Bangalore District Court
Madiwala Tr Ps vs Sunil on 10 January, 2025
KABC080085772022
Presented on : 19-10-2022
Registered on : 19-10-2022
Decided on : 10-01-2025
Duration : 2 years, 2 months, 22 days
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS (TRAFFIC COURT-VI), BENGALURU CITY.
DATED THIS 10TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025.
PRESENT : Smt.AKHILA H.K. B.A., LL.B.,
JMFC (TRAFFIC COURT-VI),
BENGALURU.
CC No.8129/2022
COMPLAINANT: State by Madivala Traffic P.S
Bengaluru.
(State by : Learned APP)
V/s
ACCUSED NO.1: Sunil
S/o Shivraj
Aged about 31 years,
#02, C/o Shivanna Gowda,
3rd Cross, Caneer Bank Road,
Madanayakanahalli,
Bengaluru.
CC No.8129/2022
2
Permanent R/At:
#15/30, In front of Amba Bhavani
Temple,
Channaveera Nagara,
Kalaburgi - 585 102
ACCUSED NO.2: Umesh P Parekh
S/o P.B. Parekh
A2- Abated
ACCUSED NO.3: Lokesh G.K.
S/o P.B. Parekh
Aged about 37 years,
No.117, 1st Fl, Doddabidarakallu,
Nagasandra,
Bengaluru - 560 073
(A1 & 3 Represented by
Sri.Bhojaraja, Adv.,)
JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector of Madivala Traffic Police
Station has filed charge sheet against the accused No.1
to 3 for the offence punishable U/Sec.279, 283, 304(A) of
IPC, Sec.134(A & B) R/w Sec.187, Sec.146 R/w Sec.196
and sec.56 R/w Sec.192 of IMV Act.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as
under: –
CC No.8129/2022
3That on 10.03.2022 at 12.45 p.m. accused No.2 i.e.,
Umesh P Parekh being the rider of scooter bearing
registration No.KA-03-JU-4913 rode the same within the
jurisdiction of Madivala Traffic Police station from
Roopena Agrahara towards Electronic city by that time
accused No.1 without any indication parked his goods
vehicle bearing No.KA-02-AH-1411 on Electronic city fly
over up ramp by facing towards Electronic city
meanwhile accused No.2 came negligently and hit to said
parked goods vehicle, as a result rider Sri.Umesh P
Parekh sustained grievous injuries and while shifting
injured to St. John hospital he succumbed to death.
Further after the accident accused No.1 has failed to
provide medical assistance to the injured and also failed
to inform the same to the nearest police station. Further
at the time of accident offending vehicle did not have
valid insurance and fitness certificate. As such the
accused No.1 to 3 have committed an offence punishable
U/Sec.279, 283, 304(A) of IPC, Sec.134(A & B) R/w
Sec.187, Sec.146 R/w Sec.196 and sec.56 R/w Sec.192
of IMV Act.
CC No.8129/2022
4
3. Cognizance was taken by perusing the
prosecution papers and materials, the accused No.1 and
3 on receipt of summons appeared before the court and
got themselves enlarged on bail. On the said date the
prosecution papers were furnished to the accused No.1
and 3 as per Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. and substance of
accusation in the form of plea was read over and
explained to them, accused No.1 and 3 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 21. The
statement of accused as per Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. was
recorded the accused No.1 and 3 had no explanation
and he denied the incriminating circumstances
appearing against them and got marked Ex.D.1 and 2.
5. Heard both sides.
6. The point that arises for my determination is as
under:
CC No.8129/2022
5
1. Whether the prosecution proves
beyond all reasonable doubt that, on
10.03.2022 at 12.45 p.m. accused
No.2 i.e., Umesh P Prarekh being the
rider of scooter bearing registration
No.KA-03-JU-4913 rode the same
within the jurisdiction of Madivala
Traffic Police station from Roopena
Agrahara towards Electronic city by
that time accused No.1 without put
any indication parked his goods
vehicle bearing No.KA-02-AH-1411 on
Electronic city fly over up ramp by
facing towards Electronic city
meanwhile accused No.2 came
negligently and hit to said parked
goods vehicle, thereby accused No.1
has committed an offence punishable
U/Sec.283 of IPC Act?
