Bangalore District Court
State By P.I vs Atigodda Chandrashekar on 29 September, 2016
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE TRAFFIC
COURT - V, BANGALORE
PRESENT : GANAPATI BHAT
B.Sc. LL.B. (Spl). LL.M.
M.M.T.C - V, BENGALURU
DATED THIS 29th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016
C.C.No.3837 - 2013
COMPLAINANT : STATE BY P.I
SADASHIVANAGARA TR. P.S.
BANGALORE.
// VS //
ACCUSED : ATIGODDA CHANDRASHEKAR,
S/O.LOKANANDAN CHETTY.C.
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
NO.12, 2ND B CROSS,
9TH MAIN ROAD, BALAJINAGAR,
ITTAMADU,
BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE,
BANGALORE - 85.
JUDGEMENT
This is the case registered against the accused on the basis of the charge sheet submitted by the P.I. Sadashivanagara Tr. P.S. alleging the offences punishable u/Sec.279 and 304(A) of the IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is as follows:
That on 04.03.2013 at about 8.00 a.m., at Ramanamaharshi road, in front of Tripura Vasini, accused being a driver of the College 2 C.C.No.3837 - 2013 bus bearing its registration No.KA.06.B.6964 drove the same in the rash and negligent manner, so as to endanger to human life and dashed to the pedestrian i.e., CW.9's father by name Sri.Narasimhaiah, aged about 55 years. Due to the impact, the said pedestrian fell down and sustained grievous injuries and he was succumbed to the injuries in the Baptist hospital.
On the basis of the first information lodged by the C.W.1, the P.S.I. has lodged the FIR against the driver of the College bus bearing its registration No.KA.06.B.6964 alleging offences u/Sec.279 and 304(A) of IPC. After completion of the investigation the P.S.I. has submitted the charge sheet against the accused alleging offence u/Sec. 279 and 304(A) of IPC.
3. Accused herein voluntarily surrender before the court and submitted the bail application in the crime state and he has been enlarged on bail. After perusal of the charge sheet cognizance of the above said offences taken against the accused and register the case. Thereafter presence of the accused is secured by issuing summons. Copies of the prosecution papers were supplied to the accused. Substance of the accusation framed and read over to the accused. The 3 C.C.No.3837 - 2013 accused pleaded not guilty and he claims to be tried. His plea recorded accordingly.
4. Thereafter the prosecution in order to prove the accusation leveled against the accused has got examined Twelve witnesses as P.W.1 to 12 and in the evidence of the prosecution Ex.P.1 to 13 documents are got marked as exhibits.
5. After completion of the evidence of the prosecution, statement of the accused as required u/Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. is recorded. The accused has denied the incriminating evidence appearing in the prosecution evidence. The accused did not choose to adduce defence evidence.
6. Heard learned APP and Learned counsel for the accused. Perused the materials available on record and evidence on record.
7. The points that arise for my consideration are as under:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 04.03.2013 at about
8.00 a.m., the accused being the driver of the College Bus bearing its registration No.KA-06-B- 6964 drove the same at Ramanamaharshi road, in front of Tripura Vasini, in rash or negligent manner, so as to endanger human life and dashed to the pedestrian by name Sri.Narasimhaiah, aged about 55 years and 4 C.C.No.3837 - 2013 thereby accused has committed offence under section 279 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that because of rash or negligent driving of the College bus by the accused, it dashed the pedestrian by name Sri.Narasimhaiah, aged about 55 years and due to the impact, the said pedestrian by name Sri.Narasimhaiah road fell down and sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries in the Baptist hospital and thereby accused has committed the offence punishable under section 304(A) of IPC?
3. What order?
My findings on the above said point are as follows:
POINT NO.1: FOR THE NEGATIVE;
POINT NO.2: FOR THE NEGATIVE;
POINT NO.3: As per the final order
for the following;
:REASONS:
8. POINT NO.1 and 2 : Since these points are connected
and interlinked with each other, hence same are taken together for consideration and discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts and legal aspects.
