Bangalore District Court
State By Madiwala Traffic Police ... vs Sri.Shivashankar Murthy S/O on 24 March, 2015
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
TRAFFIC COURT - VI, BENGALURU CITY.
C.C. No.441/2014
Dated: This the 24th day of March, 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 : Sri.Shivashankar Murthy S/o
Shivamallappa, 38 years,
R/at Heggavadi Village, Kuderu Post,
Santemaranahalli Hobli,
Chamarajnagar Tq and District.
JUDGMENT
Police Sub-Inspector of Madiwala Traffic Police Station filed charge sheet alleging that, the accused has committed offences punishable under sections 279 and 338 of IPC.
2 CC.No.441/20142. The facts of prosecution case in brief are as under:
On 26.01.2014 at about 6.15 a.m. within the jurisdiction of Madiwala Traffic Police Station the accused being the driver of BMTC bus bearing No.KA- 01-F-3298 drove it on Begur road from North to South direction in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life, near Deccan factory dashed to motor cycle bearing its No.KA-51 EJ-1613 which was coming in opposite direction as a result of which the pillion rider sustained grievous injuries and 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 under sections 279 and 338 of IPC and process has been issued to the accused. Accused appeared through counsel in pursuance of process and got enlarged on bail.
4. Charge Sheet copies have been furnished to the accused in compliance of Section 207 of Cr.P.C.
3 CC.No.441/20145. Substance of accusation has been read over and explained to the accused, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the case is posted for Prosecution evidence.
6. In order to establish its case Prosecution has examined five witnesses as PW.1 to 5 and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to 9 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 she did not choose to lead defense evidence.
8. I have heard the arguments and perused the materials available on record. The following points that would arise for consideration:
1) Whether prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that on 26.01.2014 at about 6.15 a.m. within the jurisdiction of Madiwala Traffic Police Station the accused being the driver of BMTC bus bearing No.KA-01-F-3298 drove it on Begur road from North to South direction in a rash and negligent manner so as 4 CC.No.441/2014 to endanger human life and thereby, the accused has committed the offence punishable U/s 279 of Indian Penal Code?
2) Whether prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the aforesaid time, place and in the said act near Deccan factory dashed to motor cycle bearing its No.KA-51 EJ- 1613 which was coming in opposite direction as a result of which the pillion rider sustained grievous injuries and thereby, the accused has committed the offence punishable U/s 338 of Indian Penal Code?
3) What Order?
9. My findings to the above points are as under :
POINT No.1 and 2 : In the Negative; POINT No.3 : As per final order for the following ;
REASONS POINT Nos.1 and 2 :
10. Since these points are inter-connected with each other, they are taken up together for common discussion to avoid repetition of facts.
5 CC.No.441/2014The prosecution has examined five witnesses as PW-1 to 5. PW-1 is complainant as well as rider of the motor cycle which subjected to accident. PW-2 is injured. PW-3 is Eye-witness as well as mahazar witness. PW-4 and 5 are Investigation Officers.
11. PW-1 who is complainant as well as rider of the motor cycle has deposed that on 26.01.2014 at about 6.15 a.m. when he was riding his bike along with his wife as a pillion rider on left side of Begur Main Road towards Bommanahalli from Begur near Deccan factory the accused being the driver of BMTC bus bearing No.KA-01 F-3298 by over taking vehicles which were proceeding in front of the bus came in high speed towards extreme right side of the road and hit his bike as a result of which he along with his wife fell down on the road and in the said impact he sustained simple injuries and his wife sustained grievous injuries to her left hand. In this regard he has lodged complaint as per Ex.P-1. He has further deposed that on the next day morning between 9.00 a.m. and 10,00 a.m. Police have conducted Spot-Inspection at 6 CC.No.441/2014 accident place in his presence and drawn mahazar as per Ex.P-2.
12. PW-2 who is injured has deposed that on 26.01.2014 at about 6.00 a.m. when she was going along with his husband on bike of her husband on Begur Main Road from Begur to Bommanahalli near Deccan Factory one BMTC bus came in high speed and hit the bike as a result of which she fell down and became unconscious. In the said accident no injuries caused to her husband. After the accident she became unconscious she got conscious when she is in hospital as such she did not see the accused and bus number. During cross-examination by the learned APP she has admitted to the suggestion put to her that she has given statement before the Police that the bus No.KA- 01 F-3298 has come extreme right of the road and dashed against bike. However, she has denied suggestion put to her by the learned APP that she has given statement before the Police with regard to identification of driver as per Ex.P-3.
7 CC.No.441/201413. PW-3 has deposed that on 26.01.2014 at about 6.10 a.m. when he was going on Begur Main Road near Deccan Factory the accused being the driver of the BMTC bus bearing its No.KA-01 F-3298 came in high speed while overtaking vehicles which were proceeding in front of him came extreme right side of the road and hit the bike which was coming opposite to the bus. As a result of which the rider and pillion rider fell down on the road. In the said impact the pillion rider sustained injuries to her left hand and she becomes un-conscious. No injuries have been caused to rider of the bike. Thereafter, the injured have been taken to Prashanth Hospital. He has further deposed that on the next day morning between 9.45 a.m. and 10.00 a.m. the police have conducted Spot-Inspection at accident place in his presence and drawn mahazar as per Ex.P-2.
