Bangalore District Court
Raman Kumar vs Halasuru Traffic Ps, Bengaluru on 7 April, 2026
KABC0A0042312024
IN THE COURT OF THE XXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-29) MAYOHALL, BENGALURU
Dated this the 7th day of April, 2026.
PRESENT:
Sri BALAPPA APPANNA JARAGU B.Sc., LL.M.,
XXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
Criminal Appeal No.25424/2024
APPELLANT : Raman Kumar,
S/o. Mukinath Kunvar,
Aged about 32 years,
Residing at No.29, 1st Floor,
BDA Complex, Domluru,
Bengaluru - 560 071.
(By Sri Gagan V., Advocate)
-VERSUS-
RESPONDENT : State by Halasuru
Traffic Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(By Public Prosecutor)
JUDGMENT
This is a Criminal Appeal filed by the appellant/accused No.1 under Section 415 of BNSS, challenging the judgment of conviction and order of 2 Crl.A.No.25424/2024 sentence in CC.No.20597/2018 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court-I, Mayohall Unit, Bangalore dated 25.11.2024 and acquit the Appellant/accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 338 of IPC and Section 3(1) R/w with Section 181, Section 134(A and B) R/w 187 of Indian Motor Vehicle Act.
2. The parties are referred to their respective ranks they held before the Trial Court.
3. The brief facts of the case are that:
a) The accused/appellant having been charge-
sheeted for the offences punishable under under Sections 279 and 338 of Indian Penal Code and Section 134(a) and (b) read with Section 187, 3(1) read with 181, 5 read with 180 of Indian Motor Vehicle Act, faced trial before the Magistrate Court on the accusation that, on 26.03.2018 at or about 10.10 p.m., appellant/accused No.1 being driver of Skoda Car bearing its registration No.KA-41-MA-0123 drove it in reverse direction from Lotus Anagha Apartment, situated on Shankarnag Road, Dommalur towards Main Road dashed against 3 Crl.A.No.25424/2024 Suzuki Access Motorcycle bearing its registration No.KA-41-L-2709 and caused injuries to C.W.4, who was rider of said motorcycle. At that time, C.W.5 who was pedestrian, who was walking on road also sustained injuries in an accident caused by appellant/accused No.1. After accident, accused neither informed about incident to police nor attended injured persons and ran away from spot. The accused No.1 without having valid license drove vehicle on public road. Therefore, it is alleged that, accused has committed the offences punishable under Sections under Sections279 and 338 of Indian Penal Code and Section 134(a) and (b) read with Section 187, 3(1) read with 181, 5 read with 180 of Indian Motor Vehicle Act.
b) The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, in all has examined P.W.1 to P.W.6 and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10 have been marked. The Trial Court, after recording 313 statement in respect of incriminating material that has come in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and hearing the arguments of both sides, came to the conclusion that, the accused 4 Crl.A.No.25424/2024 No.1 by his rash and negligent driving caused an accident to C.W.4 and C.W.5 and they have sustained grievous injuries in accident. Finally, the accused/ appellant was sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to pay a fine, to undergo one moth simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 279 of Indian Penal Code. Further the accused/ appellant was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 30 days and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to pay a fine, to undergo 30 days simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 338 of Indian Penal Code. Further, the accused/ appellant was sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default to pay a fine, to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 3(1) read with 187 of IMV Act. Further, the accused/appellant was sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to pay a fine, to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section134(A) and (B) read with 187 of IMV Act.
4. Feeling aggrieved by this Judgment of conviction and order of sentence, accused 5 Crl.A.No.25424/2024 No.1/appellant has come up in this appeal, challenging the correctness and validity of the same on the following grounds:-
The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is illegal, perverse and devoid of merits, liable to be set aside. Prosecution has failed to establish case against accused for alleged offences. In spite of examination of two eye-witnesses, nothing was establishes to prove guilt of accused. The trial court failed to appreciate, appellant was driving vehicle in reverse direction where view of driver normally is limited comparatively when driving in straight manner. The trial court failed to appreciate P.W.1 is brother of injured C.W.5. The P.W.1 and P.W.2 not supported case of prosecution, during cross-examination by learned Public Prosecutor they supported case of prosecution. The trial court further failed to appreciate, P.W.3 injured nowhere stated, appellant was rush and negligent in driving the car. The prosecution has not complied issuance of certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act, as such video footage cannot be 6 Crl.A.No.25424/2024 taken into record. No prosecution case made out satisfactorily as per law. Hence, on these grounds, he has prayed for setting-aside the judgment of conviction passed against him and to acquit him by allowing this appeal.
5. After receiving the appeal, sentence of imprisonment has been suspended by Predecessor-in- office as per the order dated 25.11.2024 subject to deposit of fine amount. The respondent appeared through learned Public Prosecutor. The Trial Court records have been secured.
