Bangalore District Court
Banaswadi Traffic Police Station vs Varun Reddy S/O Guruva Reddy on 9 May, 2022
1 CC.28150/2015
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITIAN MAGISTRATE TRAFFIC
COURTI AT MAYOHALL, BANGALORE.
Present : Sharmila Kamath.K. B.A L.L.M
Metropsolitan Magistrate,
Traffic CourtI, Bengaluru.
DATED THIS 09TH DAY OF MAY 2022
C.C. No. 28150/2015
Complainant: Banaswadi Traffic Police Station
(Represented by Sri: APP)
V/s
Accused: Varun Reddy S/o Guruva Reddy, 31
years, no. G1, Saicharan apartment
Green park layout, Banaswadi
Bengaluru43
(Represented by Sri.KTJ)
1. Date of commission of offence: 06.09.2014
2. Offences alleged against accused:U/sec.279,304(A) of IPC.
3. Date of recording of evidence: 12.05.2018
4. Date of Judgment: 09.05.2022
JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector of Banaswadi Traffic P.S. has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/sec.279 and 304A of IPC.
2. The brief case of the prosecution is that:
2 CC.28150/2015On 06.09.2014 at about 9.00 am within the jurisdiction of Banaswadi Traffic Police station the accused being the driver of Maruti Eco Car bearing Reg.No.KA04 MH3284 drove the same from K.R Pura towards Nagawara in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger the human life and dashed against the pedastrain Smt.Siddamma who was crossing the road from north towards south direction. Due to the impact Siddamma fell on the road and sustained injuries on head and waist. After the alleged accident the driver of car shifted the injured to Sathya Hospital, thereafter to NIMHANS Hospital and thereafter to Victoria hospital. On 08.09.2014 at about 4.00 p.m the victim/injured succumbed to the injuries at Victoria Hospital. Based on the FIS registered by CW1, the case came to be registered against the accused in Cr.No.102/2014. The I.O took up the investigation, visited the spot, drawn the spot mahazar, recorded the statement of witnesses, collected the post mortum report and on completion of investigation has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable U/sec 279 and 304A of IPC.
3. Upon taking cognizance, case came to be registered against accused for the offences P/U/S. 279 and 304A of IPC. The accused appeared before Court engaged counsel and enlarged on bail. Charge sheet copies 3 CC.28150/2015 furnished to the accused and thereby provision U/sec 207 duly complied with.
4. Plea came to be framed for the offence P/U/S.279 and 304A of IPC for which accused pleaded not guilty claimed to be tried.
5. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined Pws1 to 6 and got marked exhibited documents as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11. On completion of prosecution side evidence, the statement of accused U/sec 313 of Cr.P.C was recorded and the accused denied all the incriminating evidence appearing against him. No defence evidence led.
6. Heard arguments on both sides.
7. The points that arise for my consideration are as follows:
8. POINT NO.1: Whether prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on 06.09.2014 at about 9.00 am within the jurisdiction of Banaswadi Traffic Police station the accused being the driver of Maruti Eco Car bearing Reg.No.KA04MH3284 drove the same from K.R Pura towards Nagawara in 4 CC.28150/2015 a rash or negligent manner so as to endanger the human life and thereby committed the offence punishable U/sec.279 of IPC?
9. POINT NO.2: Whether prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on the above date, time and place, the accused being the driver of Maruti Eco Car bearing Reg.No.KA04MH3284 drove the same from K.R Pura towards Nagawara in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger the human life and dashed against the pedastrain Smt. Siddamma who was crossing the road from north towards south direction. Due to the impact Siddamma fell on the road and sustained injuries on head and waist and shifted to Sathya Hospital, NIMHANS Hospital and thereafter to Victoria hospital. On 08.09.2014 at about 4.00 p.m the victim/injured succumbed to the injuries at Victoria Hospital and thereby the committed an offence punishable U/sec 304A of IPC?
10. POINT NO: 3 What order?
11.My findings to the above points are as follows:
Point No. 1 and 2 : In the Negative Point No.3: As per order for the following:5 CC.28150/2015
REASONS
12. Point Nos.1 and 2: Since both points are interlinked they are taken together for common discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts.
It is the specific case of the prosecution that on 06.09.2014 at about 9.00 am within the jurisdiction of Banaswadi Traffic Police station the accused being the driver of Maruti Eco Car bearing Reg.No.KA04MH3284 drove the same from K.R Pura towards Nagawara in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger the human life and dashed against the pedastrain Smt. Siddamma who was crossing the road from north towards south direction. Due to the impact Siddamma fell on the road and sustained injuries on head and waist. After the alleged accident the driver of car shifted the injured to Sathya Hospital, thereafter to NIMHANS Hospital and thereafter to Victoria hospital. On 08.09.2014 at about 4.00 p.m the victim/injured succumbed to the injuries at Victoria Hospital.
