Bangalore District Court
H S R Lay Oyt Tr Ps vs Narednrababu N on 8 February, 2024
KABC080042422020
Presented on : 19-08-2020
Registered on : 19-08-2020
Decided on : 08-02-2024
Duration : 3 years, 5 months, 20 days
IN THE COURT OF THE METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE TRAFFIC COURT - VI, AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS 8 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024.
PRESENT : Smt.AKHILA H.K. B.A., LL.B.,
M.M.T.C-VI, BENGALURU.
CC No.4154/2020
COMPLAINANT: State by H.S.R Layout Traffic P.S
Bengaluru.
(State by : Learned APP)
V/s
ACCUSED: Narendrababu N
S/o Narasimhreddy,
Aged about 27 years,
C/o Balakrishna Srinivasareddy
th
building, 4 Cross,
2 CC No.4154/2020
Opp. Omshakthi Temple, Hosapalya,
Bengaluru - 560 030.
(Represented by Sri.H.K.R., Adv.)
JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector of H.S.R Layout traffic Police Station has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.279, 337 and 338 of IPC and Sec.134(A & B) R/w Sec.187, Sec.185 & Sec.3(1) R/w 181 of IMV Act.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under: -
That on 11.05.2020 at 4.15 p.m. accused being the driver of cab bearing registration No.KA-07-A-6823 drove the same by consuming alcohol within the jurisdiction of H.S.R. Layout Traffic Police Station on outer ring road from HSR Layout towards Marathalli in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and near Ibbaluru lake suddenly took left turn and dashed to C.W.1's motor cycle bearing No.KA-03-JT-4463 when C.W.1 was proceeding along with pillion rider C.W.2.3 CC No.4154/2020
Due to the impact both C.W.1 and 2 fell down along with the vehicle and C.W.1 sustained simple injuries and C.W.2 sustained grievous injuries. Further, after the incident accused has failed to provide medical assistance to the injured and also failed to inform the same to nearest police station and at the time of accident accused did not have valid driving licence (LMV Badge). As such the accused has committed an offence punishable U/Sec.279, 337 and 338 of IPC and Sec.134(A & B) R/w Sec.187, Sec.185 & Sec.3(1) R/w 181 of IMV Act.
3. Cognizance was taken by perusing the prosecution papers and materials, the accused on receipt of summons appeared before the court and got himself enlarged on bail. On the said date the prosecution papers were furnished to the accused as per Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. and substance of accusation in the form of plea was read over and explained to him, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. During the course of trial the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 5 and got marked Ex.P.1 to 11. The 4 CC No.4154/2020 statement of accused as per Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded the accused had no explanation and he denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against him.
5. Heard arguments on both sides and perused the materials available on record.
6. The point that arises for my determination is as under:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 11.05.2020 at 4.15 p.m. accused being the driver of cab bearing registration No.KA-07-A-6823 drove the same by consuming alcohol within the jurisdiction of H.S.R. Layout Traffic Police Station on outer ring road from HSR Layout towards Marathalli in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and thereby committed an offence punishable 5 CC No.4154/2020 under Sec.279 of IPC & Sec.185 of IMV Act?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the same date, time and place accused drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and near Ibbaluru lake suddenly took left turn and dashed to C.W.1's motor cycle bearing No.KA-03-JT-4463 when C.W.1 was proceeding along with pillion rider C.W.2. Due to the impact C.W.1 and 2 fell down along with the vehicle and C.W.1 sustained simple injuries and C.W.2 sustained grievous injuries, thereby committed an offence punishable U/Sec.337 & 338 of IPC ?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that after the accident accused has failed to provide medical assistance to the injured and 6 CC No.4154/2020 also failed to inform the same to nearest police station and at the time of accident accused did not have valid driving licence (LMV Badge) and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sec.134 (A & B) R/w Sec.187 & Sec.3(1) R/w Sec.181 of IMV Act?
