the accused was driving the offending water tanker. It is the case of the prosecution that the rider of the motor cycle died at spot. When the rider of the motor cycle died at spot, the question of providing medical aid to the deceased by the accused does not arise. Under these circumstances the accused is entitled to acquittal for the offence punishable U/s 134 (a) r/w 187 of IMV Act.
24. Further it could be seen that accused has not informed about the accident to the nearest police station as provided U/s 134 (b) of IMV Act. He has not offered any explanation why he has not informed about the accident to the nearest police station immediately after the accident. Therefore, it is held that the accused has committed the offence punishable U/s 134 (b) r/w 187 of IMV Act. Hence, Point No.3 is answered partly in the Affirmative.
14 CC.No.563/2014Point No.4:
25. In view of findings on point No.1 to 3, this Court proceeds to pass following:
ORDER Acting U/s 255(1) of Cr.P.C. accused is acquitted for the offences punishable U/s 279 and 304 (A) of IPC and 134(A) r/w 187 of IMV Act.
Acting U/s 255(2) of Cr.P.C.1973, accused is convicted of the offence punishable U/s 134 (b) r/w 187 of IMV Act.
The accused is sentenced for the offence punishable U/s 134 (b) r/w 187 of IMV Act, to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to pay the fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days.
The bail bond executed by the accused shall stand cancelled.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript computerized by him, revised, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 17th day of July, 2015.) (Smt.Lavanya H.N.) P.O. OF MMTC-VI, BENGALURU.15 CC.No.563/2014
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the prosecution : PW-1 : Vijay Kumar.B.M, PW-2 : Jayaramegowda, PW-3 : Ravishnakar, PW-4 : Chandrappa, PW-5 : S.Hadgad, PW-6 : Santosh.
Documents Exhibited for the prosecution:
Ex.P1 : Spot-mahazar, Ex.P2 : Complaint, Ex.P3 : F.I.R, Ex.P4 : Inquest Mahazar, Ex.P5 : P.M. Ex.P6 : Seizure Mahazar, Ex.P7 : P.F, Ex.P8 : Rough Sketch, Ex.P9 : Notice, Ex.P10 : Reply. Ex.P11 : IMV Report, Ex.P12 : Part Statement of PW-6. Witness examined for the defense : Nil. Documents exhibited for the defense : Nil.
Material object got marked in this case : Nil.
P.O of MMTC-VI, Bengaluru City.