6. I have heard the arguments on both sides and perused the records.
7. The points that arise for my determination are:
1. Whether the prosecution has established, on 26.03.2018 at or about 10.10 p.m., the accused No.1/appellant being driver of Car bearing its registration No.KA-41-MA-
0123, drove it from Anaga Lotus Apartment situated on Shankarnag Road, Domalur Mani Road, in reverse direction in rash and negligent manner 7 Crl.A.No.25424/2024 and dashed against Motorcycle of C.W.4 and dashed against C.W.5 caused injuries to them and at the time of accident appellant had no valid driving license and he has not attended injured and informed about accident to nearest police station thereby committed the offence punishable under Sections Sections 279, 338 of IPC and Section 3(1) read with Section 181, 134(A and B) read with 187 of Indian Motor Vehicle Act?
2. Whether the finding given by the Trial Court on point Nos.1 to 5 raised by it are erroneous, so as to interfere with the judgment?
3. What order?
8. My answers to the above points are as under:-
POINT No.1 - In the affirmative; POINT No.2 - In the negative;
POINT No.3 - As per final order, for the following -
REASONS
9. POINTS NO.1 AND 2 :- As these points are inter-related to each other and involves common 8 Crl.A.No.25424/2024 appreciation of facts and evidence on record, findings on one point are bearing on other point, in order to avoid repetition of facts and for convenience sake, both points are taken together for common discussion.
10. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that, there are many contradictions in evidence of prosecution witnesses. Out of six witnesses examined by prosecution, three witnesses have turned partly hostile. The material witnesses like, doctor, RTO have not examined before the court. No eye witnesses deposed before court how accident actually occurred or whether accident occurred because of only rash and negligent act of appellant.
11. Now, this is the first Appellate Court and its powers are well defined under Section 386 of Cr.P.C. Now, this appeal being filed by the accused/appellant, challenging the judgment of conviction, the Appellate Court has got full powers to re-appreciate the evidence to assess as to, whether the conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court and consequent findings on points for 9 Crl.A.No.25424/2024 consideration are correct or not? In so doing, as per the provisions of Section 386(b) of Cr.P.C., the Appellate Court can;
i) Reverse the findings and sentence and acquit or discharge the accused, or order him to be re-tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction subordinate to such Appellate Court or committed for trial, or
ii) alter the finding, maintaining the sentence, or
iii) with or without altering the finding, alter the nature or the extent, or the nature and extent, of the sentence, but not so to enhance the same.
12. On careful re-appreciation of entire material on record, P.W.4 - Purushotham being complainant has deposed in consonance with his First Information Statement as per Ex.P.2. It is specifically stated by P.W.4 that, when he himself, his mother, his brother and his nephew were walking towards Shankarnag Road opposite to Lotus Anagha Apartment, accused being driver of Car involved in accident drove it in reverse direction and dashed against C.W.5.
13. The P.W.4 in his cross-examination by learned Public Prosecutor has clearly deposed that, before Car hit against C.W.5, it was dashed against Suzuki Access 10 Crl.A.No.25424/2024 Scooter bearing it's registration No.KA-41-L-2709. It is further specifically stated by P.W.4 that, it was the accused No.1, who present before court, who was driving Car at the time of said accident. The P.W.4 has identified accused No.1 before court. When it is suggested to P.W.4 that, on that day, it was accused No.2 who was driving Car, same has been denied as false.
14. Eye witness to accident, who is P.W.1- Niranjan in his evidence before the court has deposed, on 26.03.2018 at or about 10.00 p.m., Skoda Car was coming in reverse direction and dashed against Vaibhav. In said accident, Vaibhav has sustained injuries on chest and stomach. The witnesses has identified accused No.1 as Car driver, who caused accident on that day. The P.W.1 also deposed in his cross-examination by learned Public Prosecutor that, Car firstly dashed against Suzuki Access Scooter bearing No.KA-41-L-2709.
15. The P.W.3 - Maruthi, who is injured in accident has deposed, accused No.1 drove Skoda Car in 11 Crl.A.No.25424/2024 reverse direction and dashed against him. Further, Car dashed to Vaibhav, who was pedestrian on road. The P.W.3 has specifically deposed, he sustained injuries in accident on his forehead, head, left hand, left leg, stomach and ribs. He specifically stated, he was admitted to Chinmaya Hospital and thereafter to St Johns Hospital for treatment.
16. Wound certificate of Vaibhav has been produced as per Ex.P.3. Likewise wound certificate of P.W.3-Maruthi has been produced as per Ex.P.4. In these documents, it is mentioned, alleged history of road traffic accident. The eye-witnesses and injured P.W.3 in their evidence have clearly stated, it is the accused, who caused accident in which Vaibhav and P.W.3 have sustained injuries as mentioned in wound certificates as per Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4.
17. The P.W.6-Suresh PSI., in his evidence has deposed, he received First Information Statement as per Ex.P.2 filed by P.W.4 and registered case in crime No.23/2018 and prepared FIR and submitted same to 12 Crl.A.No.25424/2024 the court. It is specifically stated by P.W.6 that, he collected wound certificates as per Ex.P3 and Ex.P.4.