4. What Order?
7. My answer to the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the affirmative; Point No.2 : Partly in the affirmative; Point No.3 : In the affirmative; Point No.4 : As per final order for the following R EAS O N S
8. Point No.1 to 3: For the sake of convenience and to avoid repetition of facts, these points are taken up for common discussions to have brevity.
7 CC No.4154/20209. The prosecution case against the accused is that on 11.05.2020 at 4.15 p.m. accused being the driver of cab bearing registration No.KA-07-A-6823 drove the same by consuming alcohol within the jurisdiction of H.S.R. Layout Traffic Police Station on outer ring road from HSR Layout towards Marathalli in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and near Ibbaluru lake suddenly took left turn and dashed to C.W.1's motor cycle bearing No.KA-03-JT-4463 when C.W.1 was proceeding along with pillion rider C.W.2. Due to the impact both C.W.1 and 2 fell down along with the vehicle and C.W.1 sustained simple injuries and C.W.2 sustained grievous injuries. Further, after the incident accused has failed to provide medical assistance to the injured and also failed to inform the same to nearest police station at the time of accident accused did not have valid driving licence (LMV Badge).
10. In order to bring home the charge against the accused the prosecution has examined 5 witnesses as PWs.1 to 5 and got marked Ex.P.1 to 11. Ex.P.1 is the complaint, Ex.P.2 is the spot mahazar, Ex.P.3 is the FIR, 8 CC No.4154/2020 Ex.P.4 is the rough sketch, Ex.P.5 and 6 are the notice and reply U/Sec.133 of IMV Act, Ex.P.7 is the notice U/Sec.91 of Cr.PC, Ex.P.8 is the indemnity bond, Ex.P.9 is alcohol test report, Ex.P.10 is the wound certificate and Ex.P.11 is the IMV Report.
11. Before adverting to the appreciation of evidence it is proper to state in brief the evidence deposed by the prosecution witnesses.
12. C.W.1 examined as P.W.1 is the victim and first informant of this case. He deposed that, on 11.05.2020 at 4.00 p.m. he and C.W.2 were proceeding in his two wheeler from Sarjapura towards Ibbaluru signal and while they were taking right turn one car bearing No.KA-07-A-6823 came from their back and hit their vehicle, as a result he sustained simple injuries and C.W.2 sustained fracture on his left leg and C.W.2 was shifted to Columbia Asia hospital. Further he deposed that, when he was at hospital police took the driver of the offending vehicle to the hospital and taken his statement 9 CC No.4154/2020 of complaint/Ex.P.1. Further he deposed that, on the next day of the incident police called him to accident spot and conducted spot mahazar/Ex.P.2 in his presence and obtained his signature on it.
13. In the cross examination P.W.1 has stated that the police have recorded his statement of complaint in the police station at 7.30 p.m. He has submitted that, the police had brought the accused to the hospital. He has further submitted that, he has given his complaint when the police brought the accused to the hospital. Apart from that he has denied all the suggestion put forth to him by the counsel for the accused.
14. C.W.2 examined as P.W.2, is the victim in the accident. He deposed that on 11.05.2020 at 4.15 p.m. he and C.W.1 were proceeding in two wheeler from Sarjapura towards Marathalli by that time at Sarjapura fly over down ramp while taking right turn one car bearing No.6822 or 6823 came and hit to their vehicle, as a result his left leg got fractured and he sustained injury on his right eye and he was shifted to hospital. Further 10 CC No.4154/2020 he deposed that, as he had sustained grievous injuries he has not observed the driver of the offending vehicle.
15. In the cross examination he has admitted that there are many signal at the spot fo the accident and one signal turns green and other signal turns red. He has submitted that,t he police have not recorded his statement at the hospital. He has submitted that, he has not observed the car number at the spot of the accident and he got to know about the car number from C.W.1 later. He has denied the suggestion that he was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and accident occurred due to his negligence.
