Bangalore District Court
State By Upparpet Traffic Police ... vs A. Krishnamurthy S/O Armugam on 8 October, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
TRAFFIC COURT- II BENGALURU.
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2015
Present: Sri. Rajendra Kumar. K.M.
LLM. M Phil,
Metropolitan Magistrate,
Traffic Court-II, Bengaluru.
C.C. No. 2018/2014
Complainant: State by Upparpet Traffic Police Station,
Bangalore.
(Represented by: Sr. APP)
V/s
Accused:- A. Krishnamurthy S/o Armugam, aged; 44 Yrs,
Driver, Token No. 20133, KSRTC 6th Depot,
Mysore Road, Bengaluru.
Driver of KSRTC Bus no. KA 01 F 9223.
(Represented by Sri. SPP, Advocate)
1. Date of commission of offence: 31.8.2014
2. Offences alleged against accused : U/sec. 279 and 338 of
IPC.
3. Date of recording of evidence: 4.3.2014
4. Date of Judgment: 8.10.2015
JUDGMENT
This case emanates from the charge sheet filed by Police Inspector of Upparpet Traffic P.S. against the accused alleging 2 CC 2018/2014 that he has committed the offence punishable U/sec. 279, 337 and 338 of IPC.
2. The brief case of the prosecution is that;
It is the case of the prosecution that on 31.8.2014 at about 6-45 p.m. the accused being the driver of KSRTC bus no. KA 01 F 9223 stopped the same near KSRTC entrance of KSRTC bus stand to get down the passengers from the said bus, at that time the CW-1 was getting down from the said bus from back side of the door, at that time the driver of the bus suddenly and negligently moved the said bus. Due to the impact, the passenger/CW-1 fell down and rear left wheel of the bus ran over on her right leg and she suffered grievous injuries. Thereby the accused has committed the offences punishable U/sec. 279 and 338 of IPC.
3. The record discloses that accused person was released on court bail.
4. On receipt of charge sheet this court has taken cognizance of the offences U/sec. 190 of Cr.P.C.
5. Acting U/sec. 207 of Cr.P.C. all the copies of prosecution papers were furnished to the counsel for the accused. Since, there are grounds for presuming that the accused person has committed the offences triable by this court, this court proceeded to frame the substance of accusation. The accused person pleaded not guilty and 3 CC 2018/2014 claimed to be tried. Therefore, the matter was posted for recording the evidence of prosecution.
6. For the proof of the case, the prosecution has examined 7 witnesses out of 8 witnesses and got exhibited documents as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9. The CW. 7 is dropped with consent.
7. Since, there was incriminating evidence, the statement of the accused person U/sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. The case of the accused is that of total denial.
8. I have heard both sides.
9. Now the points that arise for my consideration are as follows:
1. Whether prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 31.8.2014 at about 6-45 p.m. the accused being the driver of KSRTC bus no. KA 01 F 9223 stopped the same near KSRTC entrance of KSRTC bus stand to get down the passengers from the said bus, at that time the CW-1 was getting down from the said bus from back side of the door, at that time the driver of the bus suddenly and negligently moved the said bus. Thereby the accused has committed the offences punishable U/sec. 279 of IPC ?
2. Whether prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above date, time, and place, Due 4 CC 2018/2014 to the impact, the passenger CW-1 fell down and rear left wheel of the bus ran over on her right leg and she suffered grievous injuries. Thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable U/sec. 338 of IPC?
3. What Order?
10. Now, my findings to the above points are as follows:
Point Nos.1 & 2 : Negative Point No. 3: As per order, for the following:
REASONS
11. Point Nos. 1 & 2 :- It is well laid that in a criminal case the entire burden of proof rest upon the prosecution and the accused need prove nothing. Suffice for the accused to create doubt about the case of the prosecution and the reliability of the witnesses for prosecution. With this background, I proceed to discuss the evidence available on record.
12. It is the case of the prosecution that on 31.8.2014 at about 6-45 p.m. the accused being the driver of KSRTC bus no. KA 01 F 9223 stopped the same near KSRTC entrance of KSRTC bus stand to get down the passengers from the said bus, at that time the CW-1 was getting down from the said bus from back side of the door, at that time the driver of the bus suddenly and negligently moved the said bus. Due to the impact, the passenger CW-1 fell down and rear left wheel of the bus ran over on her right leg and she suffered grievous 5 CC 2018/2014 injuries. Thereby the accused has committed the offences punishable U/sec. 279 and 338 of IPC.
13. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution got examined the PW-1 who is injured and first informant deposes that on 31.8.2014 at about 6-35 p.m. near Majestic bus stand she was getting down the bus, at that time the driver of the bus moved forward and she fell down. Due to the impact, the rear wheel of the said bus ran over on her right leg and she also suffered injuries to her right hand. The PW-1 further deposes that the registration number of the offending bus is 9223 and she was shifted to KGS hospital from there to BGS hospital for treatment. Further, the PW-1 deposes that the accident had happened due to the fault of bus driver, when she was getting down from the bus the accident had happened and also she identified the accused who is present before court. The PW-1 further deposed that she gave first information before the police and same is marked as Ex.P.1 and she put her LTM to Ex.P.1.