9. The PW.1 in his examination-in-chief has deposed that on 04.03.2013 when he was moving from Kaveri Junction to Airport in 5 C.C.No.3837 - 2013 his car when he was moving in Ramanamaharshi road at 7.30 to 8.00 am., in front of him SVIT college bus was moving and thereafter immediately road jam took place and he stopped his car and went to the accident spot and found that 50 - 55 aged old person was dead due to the road accident by the college bus, then persons inside the college bus and publics were gathered and police were came to the spot and injured was carried to the Baptist Hospital. Further, he has deposed that in the next day, Sadashivanagara Traffic Police have called him to the accident spot and police have measured the spot and obtained the signature in a document and he has identified the Ex.P.1 and the accused. In the cross-examination on behalf of the accused he has admitted that "C¥ÀWÁvÀªÁzÀ ¸ÀݼÀzÀ°è ¥ÁzÀZÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ gÀ¸ÉÛ zÁl®Ä fèÁæ PÁæ¹AUï E®è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÉAlgï «ÄÃrAiÀÄ£ï E®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¸ÀzÀj gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ°è £À£Àß »AzÉ, ªÀÄÄAzÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÀPÀÌzÀ°è ¸ÁPÀµÀÄÖ ªÁºÀ£ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛzÀݪÀÅ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. §¸ï£À »AzÉ £ÁªÀÅ ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛzÁÝUÀ §¸ï£À ªÀÄÄAzÉ K£ÁUÀÄwÛzÉ JAzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄUÉ PÁtĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. §¸ÀÄì ¥ÁzÀZÁjUÉ rQÌ ºÉÆqÉ¢zÀÝ£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ £ÉÆÃqÀ°®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj". From his evidence one thing is very clear that he is not a direct eye witness and reached the spot after the alleged accident took place. 6 C.C.No.3837 - 2013
10. The PW.2 in his examination-in-chief has deposed that he has submitted that he has seen the injured in the accident spot and fact of the dashing of the school bus to one Narasimaiah - injured. But in the cross-examination on behalf of the accused he has clearly admitted that "C¥ÀWÁvÀªÁV d£À ¸ÉÃjzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ £ÁªÀÅ ºÉÆÃV £ÉÆÃrzÉÝÃªÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. C¥ÀWÁvÀªÁVzÀÝ£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ PÀuÁÚgÉ £ÉÆÃr®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj". This clear cut admission of the witness very clearly going to show that he is also not a direct eye witness to the accident.
11. The PW.3 in his examination-in-chief has deposed that on 04.03.2013 publics have informed him that in the 10th cross of Ramanamaharshi road there was an accident and he moved to the accident spot and in the accident spot he found the school bus and the public present gathered therein informed him that injured was admitted to the Baptist Hospital and he has carried the bus and driver of the bus to the police station and lodged the complaint and admitted the content of Ex.P.2. Further, he has deposed that on the same day, the I.O has came to the spot and conducted the panchanama and prepared the sketch and his signature was obtained on it and he has identified the accused and further submitted that he heard the news of death of the injured thereafter wards. In the cross-examination on 7 C.C.No.3837 - 2013 behalf of the accused he has categorically admitted that there is no zebra crossing in the accident spot. He has further deposed that "¸ÀzÀj gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ°è ªÀÄÆgÀĪÀgÉ Cr JvÀÛgÀzÀ gÀ¸ÉÛ «¨ÀsdPÀ EzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. C¥ÀWÁvÀªÁVzÉ JAzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ ªÀiÁ»w w½¹zÀ ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀgÀ£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ PÉüÀ°®è". This witness is a hearsay witness so far as the accident is concerned and he is not in a position to say who informed him as to the fact of the accident.