16. C.W.3 examined as P.W.3, is the eye witness to the incident. He deposed that C.W.1 and 2 are his colleagues. On 11.05.2020 at 4.30 p.m. he was proceeding in his vehicle from Sarjapura towards Banasavadi at that time C.W.1 and 2 were proceeding in his front and their vehicle was driven by the C.W.1 and C.W.2 was the pillion rider and at Ibbaluru Signal while 11 CC No.4154/2020 C.W.1 and 2 were taking turn one car bearing No.KA-07- A-6823 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to said two wheeler, as a result C.W.2 sustained fracture on his left leg and C.W.1 sustained simple injuries and C.W.2 was shifted to hospital. Further he deposed that, after the accident driver of the offending vehicle went away from the spot but public caught him. Further he deposed that, on the next day of the incident police called him to accident spot and conducted spot mahazar/Ex.P.2 in his presence and obtained his signature on it. In the cross examination he has admitted that there are many signal in the spot of the accident. He has stated that, he cannot state the schedule of the spot of the accident but it is the road proceeding from Sarjapur to Marathhalli. Apart from that he has denied the other suggestion put forth to him by the accused counsel.
17. C.W.4 being the IMV inspector examined as PW.5 and deposed about the inspection done by him to the vehicles i.e., one two wheeler bearing No.KA-03-JT- 4463 and Cab bearing No.KA-07-A-6823 which were 12 CC No.4154/2020 involved in the accident and he he has given his report as per Ex.P.11. In the cross examination nothing is elicited from him to disbelieve his evidence.
18. C.W.6 being investigating officer examined as P.W.5 and he deposed about the investigation conducted by him. IN his Cross Examination he has stated that he is received the complaint in the police station not in the hospital. He has admitted that, he has not issued notice before conducting mahazar. He has admitted that, he has not taken the opinion of BBMP Engineer while preparing the spot mahazar. He has admitted that, he has not secured the CCTV footage of the spot of the accident. He has admitted that, he has not submitted the requisition letter sent by him to IMV Inspector and the Doctor. He has also admitted that, there are many signals at the spot of the accident and one signal turns red and other signal turns green. Apart from that he has denied all the other suggestions put forth to him.
13 CC No.4154/202019. With the above evidence, this court has to ascertain whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. In order to prove offence U/Sec.279 of IPC the prosecution has to prove;
(i) Rash and negligent driving on public way
(ii) The act must be such as to endanger human life or likely to cause hurt or injury to any person.
20. To prove an offence U/Sec.337 & 338 of IPC the prosecution has to prove that some simple & grievous hurt was caused to a person, that such hurt was caused by rash or negligent act of the accused and the act was such that it caused endangerment to human life or public safety of others.
21. In order to prove U/Sec.134(A & B) of IMV Act the prosecution has to prove that the accused did not provide medical assistance and he did not inform the accident to the nearest police station after the accident.
14 CC No.4154/202022. In order to prove U/Sec.3(1) R/w Sec.181 of IMV Act the prosecution has to prove that the accused did not have valid driving licence (LMV Badge) at the time of accident.
23. In order to prove U/Sec.185 of IMV Act the prosecution has to prove that the accused has consumed alcohol while driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident.
24. After marshalling all the oral and documentary evidence it is crystal clear that, the accused is not denying that he was the driver of the car bearing No.KA07-A-6823 on 11.05.2020. He has not denied the accident. He has also not denied the spot of the accident. He has not denied that P.W.2 was injured in the accident. He is only denying that the accident occurred due to his negligence.