2. Whether the prosecution proves
beyond all reasonable doubt that, as
a result of above accident rider
CC No.8129/2022
6Sri.Umesh P Parekh/accused No.2
sustained grievous injuries and while
shifting him to St. John hospital he
succumbed to death, thereby accused
No.1 has committed an offence
punishable U/Sec.304(A) of IPC ?
3. Whether the prosecution proves
beyond reasonable doubt that, after
the accident accused No.1 has failed
to provide medical assistance to the
injured and also failed to inform the
same to the nearest police station,
thereby accused No.1 committed an
offence punishable under Sec.134 (A
& B) R/w Sec.187 of IMV Act?
4. Whether the prosecution proves
beyond reasonable doubt that, at the
time of accident offending vehicle did
not have valid insurance and fitness
certificate, thereby accused No.3 has
committed an offence punishable
CC No.8129/2022
7
5. What Order?
7. My answer to the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the negative;
Point No.2 : In the negative;
Point No.3 : In the negative;
Point No.4 : Partly in the affirmative;
Point No.5 : As per final order for the
following;
REASONS
8. Point No.1 to 4: For the sake of convenience and
to avoid repetition of facts, these points are taken up for
common discussions to have brevity.
9. The prosecution case against the accused No.1
and 3 is that on 10.03.2022 at 12.45 p.m. accused No.2
i.e., Umesh P Parekh being the rider of scooter bearing
registration No.KA-03-JU-4913 rode the same within the
jurisdiction of Madivala Traffic Police station from
Roopena Agrahara towards Electronic city by that time
CC No.8129/2022
8
accused No.1 without put any indication parked his
goods vehicle bearing No.KA-02-AH-1411 on Electronic
city fly over up ramp by facing towards Electronic city
meanwhile accused No.2 came negligently and hit to said
parked goods vehicle, as a result rider Sri.Umesh P
Parekh sustained grievous injuries and while shifting
injured to St. John hospital he succumbed to death.
Further after the accident accused No.1 has failed to
provide medical assistance to the injured and also failed
to inform the same to the nearest police station. Further
at the time of accident offending vehicle did not have
valid insurance and fitness certificate.
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 21. Ex.P.1 is the
complaint, Ex.P.2 is the spot mahazar, Ex.P.3 is the 2
photos, Ex.P.5 is the IMV report, Ex.P.6 is the FSL,
Ex.P.7 is the death intimation, Ex.P.8 is the FIR, Ex.P.9
is the rough sketch, Ex.P.10 is the inquest mahazar,
Ex.P.11, 12, 16 & 17 are the notice and reply U/Sec.91
of Cr.PC, Ex.P.13, 14, 18 and 19 are the notice and reply
CC No.8129/2022
9
U/Sec.133 of IMV Act, Ex.P.15 is the PM report, Ex.P.20
is the indemnity bond, Ex.P.21 is the 2 photo.
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 complainant
of this case. He deposed that, on 10.03.2022 at 12.45
p.m. he was proceeding in his vehicle bearing No.KA-09-
EU-3269 and his father was proceeding in Suzuki Access
bearing No.KA-03-JU-4913 to go to their home at
Electronic City at that time at Hosuru Main road fly over
one lorry bearing No.KA-02-AH-1411 was parked without
any indication and his father hit to said lorry and
sustained injuries on his head and he shifted his father
to St. John hospital but his father succumbed to death.
Further hospital authorities have informed about the
accident to the police and when police visited hospital he
has given his statement of complaint as per Ex.P.1. On
the same day at 3.30 p.m. to 4.30 p.m police conducted
CC No.8129/2022
10
spot mahazar/Ex.P.2 in his presence and obtained his
signature on it. In his cross examination he has
admitted that, the spot of accident is located in a up hill
road. He has denied the suggestion that, his father was
driving his vehicle at a high speed. He has denied the
suggestion that, the goods lorry was moving when the
accident occurred. He has stated that, the accident
occurred at 12.40 p.m. ambulance came to the spot 25 to
30 minutes after the accident and the hospital was
located from the 1 ½ k.m. away from the spot of the
accident and they reached the hospital at 1.30 p.m.