12. The PW.4 in his examination-in-chief has deposed that on 04.03.2013 he has received a message that in the Ramanamaharshi road near 10th main there was an accident and he went to the spot and saw the bus and by that time CW.1 was therein the spot. In the cross-examination he admitted that there were another SHO when he reached the police station. He is also an hearsay witness, so far as the fact of the accident is concerned.
13. The PW.5 and PW.6 though arrayed as eye witnesses in this case by the prosecution, they turned hostile and nothing contrary was achieved by learned APP in the cross-examination.
14. The PW.7 in his examination-in-chief has deposed that police have issued section 133 notice to him and he has answered the same and he has admitted Ex.P.8 and 9 and submitted that accused 8 C.C.No.3837 - 2013 was the driver of the bus on the date of accident. In the cross- examination he has admitted that college authorities are paying the salary to the drivers and he can send the drivers to the busses in the school and he is not in a position to say who are all the drivers of the 17 buses of the said Nagarjuna College. Further, he has very categorically deposed that "C¥ÀWÁvÀªÁzÀ §¸ïUÉ ZÁ®PÀgÁV AiÀiÁgÀÄ ºÉÆÃVzÀÝgÀÄ JAzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆvÁÛUÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj ¸ÁQë ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgÉzÀÄ oÁuÉUÉ ºÉÆÃzÁUÀ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆvÁÛ¬ÄvÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉüÀÄvÁÛgÉ. DgÉÆæAiÀÄ£ÀÄß EzÉà ªÉÆzÀ® ¨Áj £ÉÆÃqÀÄwÛzÉzÀÃ£É JAzÀgÀÉ ¸Àj. ¤ ¦ 9 gÀ°è K£ÀÄ §gÉ¢zÁÝgÉ JAzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. " From his evidence also one cannot inferred that accused was the driver of the said bus as on the date of accident.
15. The PW.8 in his examination-in-chief has admitted the signature in Ex.P.8 and 10 and in the cross-examination he has admitted that in the college, there is a department for transportation and wherein one Sugathan is only employee. From his evidence also who is the driver of the said bus cannot be concluded.
16. The PW.9 in his examination-in-chief has deposed that partly supported the case of the prosecution but he stated that accused was the driver of the vehicle and he has been treated partly 9 C.C.No.3837 - 2013 hostile and in the cross-examination by learned APP he is very categorically stated that the accused was not driving the bus in speed manner and he further stated that he has not seen the accident personally. In the cross-examination on behalf of the accused he has admitted that there is a divider and there is no zebra cross at the accident spot. This witness also not helpful to the prosecution case. In the cross-examination by learned APP he has stated that the bus was not running fast manner and he has not seen the accident.
17. The PW.10 in his examination-in-chief has deposed that on 05.03.2013 he has examined the school vehicle bearing its registration No.KA.06.B.6964 as per the requisition of Sadashivanagar Traffic Police station and found that the break system are in-tact and opined that the accident was not due to any mechanical defect and admitted the content of Ex.P.11. In the cross-examination he has admitted that reflector of the vehicle damages, if anybody strongly beat the same by the hand and he has further deposed that "M§â ªÀåQÛUÉ ±Á¯Á ªÁºÀ£À CwAiÀiÁzÀ ªÉÃUÀzÀ°è §AzÀÄ rQÌ¥Àr¹zÀÝ°è ªÀÄÄA¨sÁUÀzÀ gÉÃrAiÉÄÃlgï Væ¯ï dRA DUÀĪÀ ¸ÁzÀåvÉ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj" and he has further deposed that "JµÀÄÖ eÉÆÃgÁV ªÁºÀ£À ZÀ¯Á¬Ä¹zÀgÉ gÉÃrAiÉÄlgï Væ¯ï dRA DUÀ§ºÀÄzÉà EgÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ 10 C.C.No.3837 - 2013 JAzÀgÉ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ CzÀ£ÀÄß ºÉüÀ¯ÁUÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀÄ ºÉüÀÄvÁÛgÉ". From his evidence only the damages to the vehicles can be inferred.