14. PW-5 the then Head Constable of the Madiwala Traffic Police has deposed that on 26.01.2014 he has registered case under Crime No.30/2014 based on complaint at Ex.P.1 lodged by CW-1. Thereafter, on next day between 9.00 a.m. and 10.00 a.m. he has conducted Spot-Inspection at 8 CC.No.441/2014 accident place in presence of mahazar witnesses and drawn mahazar as per Ex.P-2 and drawn sketch as per Ex.P-9. On the same day he has recorded statements of CW-3 and 4. On the same day he issued notice U/s 133 of IMV Act to the CW-5 as per Ex.P-6 and he has received reply for it from CW-5 as per Ex.P-7. On the same day accused has been arrested and released on station bail. On 28.01.2014 he has recorded statement of CW-2. Thereafter, the further investigation has been taken over by CW-9.
15. CW-9 who has been examined as PW-4 who is the then PSI of Madiwala Traffic Police Station has deposed that on 27.01.2014 he has received further investigation of the case from CW-8/PW-5. On 31.01.2014 he received Wound Certificate at Ex.P-5 and IMV Report at Ex.P-4. Thereafter, he has submitted charge sheet against the accused.
16. PW-1 to 5 have been subjected cross- examination by the defense. It is specific defense of the accused that this accident is not due to rash and negligent act of the accused. This accident is due to rash and negligent act of the rider of the motor cycle as 9 CC.No.441/2014 the rider of the motorcycle while overtaking vehicles which were proceeding in-front of him came extreme right side of the road and hit the bus which was going on the left side of the road.
17. In this case IMV Report, Wound certificate, notice issued under section 133 of IMV Act and Reply given it which are marked at Ex.P-4 to 7 have not been denied by the defense. On going through the cross- examination of the defense and coupled with documentary evidence it could be said that there is no dispute with regard to accident in question. It is also not in dispute where the accident took place is a public road. It is also not in dispute that the accused was driving the said bus on 26.01.2014 at 6.15 a.m. when the alleged accident took place. Now the question remains before the Court is whether this accident is due to rash and negligent act of the accused or not.
18. PW-1 to 3 in their examination-in-chief have deposed that the accused who is the driver of the offending BMTC Bus came extreme right side of the road and hit the motor cycle which was riding by the PW-1 as a result of which this accident took place. At 10 CC.No.441/2014 this stage it is relevant to go through the complaint at Ex.P-1. In the complaint it is stated that this accident is due to rash and negligent act of the driver of the bus but no where it is stated by the PW-1 that the driver of the BMTC bus came extreme right side of the road and hit the bike which was coming opposite direction of the BMTC bus.
19. Apart from that PW-3 who is stated to be Eye- witness though in his examination-in-chief before the Court has stated that the BMTC Bus came in extreme right side of the road by over taking vehicles which were proceeding in front of the bus, in his statement he has not stated the said fact. Apart from this it could be seen that PW-3 in his cross-examination by the defense has deposed that he did not see the offending bus and injured bike prior to the accident. He has come to the accident place after 2 minutes. From this part of evidence it could be said that PW-3 has not witnessed the accident how it happened. Therefore, his evidence is not help to the prosecution to prove the guilt against the accused that the accused drove the offending bus either in rash or negligent manner.
11 CC.No.441/201420. PW-2 who is injured in her examination-in- chief has deposed that the BMTC bus came in high speed and hit the bike. During cross-examination by the learned APP she has admitted to suggestion put to her that the BMTC bus has come extreme right side of the road and then hit the bike. During cross- examination by the defense she has deposed that she did not see the bus prior to the accident as she was sitting in the bike as pillion rider. She has also admitted that the bus was coming left side of the road. From this part of evidence it could be said that PW-2 did not witness the bus prior to the accident. Therefore, the evidence before the Court that bus was coming in high speed cannot be acceptable.
21. PW-1 his cross-examination by the defense has deposed that after the accident bike fell down towards Salarpuria Apartment which is situated left side of the road where bus was coming i.e. from Bommanahalli towards Begur. From this it appears that PW-1 hit the bus which was proceeding in its left side of the road which supports the defense of the accused. He has further deposed that he did not see the bus prior to the accident. If that being the fact his 12 CC.No.441/2014 evidence that the bus came in high speed and while overtaking vehicles came in extreme right side of the road can not be acceptable. Further, it is relevant note here that the PW-1 in his examination-in-chief has deposed that the offending bus while over taking vehicles came extreme right side of the road and hit his bike whereas the same has not stated in the complaint at Ex.P.1. From this it could be said it is an improvement made by the witness before the court. Therefore it is difficult to accept his testimony before the court. Therefore, in the opinion of this court the prosecution has failed to prove the fact that the accused was driving the offending bus either in rash or negligent manner and caused the accident. Therefore, the benefit of doubt should be given to accused. Hence, Point No.1 and 2 are answered in the Negative.
Point No.3:
22. In view of findings on point No.1 and 2 this court to proceeds to pass the following:
13 CC.No.441/2014ORDER Acting under section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. the accused is acquitted for the offences punishable U/s 279 and 338 of IPC.
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 24th day of March, 2015) (Smt.Lavanya H.N.) P.O. OF MMTC-VI, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the prosecution :
PW-1 : N.Murgesh, PW-2 : Smt.Premalatha, PW-3 : Ravichandran, PW-4 : B.V.Venkatesh, PW-5 : L.Raju.
Documents Exhibited for the prosecution:
Ex.P1 : Complaint,
Ex.P2 : Spot mahazar,
Ex.P3 : Statement of PW-1,
Ex.P4 : I.M.V.Report.
Ex.P5 : Wound Certificate,
Ex.P6 : Notice,
14 CC.No.441/2014
Ex.P7 : Reply.
Ex.P8 : FIR,
Ex.P9 : Sketch,
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.