14. The PW-1 is the first informant and injured witness. The learned counsel for the accused during the course of cross-examination has denied the entire evidence of PW-1. However, all the suggestions put forward by the defence side are denied. On careful reading of the entire cross-examination of the PW-1, there is nothing useful elicited from the mouth of this witness which supports the defence side.
6 CC 2018/201415. However, it is necessary to know whether the evidence of PW-1 is corroborated with the evidence of other witnesses as PW-1 in her examination-in-chief deposed that she was semiconscious after the accident.
16. The PW-2 who is an eye witness and spot mahazar witness deposes that on 31.8.2014 at about 6-45 p.m. infront of Majestic bus stand he was getting down his passengers from his auto, at that time one bus was stopped and passengers were getting down from the said bus, at that time suddenly bus moved forward, due to the impact one lady who was getting down in the said bus fell down and rear wheel of the bus ran over on her right leg. The PW-2 further deposes that the injured was shifted to hospital through ambulance and on the next day at about 4-30 p.m. the police have called him to the spot and in his presence conducted spot mahazar and he also identified the accused who is before court and the accident had happened due to the fault of bus driver. The said spot mahazar is marked at Ex.P.2 and his signature is at Ex.P.2 (a).
17. The PW-2 is an eye witness and spot mahazar witness. The learned counsel for the accused has cross examined the PW-2, wherein he admits that on that date he was alighting his passengers from his auto rickshaw near Shanthala silk, KSRTC bus stand. The PW-2 further admits that he has not seen how the injured fell down. The PW-2 further admits that the police have not served him with a 7 CC 2018/2014 notice calling upon him for mahazar. The PW-2 feigned his ignorance as to who were present along with him at the time of conducting mahazar.
18. The PW-3 is conductor of the offending bus who turned hostile to the prosecution case deposes that on 31.8.2014 she was working in the bus no. KA 01 F 9223 as conductor and accused was the driver. On that day, at about 6-30 p.m. they were proceeding from Satellite bus stand to Majestic, near Mayura hotel there was a traffic, she got down from the said bus to observe the traffic, at that time one lady got down from the said bus from back door and wheel of the bus touched her and she was shifted to KC General hospital. The PW-3 deposes that the accident had happened due to the fault of said lady.
19. The PW-3 has turned hostile to the prosecution case. During the course of cross-examination of this witness by the learned Sr. APP, nothing has been elicited from the mouth of this witness so as to hold that she is deposing falsely in order to help the accused person. The learned counsel for the accused has not cross-examined the witness. Hence, the cross-examination of the witness is taken as nil.
20. The PW-4 is another spot mahazar witness deposes that on 1.9.2014 at about 4-00 p.m. to 5-00 p.m. the police have informed about the accident which had happened on previous date near Majestic bus stand entrance and police have called him and conducted the mahazar as per Ex.P.2 and 8 CC 2018/2014 they took his signature & same is marked at Ex.P.2 (b) and he came to know that one lady was getting down from the bus and wheel ran over on her leg and the accident had happened.
21. The PW-4 is another panch witness, the learned counsel for the accused has cross examined this witness, wherein he admits that the police have not issued any notice calling upon him for conducting spot mahazar. The PW-4 further admits that before going there, the mahazar work was already started.
22. The PW-5 is ATI deposes that on 2.9.2014, the Upparpet police have issued the notice u/sec. 133 of IMV act with respect to accident caused by the vehicle no. KA 01 F 9223 on 31.8.2014 and he gave reply to the same and further deposes that one A. Krishna Murthy, token no. 20133 was driver and one S. Saraswathi, token no. 5505 was the conductor of the said bus. The said copy of 133 notice and reply are marked at Exs.P. 4 & 5 respectively and his signatures at Exs.P.4 (a) and 5 (a) respectively and accused before court was the driver of the offending vehicle on the date of accident.
23. Even though the learned counsel for the accused has not cross-examined the PW-5, there is nothing in the examination-in-chief of PW-5 regarding rash and negligent driving of the accused.
24. The PW-6 who is IMV inspector deposes that on 2.9.2014 at the request of P.S.I, Upparpet Tr. Police station he 9 CC 2018/2014 inspected the BMTC bus no. KA 01 F 9223 and issued report as per Ex.P.6 and his signature is marked at Ex.P.6 (a) and he opined that the accident was not happened due to any mechanical defects of the offending vehicle.
25. The learned counsel for the accused has cross examined the PW-6, wherein nothing has been elicited from the mouth of this witness which is useful to the case of the accused person.