13. C.W.2 examined as P.W.2 is the mahazar
witness of this case. He deposed that, on 10.03.2023 at
12.45 p.m police conducted spot mahazar at Roopena
nagar as per Ex.P.2 in his presence and obtained his
signature on it with relation to one accident. Learned APP
treated him as hostile and confronted the contents of
Ex.P.2 but nothing is elicited from him to disbelieve his
examination in chief. In his cross examination by the
counsel for the accused he has admitted that, he signed
CC No.8129/2022
11
a mahazar near the police station and he does not know
the boundaries of the spot of accident as per mahazar.
14. C.W.3 examined as P.W.3 is the mahazar
witness to the incident. He deposed that, he signed on
Ex.P.2 at police station. The learned APP treated this
witness as hostile and during the cross examination
nothing worthful elicited from him to disbelieve his
examination in chief.
15. C.W.18 and 17 examined as P.W.4 and 5
respectively are the Investigating Officers and they have
deposed about the investigation conducted by them.
P.W.4 in his cross examination has admitted and got
marked a tax invoice and insurance certificate of accused
No.3 as Ex.D1 and 2. He has admitted that, as per Ex.P.5
rear right side bumper of the goods vehicle is damaged.
He has admitted that, the accident occurred partly due
to rash and negligent driving of accused No.2. He has
admitted that, C.W.4 has given a statement to him that
the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent
CC No.8129/2022
12
driving of accused No.2. He has denied the suggestion
that, he ought to have file a charge sheet only against
accused No.2. P.W.5 in his cross examination also
admitted that, C.W.4 has given a statement that, accused
No.2 drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner
and hit to goods vehicle. He has admitted that, the
deceased accused No.2 was not wearing a helmet at the
time of accident.
16. To prove an offence U/sec.304(A) of IPC the
prosecution has to prove;
i) death of a person.
ii) the death occurred due to the rash or negligent
act of the accused person.
iii) there must be an absence of an intention to
cause death
iv) there must be a direct link between the rash and
negligent act and death of the victim.
17. After marshalling all the oral and documentary
evidence it is crystal clear that, in this case the
involvement of the offending vehicle bearing registration
CC No.8129/2022
13
No.KA-02-AH-1411 is not disputed, there is no dispute
regarding the accused No.1 being the driver of the
offending vehicle on the date of the accident. There is no
dispute about the death of Sri.Umesh P Parekh i.e., the
rider of two wheeler bearing No.KA-03-JU-4913 i.e., the
accused No.2. There is no dispute regarding IMV report
as per Ex.P.5, which states that there is no mechanical
defects in the offending vehicle. Hence, the accident did
not occur due to any mechanical defects of the vehicles
involved in the accident. Since, the death of Sri.Umesh P
Parekh is not disputed, the Court only needs to consider
if the accused No.1 had parked his vehicle in the spot of
accident without turning on the parking light in a rash
and negligent manner and due to which the accident
occurred.
18. In order to prove that the accused was the driver
of the offending vehicle and he had parked his vehicle in
the spot of accident without turning on the indicator in
a rash or negligent manner the prosecution has
examined P.W.1 who is the eye witness. P.W.1 is the
son of the deceased. He is an interested witness. He is
CC No.8129/2022
14
also a chance witness. He has deposed that, on the date
of the accident his father was proceeding separately in
his two wheeler bearing No.KA-03-JU-4113 and he was
proceeding separately in his two wheeler. P.W.1 has not
stated why both of them were going in separate vehicles
to their house. He has not stated the registration
number of the two wheeler which he was driving. He
has not stated the reason for him to be present at the
time of the accident. For these reasons the presence of
P.W.1 at the time of accident is doubtful. In this regard
in the cross examination he has stated that, the accident
occurred at 12.40 p.m. and the ambulance arrived at the
spot of accident 25 to 30 minutes after the accident.