13. PW1 is a seizure mahazar witness states that on 07.09.2014 at Banaswadi Police station the police persons seized Eco Car bearing registratin no. KA04MH3284 in his presence after conducting 6 CC.28150/2015 mahazar between 09.00 and 10.00 am and took his signature. One Gadilinga was also present during the mahazar.
14. PW 2 is the first informant and husband of deceased Siddamma states that on 06.09.2014 at 9.00 a.m inorder to go to work he along with his wife, Nagaraju, Gadilinga, Beeranna and Mahadeva were standing in Horamavu Bus stop and while proceeding towards Banaswadi one car came from K.R Puram towards Nagawara in high speed and dashed to his wife. Due to the impact his wife sustained injuries on head and waist. Thereafter, the injured was shifted to Satya hospital in car no. KA04MH 3284. Doctors at Sathya Hospital instructed to shift the injured to the NIMHANS Hospital. From NIMHANS Hospital injured was shifted to Victoria Hospital. In Victoria Hospital after two days Siddamma succumbed to the injuries. The witness indefied the accused before the Court. PW2 states that he lodged FIS as per EX.P2. On 07.09.2014 at 11.00 a.m spot mahazar was conducted in his presence as per Ex.P1.
15. PW3 is an eye witness states that on 06.09.2014 at 9.00 a.m he along with Nagaraju, 7 CC.28150/2015 Venkatesha and Siddamma inorder to go to work were proceeding fro m Horamavu towards Banaswadi at that time the car came from K.R Puram and dashed to Siddamma. Due to the impact she fell at a distance of 10 ft and sustained injuries on head and waist. Thereafter the injured was shifted to Satya Hospital and from Satya Hospital to the NIMHANS Hospital and Victoria Hospital. He states that he had shown the spot of the accident to the police and they conducted mahazar in his presence. He states that the registration number of offending car as KA.04.MH.3284. He idenfified the accused before the Court.
16. PW4 is the IO states that on 06.09.2014 at 10.30 p.m he received FIS from CW.1 and registered case in Crime no.102/2014 and dispatched FIR as per Ex.P7 to the Court. On the following day between 09.00 and 10.00 a.m in the presence of CW1 to 3 he conducted spot mahazar. As per Ex.P3 he recorded the statement of Cw.2 and 3.
17. PW5 is an eye witness states that on 06.09.2014 at 9.00 a.m they were crossing the road near Banaswadi Bus stop, at that time one car came from Tin Factory in a high speed and dashed to 8 CC.28150/2015 Siddamma. Due to the impact she fell at a distance of 10 ft and sustained head injuries. Thereafter by the said car injured was shifted to Satya Hospital and from there shifted to NIMHANS and Victoria Hospital. On 08th Smt. Siddappa sucumbed to injuries. On the following day of accident police have conducted mahazar in his presence. He identified the accused.
18. PW6 is the IO states that on 08.09.2014 he received case files from CW11. On 09.09.2014 he conducted the inquest in the mortuary of Victoria Hospital between 09.00 and 10.30 a.m. after the inquest and postmortem he handed over the body to the relatives of deceased. On 10.09.2014 he issued notice U/S 133 and obtained reply. He recorded the statement of Cw1 to 3 regarding identification of accused. On 11.09.2014 he submitted requisition to IMV Inspector and on 07.10.2014 he obtained IMV report. On 18.09.2014 he received PM report and on completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused.
19. The preliminary conditions to prove the section 279 of IPC are:
a) It is the manner in which the vehicle is driven:9 CC.28150/2015
b) it be driven either rashly or negligently and
c) Such rash or negligent driving should be such as to endanger human life.
The essential ingredients of section 304A of IPC are:
a) That the accused caused the death of any person:
b) That such death was caused by doing rash or negligent act.
20. The death of Siddamma is not in dispute. It is not in dispute that the accused was driver of vechicle bearing registration no. KA.04.MH.3284. The burden on the prosecution is to prove that the alleged accident occurred due to rash or negligent driving of accused. In order to prove rash or negligent driving of accused the prosecution examined six witnesses. PW1 is the seizure mahazar witness and his version is not helpful to prove rash or neglegenet driving of accused.