18. The PW.11 in his examination-in-chief has deposed that on 04.03.2013 he has received the death memo from Baptist Hospital and deputed a staff to found the heirs of the deceased and on 05.03.2013 obtained the re-statement from the complainant and requisition is sent to RTO - Yeshwanthpur to conduct IMV inspection and arrested the accused and produced him before the court and send notices section 133 of IMV to CW.14 and obtained the answer and thereafter has taken the statement of CW.1, 2 and 4 to 8. On 06.03.2013 he has taken the statement of CW.9 and inquest is conducted in the presence of CW.10 to 12 and on 08.03.2013 he has obtained the PM report and IMV report and submitted the charge sheet. In the cross-examination he has admitted that "C¥ÀWÁvÀªÁzÀ ¸ÀݼÀzÀ°è ¥ÁzÀZÁj gÀ¸ÉÛ zÁl®Ä AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ªÀåªÀ¸ÝÉ J®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. AiÀiÁªÀ ¢Q̤AzÀ AiÀiÁªÀ ¢QÌUÉ ¥ÁzÀZÁj gÀ¸ÉÛ zÁlÄwÛzÀÝ£ÉA§ÄzÀ£ÀÄß zÀÆj£À°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj". Further, he has deposed that "AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¥ÉÇÃ°Ã¸ï ¥ÉÃzÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤UÀ¢vÀ eÁUÀPÉÌ PÀvÀðªÀåPÉÌ £ÉëĹzÁUÀ CzÀ£ÀÄß oÁuÁ qÉÊjAiÀÄ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¸À¯ÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ZÁ ¸Á 1 gÀªÀgÀÄ C¥ÀWÁvÀªÁzÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ¸ÀzÀj eÁUÀzÀ°è PÀvÀðªÀå ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛzÀÝgÉAzÀÄ vÉÆÃj¸À®Ä oÁuÁ qÉÊj 11 C.C.No.3837 - 2013 £ÀPÀ®£ÀÄß ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¹®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj". From his evidence, it is clear that there is no record to show that the concerned police was deputed to the accident spot and he has further categorically admitted that there is no pedestrian track to cross the road in accident spot.
19. The PW.12 in his examination-in-chief has deposed that on 04.03.2013 when he was in station he has received the complaint from CW.1 and lodged the FIR and sent it to the court. On the same day, he has visited the spot and in the presence of CW.1, 2 and 4 at the spot shown by the CW.1 and 2 and prepared the mahazar and sketch and recorded the statement of CW.2 and 4 and thereafter handed over the investigation papers to CW.19. In the cross- examination on behalf of the accused he has admitted that in Ex.P.2, it is not mentioned that the vehicle caused the accident is school bus. The direction of movement of the bus is not at all mentioned in Ex.P.2 and he has admitted that there is no zebra crossing and there is a divider and he has further admitted that "¤ ¦ 13 gÀ°è §¸ÀÄì ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÁgÀÄUÀ½UÉ C¥ÀWÁvÀªÁVzÉ JAzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹zÁÝgÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ PÁgÀÄUÀ½UÉ £ÀqÉzÀ C¥ÀWÁvÀ ¨ÉÃgÉAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ ¥ÁzÀZÁj ªÀÄvÀÄÛ §¸ïUÉ £ÀqÉzÀ C¥ÀWÁvÀ ¨ÉÃgÉAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉüÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¤ ¦ 13 gÀ°è ¥ÁzÀZÁjUÉ C¥ÀWÁvÀªÁVzÉ JAzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj". Ex.P.13 is 12 C.C.No.3837 - 2013 the requisition of CW.3 were in the accident between the car and the school bus is mentioned, same is marked but how this document is relevant to the case is not at all mentioned and not at all explained by the prosecution.