25. In this context it is necessary to examine the evidence of P.W.1 to 3. P.W.1 and 2 are the injured 15 CC No.4154/2020 witnesses. From the cross examination conducted by the counsel for the accused it can be culled out that it is the defence of the accused that P.W.1 was driving his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and not the accused. The accident occurred due to the negligence of P.W.1. Apart from making bald suggestions to P.W.1 to 3 about this contention the accused has not elicited anything from them to disbelieve their evidence. Further, from Ex.P.9 it is clear that the accused had consumed alcohol at the time of the accident. Ex.P.9 reveals that the accused had 97mg/100 ml blood alcohol at the time of the accident. As per Sec.185 of IMV Act if a person is found with alcohol content more than 30 mg/100 ml the said person will have committed an offence punishable U/Sec.185 of IMV Act. In this case Ex.P.9 reveals that, the accused had 97 mg/100 ml alcohol which is way above the limit prescribed by Sec.185 of IMV Act. It is well known that, a person under the influence of alcohol has reduced alertness and is not in a position to drive properly and has slow reflex action. Therefore, by the very fact that the accused was under the influence of alcohol proves that he has driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent 16 CC No.4154/2020 manner. Every person who is driving a vehicle on the road has a duty towards other drivers to drive in a proper manner and the accused by consuming alcohol and driving his vehicle has been negligent and reckless. Further, the accused has nowhere in his cross examination denied that he had not consumed alcohol. The accused has not offered any explanation regarding the presence of alcohol at the time of the accident. From Ex.P.8 it is clear that the accused was very much driving the said car on the date of the accident. Ex.P.8 is not denied by the accused. Moreover, during the cross examination of P.W.1 the counsel for the accused has submitted that, he does not dispute the identification of the accused. Therefore, it is proved that the accused was the driver of the car bearing No.KA-07-A-6823 on 11.05.2020 under the influence of alcohol and he has hit the vehicle of P.W.1 and as a result P.W.1 and 2 have sustained injuries in the road proceeding from Sarjapur towards Marathalli at Ibbalur Signal.
26. The counsel for the accused has raised the contention that P.W.1 has stated that, the police had 17 CC No.4154/2020 brought the accused to the hospital but as per the evidence of P.W.4 notice was issued to the accused to appear before the Investigating Officer on 02.08.2020 i.e., 3 months after the accident. However, from the evidence of P.W.4 itself it is clear that the Investigating Officer has issued notice U/Sec.133 of IMV Act to the accused on 13.05.2020 and also received his reply to the said notice. Further, on the same day he has also issued notice to the accused regarding absence of badge on 13.05.2020 and also received his reply. He has issued notice to the accused on 02.08.2020 formally to follow the arrest procedure against the accused. Moreover, P.W.1 and 3 have clearly deposed that, the public have apprehended the accused after the accident and he was brought to the hospital. Even in Ex.P.1 it is stated by P.W.1 that, the accused was apprehended by the general public after the accident and thereafter he got to know about the name of the accused. He has stated that, the accused was brought to the police station. Therefore, the contention of the counsel for the accused lacks merits.
18 CC No.4154/202027. Another contention of the counsel of the accused is that, P.W.1 has stated that he has given his complaint in the hospital after the police brought the accused. Whereas, as per Ex.P.1 the complaint was given in the police station. The endorsement on Ex.P.1 and P.W.4/IO have deposed that the complaint was given by PW.1 in the police station. PW.1 has also deposed in his Cross Examination that he has given the complaint in the police station at 7.30 p.m. on 11.05.2020. But later in the Cross Examination he has deposed that, he has given the complaint in the hospital. Apparently, P.W.1 was also injured in the accident and he would have been in a confused state of mind after the accident. Moreover he has studied only up to SSLC and he is a carpenter by profession. Hence, he cannot be expected to remember details about the time, date and place at which the complaint was given. Further, the accident occurred on 11.05.2020 and P.W.1 has deposed on 04.08.2021 i.e., almost one year after the accident. Hence, he cannot be expected to depose with exactness. Hence, this contention of the accused lacks merits.