26. The PW-7 is the PSI who has investigated the case has supported the case of the prosecution to the extent that on 1.9.2014 he visited the BGS hospital and received the first information from CW-1 as per Ex.P.1 and on its basis, he registered the case in Cr. No. 36/14 and sent FIR to the court and his superior officers. FIR is marked at Ex.P.7 and his signature at Ex.P.7 (a) and he visited the spot and drawn spot mahazar in presence of panch witnesses and prepared rough sketch which are marked at Exs.P. 2 & 8 respectively. The signatures marked at Exs.P.2 (c) & 8 (a) respectively. Then he got issued notice u/sec. 133 of IMV Act to supervisor of BMTC authorities as per Ex.P.4 and obtained reply as per Ex.P.5 and his signatures are marked at Exs.P.4 (a) & 5 (a) respectively and he arrested the accused and released on bail and obtained IMV report and Wound certificate as per Exs.P.6 & 9 and his signatures at Exs.P. 6 (b) and 9 (a) respectively and on conclusion of investigation he filed the charge sheet against the accused.
10 CC 2018/201427. The learned counsel for the accused has cross- examined the PW-7, wherein he admits that the spot of the accident is little bit behind the bus stand. It means the PW-1 injured had tried to get down from the bus at a wrong place. The PW-7 further admits that at the spot of the accident there is huge traffic and no vehicle can ply at high speed.
28. On marshalling entire evidence and on meticulous perusal of the documentary proof, in this case the PW-1 who is injured witness had admitted that she became unconscious after the accident. The evidence of PW-1 is not corroborated with the evidence of PW-2 as the PW-2 deposed that the accident had taken place near Shanthala silks. However, as per the rough sketch Ex.P.8, the accident had happened near BMTC bus stand entrance. As per the version of prosecution, the PW-2 is an eye witness, but during the course of cross- examination he admits that he do not know how the PW-1 fell down from the offending bus. The panch witnesses have not fully supported the case of the prosecution. As per the evidence of PW-7, the PW-1 has alighted at the place where she ought not to have alighted. Therefore, it appears that the PW-1 has contributed her part of negligence in the accident. The evidence of PW-1 is not at all corroborated with the evidence of other witnesses. The prosecution has cross examined the PW-2 eye witness, but PW-2 admits that he has not seen how the injured witness fell down from the offending bus. This evidence itself is sufficient to hold that the PW-2 is a 11 CC 2018/2014 planted witness. It is well settled principle of law that only on the basis of the evidence of official witnesses, no conviction can be given to the accused. Hence, I am of the opinion that in this case there is no rash and negligent driving of the accused person. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, this court is of the firm opinion that the benefit of doubt shall be extended to the accused person holding that prosecution is unable to bring home the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The defence side has successfully created doubt in the case of the prosecution.
29. Thus, the evidence made available by the prosecution falls short of legal evidence to establish the accusations or charges leveled against the accused person. Thus, under the above circumstances, I am of the clear opinion that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of accused person beyond all shadow of doubt. Hence, I am of the firm opinion that this is a fit case wherein benefit of doubt can be given to accused person. Hence, I answer the above points in the negative.
30. Point No.3: In view of the discussions made by me 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 & 338 of IPC.12 CC 2018/2014
The accused person is set at liberty.
His bail bond stands cancelled after the period of six months.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 8th day of October 2015).
(Rajendra Kumar. K.M) M.M.T.C-II, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for Prosecution:-
PW-1 Subbamma PW-2 B.N. Shambu PW-3 Saraswathi. S PW-4 Shivanna. H.M PW-5 Nanjappa PW-6 R. Chandrashekar PW-7 Ramakrishnaiah
List of documents marked for Prosecution:
Ex.P.1: First information
Ex.P.1 (a) Signature of PW 7
Ex.P.2 Spot mahazar
Ex.P.2 (a to c) Signatures of PWs. 2, 4 & 7
Ex.P.3 Statement of PW-3
Ex.P.4 Copy of 133 notice
Ex.P.4 (a & b) Signatures of PWs 5 & 7
Ex.P.5 Reply
Ex.P.5 (a & b) Signature of PWs-5 & 7
Ex.P.6 IMV report
13 CC 2018/2014
Ex.P.6 (a & b) Signature of PWs 6 & 7
Ex.P.7 FIR
Ex.P.7 (a) Signature of PW-7
Ex.P.8 Rough sketch
Ex.P.8 (a) Signature of PW-7
Ex.P.9 Wound certificate
Ex.P.9 (a) Signature of PW-7
List of witnesses examined for defence side:-
Nil.
List of documents marked for defence side:
Nil (Rajendra Kumar. K.M) M.M.T.C-II, Bengaluru.14 CC 2018/2014
Orders vide separate Order sheet 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 & 338 of IPC.
The accused person is set at liberty.
His bail bond stands cancelled after the period of six months.
(Rajendra Kumar. K.M) M.M.Tr.Ct-II, B'lore.