18. The P.W.1- Niranjan in his evidence has deposed, spot mahazar as per Ex.P.1 conducted in his presence. The P.W.2- Harish Babu, who is one of witnesses to spot mahazar has deposed, in his presence spot mahazar as per Ex.P.1 was conducted. The P.W.6 has deposed, on same day, when accident took place, he visited spot and conducted spot mahazar as per Ex.P.1 in the presence of C.W.1 to C.W.3. Further he deposed, as per Ex.P.8 rough sketch of spot prepared.
19. P.W.6 has deposed, during investigation of case, he collected IMV report as per Ex.P.4. On perusal of Ex.P.5 it is mentioned, damages to vehicle bearing it's registration No.KA-41-MA-0123 and vehicle bearing it's registration No.KA-41-L-2709 and it is clearly mentioned damages are fresh. The RTO has opined, above accident is not due to any mechanical defects of vehicles.
20. While cross examining P.W.1 it was suggested as there was dark, he could not able to see accident, 13 Crl.A.No.25424/2024 same is denied as false. While cross examining P.W.3 it is suggested, said accident was due to his fault, same is denied as false. The P.W.4 has specifically stated, after accident, he dragged the accused No.1 from Car. The P.W.5- Kanji deposed, on 27.03.2018 Police come to his shop and he furnished police a CC TV footage. The P.W.6 has specifically stated, at the time of accident, accused No.1 had no valid driving license. To disprove same, accused No.1 has not produced driving license before Investigating Officer or before court.
21. As per contents of charge sheet, accused No.1 arrested on 28.03.2018. Accident took place on 26.03.2018. It is clear that, after accident, accused No.1 has not attended injured and he has not informed factum accident to nearest Police Station.
22. It is worth to note here that, from evidence of witnesses as referred above, prosecution sufficiently proved, the accused by his rash and negligent driving caused an accident in which Vaibhav and Maruthi have sustained grievous injuries and at the time of accident, accused No.1 had no valid driving license issued by 14 Crl.A.No.25424/2024 competent authority and after accident accused No.1 has not attended injured and informed about accident to nearest Police Station.
23. There is much consistency in evidence of eye- witnesses and injured. Furthermore evidence of these witnesses and other official witnesses is natural and inspires the confidence of court. Considering these facts, the prosecution with support of evidences of witnesses has sufficiently established ingredients of section 279, 338 of IPC and section 3(1) read with 181 and section 134 (A and B) read with section 187 of Indian Motor Vehicle Act. Therefore, on close scrutiny of the evidence on record and its re-appreciation as above, the grounds urged by the appellant in the Memorandum of Appeal and one urged by the learned counsel for the accused during the course of argument, are not sustainable and absolutely, there is no scope for this Appellate Court to find fault with the findings of the Trial Court so as to interfere with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence.
15 Crl.A.No.25424/2024
24. The learned counsel for appellant has argued that, accused No.1 is aged about 26 years and he is Watchman, if he send to Jail for one month as ordered by learned Trail court for offence under section 338 of IPC, his family will be put to hardship, it is accused No.1 is only bread earner of family. The learned counsel for appellant requested the court to suitably modify sentence imposed by learned trial court in respect of offence under section 338 of IPC.
25. It is worth to note here that, there is no specific order by learned trial court that, fine is part of sentence. As per section 357 (3) of Cr.P.C., compensation can be awarded in addition to fine imposed. Looking into nature of injury sustained by Maruthi and Vaibhav in accident caused by appellant and his financial capacity to pay compensation, sentence in respect of offence under section 338 of IPC by learned trial court is hereby modified as accused No.1 is convicted for offence punishable under section 338 of IPC and he shall pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine he shall undergo simple 16 Crl.A.No.25424/2024 imprisonment for one month, in addition, appellant has to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- as per provisions of section 357 (3) of Cr.P.C. and in default of payment of compensation, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Hence, I answer point No.1 in the affirmative and point No.2 in the negative.
26. Point No.3: In view of my findings on above points, this appeal deserves to be allowed by modifying order of sentence only in respect of sentence pertaining to offence under section 338 of IPC and by confirming judgment in respect of other offences. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Criminal Appeal filed under Section 415 of BNSS, by the accused No.1/appellant is hereby allowed, by confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.11.2024 in CC No.20597/2018 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court - I, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru in respect of 17 Crl.A.No.25424/2024 offences punishable under section 279 of IPC, section 3(1) r/w Section 181 and section 134 (A and B) r/w Section 187 of Indian Motor Vehicle Act.
So far as sentence in respect of offence under section 338 of IPC is hereby modified as accused No.1 is convicted for offence punishable under section 338 of IPC and he shall pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month, in addition, appellant/accused No.1 has to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- as per provisions of section 357 (3) of Cr.P.C., in default of payment of compensation, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
After deposit of compensation amount as mentioned above by accused No.1/appellant before Trial court,
compensation amount of Rs.10,000/- be given to Vaibhav and remaining 18 Crl.A.No.25424/2024 Rs.10,000/- compensation amount be given to Maruthi, who are injured in accident.
Send back the lower court records along with copy of this judgment.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, typed & computerized by her, corrected and signed by me and then pronounced in the open Court on this the 7th day of April, 2026.) (BALAPPA APPANNA JARAGU) XXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall, Bengaluru.