19 CC No.4154/202028. Another contention of the counsel for the accused is that the IO has not obtained CCTV footage from the spot of the accident. IO in his Cross Examination has submitted that it was not necessary to obtain the CCTV footage. In this case, P.W.1 to 3 have supported the prosecution and have deposed about the manner in which the accident took place. Their evidence is corroborated by the rough sketch and mahazar i.e., Ex.P.3 and 4. In Ex.P.4 the spot of the accident is marked as -A and also the direction in which both the vehicles were proceeding is also marked. This is in corroboration with Ex.P.1 and the evidence of P.W.1 to 3. Further, P.W.1 to 3 have deposed that on 11.05.2020 at 4.00 p.m. when P.W.1 and 2 were proceeding in their 2 wheeler from Sarjapur and when they reached Ibbaluru signal and when they were taking right turn the accused has arrived in his car and hit them at their back. This aspect is clearly corroborated by Ex.P.1/complaint. Moreover, IMV report/Ex.P.11 states that there are damages on the right side rear door, right side quarter panel, rear right side bumper, right side tail lamp and indicator of the car bearing No.KA-07-A-6823. As per 20 CC No.4154/2020 Ex.P.11 the head light mask and rear left side indicator and left side foot rest of bike bearing No.KA-03-JT-4463 is damaged. This clearly shows that the accident occurred when both the bike and the car were taking a right turn at Ibbaluru signal. Therefore, even Ex.P.11 corroborates the ocular evidence of P.W.1 to 3. Hence, the contention of the accused that the CCTV footage is not obtained by the prosecution is merit less. Since, the prosecution is able to prove its case through oral and documentary evidence already on record CCTV footages are not necessary.
29. Negligence and rashness are mandatory elements of an offence under Section 279 or 337 or 338 IPC. Culpable negligence lies in the failure to exercise reasonable and proper care and caution incumbent upon a person in a given set of circumstances. Whereas rashness means doing an act with the consciousness of a risk that evil consequences will follow but with the hope that they will not. A rash and negligent act is a reckless act which means' regardless' or heedless of the possible harmful consequences of one's acts. The question 21 CC No.4154/2020 whether the accused' s conduct amounted to culpable rashness or negligence depends directly on the question as to what is the amount of care and circumspection which a prudent and reasonable man would consider it to be sufficient considering all the circumstances of the case.
30. In the judgment titled as " Rathnashalvan Vs State of Karnataka" reported as 2007 (3) SCC 474 AIR 2007 SC 1064 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "Rashness" consists in hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is so, and that it may cause injury. The criminality lies in such a case in running the risk of doing such an act with recklessness or indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negligence on the other hand, is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise that reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard against injury either to the public generally or to an individual in particular, which, having regard to all the circumstances out of which the charge has arisen it was the imperative duty of the accused person to have adopted".
22 CC No.4154/202031. Judicial precedents have also described a 'rash and negligent' as a ' reckless' act. In the judgment titled as "Kuldeep Singh State of Himachal Pradesh"
reported as 2008 CRI L J 3932 (SC), the Hon' ble Supreme Court quoted R.V.Caldwell (1981) 1 AII ER 961 wherein it has been observed that "Nevertheless, to decide whether someone has been ' reckless ' whether harmful consequences of a particular kind will result from his act, as distinguished from his actually intending such harmful consequences to follow, does call for some consideration of how the mind of the ordinary prudent individual would have reacted to a similar situation. If there were nothing in the circumstances that ought to have drawn the attention of an ordinary prudent individual to the possibility of that kind of harmful consequence, the accused would not be described as 'reckless' in the natural meaning of that word for failing to address his mind to the possibility: nor, if the risk of the harmful consequences was so light that the ordinary prudent individual on due consideration of the risk would not be deterred from treating it as negligible, could the accused be described as reckless in in its ordinary 23 CC No.4154/2020 sense, if, having considered the risk, he decided to ignore it. (In this connection the gravity of the possible harmful consequences would be an important factor. To endanger life must be one for the most grave)...."
