Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

H.K.S.Prasanna is the investigator and he has deposed regarding investigation done by him for the respondent no.1. He and RW-1 have stated that the petitioner and charge sheeted rider have stated that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent riding of rider of motorcycle who was aged 16-17 years and there were 3 persons on the motorcycle. Their evidence is concentrated on implication of rider.

10. Copies of police records are at Ex.P-1 to 5 which reveal that Channapatna East police have registered Cr.No.43/15 on 16.5.2015 at 4.00 p.m., on the basis of information given by Syed Shaji Taha, investigated the matter and filed charge sheet against Irfan Pasha, the rider of Motorcycle bearing No.KA-42-E-6383 for the offences punishable U/s 279 and 338 of IPC. The police have drawn spot panchanama which reveals the topography of the place of accident. There is no dispute regarding place of accident. The police have detained Motorcycle bearing No.KA-42-E-6383 under panchanama and subjected it to inspection. Vehicle detention panchanama was drawn on 17.5.2015. The charge sheeted rider was arrested on 18.5.2015. The motorcycle was inspected on 21.5.2015. The said vehicle was not damaged, but that itself is no ground to believe that the vehicle is falsely implicated. Lodging of FIR, detention of vehicle and filing of charge sheet are not challenged. Complaint regarding false claim is filed by the respondent no.1 after service of notice in this case. Copy of complaint is at Ex.R-2, postal acknowledgements are at Ex.R-3, CD is at Ex.R-4 and transcription of CD is at Ex.R-4(a). On perusal of complaint at Ex.R-2, it reveals that the respondent no.1 has impliedly admitted the involvement of Motorcycle bearing No.KA-42-E-6383 in the accident, but he has specifically contended about implication of rider. RW-1 and 2 have also impliedly admitted the involvement of said motorcycle in the accident. Therefore, false implication of Motorcycle bearing No.KA-42- E-6383 in the case is ruled out.

14. The respondent no.1 has not complied the above conditions before producing the CD at Ex.R-4 and transcription at Ex.R-4(a). Hence, said evidence is inadmissible. Therefore, oral evidence of RW-1 and 2 remained uncorroborated as to implication of rider. In view of charge sheet filed by the police, their evidence is liable to be rejected. Rulings relied by the respondent no.1 can not be applied to this case. Charge sheet is prima facie evidence as to negligence of Irfan Pasha for the occurrence of accident. Evidence of PW-1 and 3 establish the involvement of said Irfan Pasha in the accident and occurrence of accident due to his negligence. There is no oral or documentary evidence as to sole or contributory negligence of the petitioner. Except bare denials, nothing is elicited from PW-1 and 3 to disbelieve their evidence as to riding of offending motorcycle by the charge sheeted rider Irfan Pasha.

ANNEXURE WITNESSES EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS:

PW.1             Syed Umer
PW.2             Dr.Krishna Kumari
PW.3             Syed Nissar

Respondent' s
RW.1             Jayashankar
RW.2             H.K.S.Prasanna

Ex.P1 - Copy of FIR with complaint
Ex.P2 - Copy of Spot panchanama

Ex.P3 - Copy of vehicle detention panchanama Ex.P4 - Copy of IMV report Ex.P5 - Copy of charge sheet Ex.P6 - Copy of wound certificate Ex.P7 - Discharge summary Ex.P8 - scan report Ex.P9 - OPD book Ex.P10- Copy of Voter ID Ex.P11- Medical bills (15 in nos. amounting to Rs.4,062/-) Ex.P12-Prescriptions (11 in nos) Ex.P13-case sheet Respondent's Ex.R1 - MLC extract Ex.R2 - Copy of complaint Ex.R3 - Postal Acknowledgments (3 in nos.) Ex.R4 - CD Ex.R4(a)- Transcription of CD Ex.R5- Authorization letter Ex.R6- copy of policy XVI ADDL.JUDGE, Court of Small Causes & MACT, Bangalore.