20. It is the case of the prosecution that the driver of the school bus drove the vehicle in speed manner and dashed the pedestrian and thereby the said pedestrian died in this case. It is not stated that who has shown the spot in this case. Further, the sketch shows that pedestrian was in the middle of the road and he was trying to cross the road where there is no pedestrian track to cross the road. Further, PW.1 and I.O categorically admitted that there is no zebra crossing at the accident spot. Further, PW.2 is very categorically admitted that he is not the eye witness to the incident and not seen the accident directly. Further, PW.3 is also categorically admitted that there is no zebra crossing in the accident spot. The PW.4 admitted that there was another SHO in the station when he reached the station after visiting the incident spot. But, he has not given the complaint to the said SHO in this case. Further, PW.5 and 6 who are shown as the eye witnesses turned completely hostile to the prosecution case. The PW.7 and 8 failed to say that the accused was the driver of the said vehicle as on the date of accident. Further, PW.9 13 C.C.No.3837 - 2013 who is also stated as eye witness and passenger in the bus of the accused categorically admitted that accident was not due to rash or negligent act of the accused. Further, PW.10 and 11 have not categorically stated and investigated the aspect of speed of the vehicle and direction of the vehicle and they have not examined the persons within the locality of the accident place and the panchas were not the resident of the said accident spot. The prosecution has failed to show that the accused has drove the vehicle in rash or negligent manner in this case. The independent eye witnesses were not supported the case of the prosecution and contradictions between the witnesses is notable one. Hence, the prosecution has not brought the sufficient evidence to prove the guilt of the accused and to convict the accused. In view of the above evidences and the discussions, this court has come to the conclusion that prosecution has failed to prove the accusation leveled against the accused beyond reasonable doubts under section 279 - 304(a) of IPC. Hence, Point No.1 and 2 are answered in the NEGATIVE.
21. POINT NO.3: For the foregoing discussions and findings on Point No.1 and 2, following order is passed:
14 C.C.No.3837 - 2013
ORDER Exercising powers u/Sec.255 (1) of the Cr.P.C., accused is hereby acquitted for the offences punishable u/Ss.279 and 304(A) of the IPC.
The bail bond of the accused stands cancelled. Accused set at liberty forthwith.
(The judgment dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, typed by him and corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on 29th day of September 2016) (GANAPATI BHAT) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, TRAFFIC COURT- V, BANGALORE.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION:
P.W.1 Rangaswamy.
P.W.2 Ram.
P.W.3 R.Nagaraju.
P.W.4 Putteranna.
P.W.5 Venkatesh.G.
P.W.6 Venkatesh.R.
P.W.7 Sugadhan.
P.W.8 Manohar Narajji.
P.W.9 Shishir.
P.W.10 Philips C. Miranda.
P.W.11 K.V.Satish Kumar.
P.W.12 E.Kaverappa.
15 C.C.No.3837 - 2013
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION
Ex.P.1 Spot Mahazar.
Ex.P.1(a) Signature of PW.1.
Ex.P.2 Complaint.
Ex.P.2(a) & 1(b) Signature of PW.3.
Ex.P.3 & 4 Statement of Witness.
Ex.P.5 Inquest.
Ex.P.6 P.M. Report.
Ex.P.7 Death Intimation.
Ex.P.8 Authorized Letter.
Ex.P.9 Reply of PW.7.
Ex.P.8(a) & 9(a) Signature of PW.7.
Ex.P.10 Notice & Reply.
Ex.P.10(a) Signatures.
Ex.P.11 I.M.V Report.
Ex.P.11(a) Signature of PW.10.
Ex.P.5(a) to 7(a)
8(c), 9(b) to 11(b) Signature of PW.11.
Ex.P.12 Sketch.
Ex.P.1(c), 2(b)
12(a) Signature of PW.12.
Ex.P.13 CW.3's submission.
Ex.P.13(a) Signature of PW.12.
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR ACCUSED:
[ NIL (GANAPATI BHAT) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, TRAFFIC COURT- V, BANGALORE.16 C.C.No.3837 - 2013 17 C.C.No.3837 - 2013