Hence, according to him the ambulance arrived at 1.15
p.m. He has stated that, the hospital was located 1 ½
k.m. from the spot of the accident and they reach the
hospital at 1.30 p.m. Hence, according to him it took
15 minutes to reach the hospital from the spot of the
accident. He has stated that, the doctor declared his
father’s death 5 to 10 minutes after they reached the
hospital. As per the inquest the accident occurred at
12.45 p.m. and it was reported at 2.15 p.m. Admittedly,
CC No.8129/2022
15
the accident occurred in the afternoon when there is no
much traffic hence it would not take 15 minutes for the
ambulance to cover 1 ½ k.m. As already stated the
presence of P.W.1 in the spot itself is doubtful. Hence,
he is not able to depose about the timing when the
ambulance arrived at a spot and shifted his father to the
hospital. In Ex.P.1 he has stated that, his father was
wearing a half helmet at the time of accident. But P.W.5
i.e., IO in his cross examination has stated that, the
deceased was not wearing a helmet at the time of
accident. P.W.1 in his cross examination has denied the
suggestion that, the accident occurred because of rash
and negligence driving of his father. However, the
investigation has revealed that the deceased was driving
his vehicle in rash and negligent manner. Hence,
evidence of P.W.1 is not reliable.
19. Apart from P.W.1 the prosecution has cited P.W.1
as an eye witness. However, in spite of repeated issuance
of summons, warrant to C.W.4 his address could not be
traced by the prosecution. Since, there was no
possibility of securing C.W.4 in the near future he was
CC No.8129/2022
16
dropped. Hence, he has not been examined. Therefore,
on the basis of unreliable testimony of P.W.1 this Court
cannot come to the conclusion that, the accident
occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the
accused.
20. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the
accused No.1 that, he was driving the goods vehicle very
slowly at the time of the accident and accused No.2 drove
his vehicle in rash and negligent manner and hit to his
goods vehicle from the rear side. It is his contention
that, since accused No.2 came and hit accused No.1’s
vehicle from the rear right side bumper of the goods
vehicle is damaged as per Ex.P.5. The damage
mentioned to the goods vehicle in Ex.P.5 is not in
dispute. However, it is the contention of the prosecution
that the goods vehicle was parked illegally without any
indication on the fly over at the time of the accident and
due to this act of the accused No.1 the accident has
occurred. In order to prove that the goods vehicle was
parked illegally at the time of the accident the
prosecution is only relying on the evidence of P.W.1. But
CC No.8129/2022
17
as already discussed his evidence is unreliable and from
the evidence of P.W.1 this Court cannot com to
conclusion that the accused No.1 had parked his goods
vehicle illegally without turning on indication on a fly
over.
21. Apart from this the prosecution is relying on the
IMV report Ex.P.5. As per Ex.P.5 the rear right side
bumper of the goods vehicle is damaged and the entire
two wheeler is damaged. The damages to both the
vehicles are not in dispute. However, merely because
there are damages to both the vehicle it cannot be said
that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent
act of accused No.1. Prosecution is also relying on the
mahazar as per Ex.P.2 and rough sketch of the spot of
accident marked as Ex.P.9. None of the mahazar
witnesses have supported the prosecution. Ex.P.1 and 9
by themselves cannot prove rashness or negligence of
the accused No.1. Hence, under the circumstances the
benefit of doubt has to be extended to the accused.
CC No.8129/2022
18
22. It is the burden of the prosecution to prove the
guilt of the accused. The evidence placed on record do
not rise up to the expectation to prove beyond reasonable
doubt in so far as the involvement of accused in the
incident is concerned. Therefore, the prosecution
version that on the account of rash and negligent act by
the accused, accident has occurred cannot be held to be
proved. The presence of the accused, his conduct after
the accident is also not proved by the prosecution .
Since, the accident did not occur due to the negligence or
rashness of the accused the liability U/Sec.134(A & B) of
IMV Act cannot be imposed on the accused. Moreover,
from the evidence on record it is proved that the
deceased was taken to the hospital immediately after the
accident in an ambulance and even the accident was
reported to the police station soon after the accident.
Hence, the accused No.1 cannot be expected to comply
with Sec.134 ( A & B) R/w Sec.187 of IMV Act.