32. Therefore, by applying the principals of above discussed decisions to the present case it is seen that, the eye witnesses have categorically deposed that accused came driving the offending vehicle in a negligent manner and hit the motor cycle and Ex.P.9 it is proved that the accused was under the influence of alcohol at that time. There is no instrument of definite precision which would give a clear arithmetical result as to establish rashness or negligence. Every prudent driver understands that if he drives a vehicle in rash or negligent manner especially under the influence of alcohol there is a risk of an accident and the consequences may be disasters. The accused did not bother to drive his vehicle by taking necessary precautions and he was under the influence of alcohol without keeping in mind the safety of the other users of the road. Resultantly he has caused hurt to two 24 CC No.4154/2020 persons. This act of the accused is definitely fraught with rashness and negligence. The defence raised by the accused is unbelievable and improbable. He has alleged that, the accident occurred due to the negligence of the rider of the two wheeler. However, he has not explained his contention or the circumstances under which the alleged rashness and negligence of P.W.1 caused the accident. The proximity between the accident and injuries suffered by P.W.2 is established by wound certificate as per Ex.P.10. The accused is not denying the grievous injury sustained by P.W.2. Hence, it is established that the grievous injury sustained by P.W.2 is due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused. However, the prosecution has not placed anything on record to prove the injury sustained by P.W.1.
33. P.W.1 to 3 have clearly deposed that, the accused fled from the spot after the accident and later he was apprehended by public present at the spot. The accused has not proved that he has provided medical aid to the victims and he has informed the police above the accident.
25 CC No.4154/202034. The prosecution has further alleged that, the accused did not have driving licence (LMV badge) at the time of the accident. The accused has not placed any material on record to controvert the said allegation.
35. Therefore, by considering the overall facts and circumstances of this case, this court is of the considered view that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. This Court is not applying the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act since the accused was under the influence of alcohol at the time of accident. This is a road traffic accident case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dalbir Singh V/s State of Hariyana (2000) 5 SCC 82193 has held that, the Probation of Offenders Act shall not apply to the road traffic accidents involved in rash and negligent driving leading to fatal accident. In view of the above discussion the prosecution is able to prove the offences punishable U/Sec.297, 338 of IPC, Sec.185, Sec.134(A & B) R/w Sec.187 and Sec.3(1) R/w Sec.181 of IMV Act against the accused and the prosecution is not able to prove the offence punishable 26 CC No.4154/2020 U/Sec.337 of IPC against the accused. Hence, point Nos.2 answered partly in the affirmative and point No.1 and 3 in the affirmative.
36. POINT NO.4: In view of the findings on point Nos.1 to 3, this court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C. accused is hereby acquitted for accusation of commission of the offence punishable U/Sec.337 of IPC.
Acting U/s.255(2) of Criminal Procedure code, the accused is hereby convicted of the offences punishable U/Sec.279, 338 of IPC, Sec.185, Sec.134(A & B) R/w Sec.187 & Sec.3(1) R/w Sec.181 of IMV Act.
The accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) for the offence punishable U/Sec.279 of IPC. In default he shall undergo simple 27 CC No.4154/2020 imprisonment for a period one month.
Further, accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) for the offence punishable U/Sec.338 of IPC. In default he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period one month.
Further, accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) for the offence punishable U/Sec.3(1) R/w 181 of IMV Act. In default he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period one month.
Further, accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) for the offence punishable U/Sec.134(A & B) R/w Sec.187 of IMV Act. In default he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period one month.
Further, accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees 28 CC No.4154/2020 ten thousand only) for the offence punishable U/Sec.185 of IMV Act. In default he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period two months.
In total accused shall pay fine of Rs.14,000/-(Rupees Fourteen Thousand Only).
Issue free copy of this judgment to the accused forthwith.
The bail bond 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 open court on this the 8 th day of February, 2024) (AKHILA H.K.) MMTC-VI, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION:
PW.1 Vinod Kumar
PW.2 Rajan
29 CC No.4154/2020
PW.3 Jayavelu
PW.4 Narasimiah
PW.5 Shanmuga Hadagad
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 Notice U/Sec.133 of IMV Act Ex.P.6 Reply to the notice U/Sec.133 of IMV Act Ex.P.7 Notice U/Sec.91 of Cr.PC Ex.P.8 Indemnity bond Ex.P.9 Alcohol test report Ex.P.10 Wound Certificate Ex.P.11 IMV report
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR ACCUSED:
Nil LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR ACCUSED:
Nil (AKHILA H.K.) MMTC-VI, BENGALURU .