21. PW2, PW3 and PW5 are the eyewitness to the case of prosecution. PW2 is the husband of deceased Siddamma and first informant of the incident. As per the case of prosecutation the alleged accident was occured while crossing the road. PW2 stated that when 10 CC.28150/2015 they were proceeding towards Banaswadi the car came in high speed and dashed to his wife. As per Ex.P8 rough sketch the alleged accident was occured at a distance of 15 ft of the bus stop i.e., on the middle of the road. The version of PW2 is not clear about the alleged spot of accident. Further PW2 stated that he signed the Ex.P3 spot mahazar in Kannada and English langauage but Ex.P3 spot mahazar contains the signature of first informant in English langauage only. This version of PW2 created doubts that he went to the alleged spot and police have conducted spot mahazar in his presence as per Ex.P3.
22. PW2 and 5 denied about further statement given before IO regarding identification of accused. In the examination in chief PW.2 and 5 stated that they were not called to the police station nor given further statement regarding identification of accused. But during the cross examination by learned Sr.APP to PW2 and 5 admitted that they identified the accused and gave further statement to that effect. This admission of PW2 and 5 during the cross examination creates doubt that PW2 being a prime witness to the incident and a person who lost his wife in the alleged accident cannot forgot the identification of accused or person responsible for the alleged accident. As per case of prosecution PW5 11 CC.28150/2015 accompanied PW2, PW3 and Siddamma at the time of alleged accident. Morethan that as per the case of the prosecution the injured was shifted to the hospital at first instance by the driver of offending car in the offending vehicle itself. The denial of PW2 and PW5 regarding further statement so as to identification of accused is creates doubt about the alleged accident by the accused.
23. PW.3 is another eye witness who accompanied PW2 during the cross examination stated that he had seen the alleged accident from a distance of 5 to 6 ft. As per the Police Manual it is the duty of IO to mention in the rought sketch about the position of eye witness in the alleged spot. In Ex.P8 there is no mention about the position of eye witnesses in the alleged spot of accident.
24. The learned counsel for accused argued that the alleged accident occured due to the fault of Siddamma as she jumped from road divider inorder to board the bus, fell down and sustained injuries. This suggestion of defence counsel is denied by the eye witnesses. As per the case of the prosecution Siddamma crossed the road from North towards South direction. As per Ex.P8 there is a bus stop at a distance of 15 ft from alleged spot. The version of PW2, PW3 and PW5 is that they were 12 CC.28150/2015 proceeding towards Banaswadi for work. As per Ex.P8 in the alleged spot of accident there is no Zibra crossing for the pedestrians to cross the road. Such being the case a negligence cannot be attributed to the accused as Siddamma crossed the road in a place where crossing of road is not permissable.
25. It is the case of the prosecution that speeding car dashed to pedestrian who was crossing the road. Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of cases held that speed of the vehicle is not a criteria to prove rash or negligent driving. The prosecution not explained the rashness or negligence of the accused prior to alleged accident. PW3 an eye witness denied about existence of road divider at the alleged spot of accident. But as per Ex.P8 rough sketch there is mark of road divider but not mentioned about hight and width of road divider. In a rough sketch on the southern portion there is footpath. It is not the case of the prosecution that Siddamma crossed the road from Southern side towards Northern side. Siddamma came from Northern side where there is no scope for pedestrian either to walk or to cross a road. Morethan that the offending vehicle came from under pass of the flyover towards Nagawara. There is no evidence as to how rash or neglegent driving of the accused resulted the alleged accident. The available evidence does not 13 CC.28150/2015 inspire the confidence of this court that accused had committed offence punishable U/sec.279,304A IPC. The prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, I answer the above point Nos.1 and 2 in the negative.
26. Point No.3: In view of the discussion made in the above points, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting U/sec 255(1) of Criminal Procedure Code, the accused is hereby acquitted of the offences alleged against him punishable U/sec 279 and 304A of IPC.
His bail bond and surety bond stands cancelled after completion of appeal period. (Typed by stenographer, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 09th MAY 2022) (Sharmila Kamath.K) MMTCI, MAYOHALL UNIT, BANGALORE.14 CC.28150/2015
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESS EXAMINED ON PROSECUSION SIDE:
PW.1 : Bheerappa PW.2 : Venkatesh PW.3 : Raju PW.4 : Lingaraju PW.5 : Nagaraj PW.6 : Umadevi
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON PROSECUSION SIDE:
Ex.P.1 : Seizure Mahazar Ex.P.2 : Complaint Ex.P.3 : Spot mahazar Ex.P.4 : Inquest Ex.P.5 : P.M Report Ex.P.6 : I.M.V Report Ex.P.7 : FIR Ex.P.8 : Sketch Ex.P.9 : requisition Ex.P.10 : 133 Notice Ex.P.11 : Replay
LIST OF WITNESS EXAMINED ON DEFENCE SIDE:
NIL LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON DEFENCE SIDE:
NIL (Sharmila Kamath.K) MMTCI, MAYOHALL UNIT, BANGALORE.15 CC.28150/2015