23. By ascertaining all these oral and
documentary evidence it is clear that, there is no
substantive, cogent and corroborative evidence to prove
CC No.8129/2022
19
the guilt of the accused No.1. Hence, mere evidence of
official witnesses are insufficient to prove the guilt of
accused No.1. Therefore, by considering the overall facts
and circumstances of this case, this court is of the
considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove
the guilt of the accused No.1 beyond all reasonable
doubt. Hence, point Nos.1 to 3 are answered in the
negative.
24. The allegation against accused No.3 that, he is
the owner of offending vehicle and he did not possess
vehicle insurance on the date of the incident. But in the
cross examination of P.W.4 the insurance certificate and
invoice of having paid the insurance is confronted and
marked by counsel for accused No.3 as Ex.D.1 and 2. As
per Ex.D1 and 2. The accused No.3 has paid insurance
premium on 09.03.2022. In Ex.D.1 it is stated that the
period of insurance commences from 00:00 hours of
11.03.2022 to mid night of 10.03.2023. Admittedly, the
accident has occurred on 10.03.2022 at 12.45 p.m. The
prosecution is contended that, the insurance commences
from 11.03.2022 on the date of accident offending vehicle
CC No.8129/2022
20
was not covered by insurance. Learned counsel for the
accused has relied on judgment of Hon’ble High Court of
Karnataka reported in 2021 (2) KAR LJ 663 Sudarshan
V/s Subhash and another wherein it is held that when
the premium receipt is not produced and there is no
specific contact of mentioning the time so as to cover the
risk then general policy commences from mid night by
mentioning next day. In this case the premium receipt
is produced as Ex.D.1 and as per the receipt the
insurance company has received the insurance premium
on 09.03.2022 i.e., much before the accident. This
proves that, accused No.3 has bonafidely made payment
to cover the risk before the accident itself. Hence, it has
to be considered that, he has valid insurance on the date
of the accident. However, accused No.3 has not produced
fitness certificate pertaining to his vehicle. Hence, point 4
is answered in the partly affirmative.
25. Point No.5: In view of the findings on point
Nos.1 to 4, this court proceeds to pass the following;
CC No.8129/2022
21
ORDER
Acting under Sec.255(1) of
Cr.P.C. accused No.1 is hereby
acquitted for accusation of
commission of the offence
punishable U/Sec.283 and 304(A) of
IPC and Sec.134(A & B) R/w
Sec.187 of IMV Act.
Acting under Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C. accused No.3 is hereby acquitted for accusation of commission of the offence punishable U/Sec.146 R/w Sec.196 of IMV Act. Acting U/Sec.255(2) of Criminal
Procedure code, the accused No.3 is
hereby convicted of the offences
punishable U/Sec.56 R/w 192 of
IMV Act.
Accused No.3 is sentenced to
pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five
CC No.8129/2022
22
thousand only) in default shall
undergo simple imprisonment for a
period one month for the offence
punishable U/Sec.56 R/w 192 of
IMV Act.
Their bail bonds and surety
bonds stands cancelled after the
lapse of appeal period.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, corrected and
then pronounced by me in open court on this the 10th day of January, 2025)
(Akhila H.K.)
JMFC (Traffic Court-VI),
Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION:
PW.1 Rahul Parik PW.2 Christa PW.3 Singaravelu PW.4 Ashok Kumar PW.5 Naveen Kumar
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 Complaint
Ex.P.2 Spot Mahazar
CC No.8129/2022
23
Ex.P.3 2 Photos
Ex.P.5 IMV report
Ex.P.6 FSL report
Ex.P.7 Death intimation
Ex.P.8 FIR
Ex.P.9 Rough sketch
Ex.P.10 Inquest mahazar
Ex.P.11, Notice & Reply U/Sec.91 of Cr.PC Act
12,17 & 7
Ex.P.13, 14, Notice & Reply U/Sec.133 of IMV Act
18 & 19
Ex.P.15 PM report
Ex.P.20 Indemnity bond
Ex.P.21 2 Photos
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR ACCUSED:
-Nil-
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR ACCUSED:
Ex.D1 & 2 Insurance policy documents
(Akhila H.K.)
JMFC (Traffic Court-VI),
Bengaluru.
[ad_1]
Source link