Bangalore District Court
Basavangudi Trps vs Rudresh P on 2 March, 2024
IN THE COURT OF THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
TRAFFIC COURT - IV, BANGALORE
PRESENT: SRI GAGAN M.R. B.A.L LLB
Metropolitan Magistrate
Traffic Court - IV, BANGALORE
DATED : THIS THE 2nd DAY OF MARCH 2024
C.C. No.2627/2018
COMPLAINANT: State by Basavanagudi Traffic Police Station,
Bangalore
(Represented by: APP)
VS.
ACCUSED: 1) Sri Rudresh P.,
S/o. Prakash N.,
Age: 21 years,
R/at No.NA, 4th cross,
New Bank Colony,
Near Soudha Mini K.,
Konanakunte Anjanapura,
Bengaluru
2) Sri Prakash N.,
S/o. Late Narayanappa,
Age: 55 years,
R/at No.NA, 4th cross,
New Bank Colony,
Near Soudha Mini K.,
Konanakunte Anjanapura,
Bengaluru
(ABATED)
(Represented by: G.N. Adv.)
2
C.C.No.2627/2018
1. Date of commission of offence: 29112017
2. Offences alleged against accused: U/s.279 and 338 of IPC,
Sec.134(a and b) R/w.187,
Sec.3(1) R/w.181,
Sec.146 R/w.196 and Sec.5
R/w.180 of M.V.Act.
3. Date of recording of evidence: 05032019
4. Date of closing evidence: 31122022
5. Date of judgment: 02032024
***
JUDGEMENT
The SubInspector of Basavanagudi Traffic Police Station has filed the charge sheet against the accused No.1 for the offences punishable U/s.279, 338 of IPC, Sec.3(1) R/w.181 and Sec.134(a and b) R/w.187 of M.V.Act and against the accused No.2 for the offences punishable U/s.146 R/w.196 and Sec.5 R/w.180 of M.V.Act.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 29112017 at about 7.30 p.m. the 1st accused being the rider of Scooter bearing registration No.KA05/HX5246 drove the same without driving license on M.V. Seetaramaiah road, from north to west in a rash and 3 C.C.No.2627/2018 negligent manner so as to endanger human life he dashed to Scooter bearing registration No.KA05/KF 7151 which was proceeding on Hanumanthnagar 4th cross road, from west to east. Due to the impact the rider C.W.1 and the pillion rider C.W.2 both fell on road along with vehicle and the rider C.W.1 sustained grievous injuries. Further on the day of accident the 1st accused did not provide medical aid to the injured nor he intimated the police about the accident and the 1 st accused was not having valid driving license on the day of accident. Further the 2nd accused being the owner Scooter bearing registration No.KA05/HX5246 had permitted the 1st accused to drive the said vehicle though the accused No.1 was not possessing valid driving license and the said vehicle has not having valid insurance policy on the day of accident, thereby the 1 st accused is alleged to have committed the offences punishable U/s.279, 338 of IPC, Sec.134(a & b) R/w.187 and Sec.3(1) R/w.181 of M.V.Act and the 2nd accused is alleged to have committed the offence punishable U/s.146 R/w.196 and Sec.5 R/w.180 of M.V.Act.
3. Upon taking cognizance, case came to be registered against the accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable U/s.279 and 338 of IPC, Sec.134(a & b) R/w.187, Sec.3(1) R/w.181, Sec.146 R/w.196 and Sec.5 4 C.C.No.2627/2018 R/w.180 of M.V.Act. The accused No.1 and 2 appeared before the court through their counsel and got enlarged on bail. Charge sheet copies furnished to the accused persons and thereby provision U/s.207 of Cr.P.C. duly complied with.
4. Plea came to be framed for the offences U/s.279 and 338 of IPC, Sec.134(a & b) R/w.187, Sec.3(1) R/w.181, Sec.146 R/w.196 and Sec.5 R/w.180 of M.V.Act. for which accused No.1 and 2 have pleaded not guilty claimed to be tried.
5. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined P.W.1 to 4 and got marked documents as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9. On completion of prosecution side evidence, the statement of accused U/s.313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded and the accused No.1 and 2 denied all the incriminating evidence appearing against them and did not choose to lead any defence evidence. After recording of 313 statement the counsel for the accused reported the death of accused No.2. Hence the case against accused No.2 is closed as abated.
6. Heard both the sides.
5C.C.No.2627/2018
7. The points that arise for my determination are as under:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 29112017 at about 7.30 p.m. the accused being the rider of Scooter bearing registration No.KA05/HX 5246 drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life on M.V. Seetaramaiah road, from north to west, thereby the 1st accused committed offene punishable U/s.279 of IPC.
2. Whether the prosecution further proves that on the said date, time and place the accused being the driver of the said vehicle. While so driving his vehicle he dashed to the Scooter bearing registration No.KA05/KF7151 which was proceeding on Hanumanthnagar, 4th cross road, from west to east. Due to the impact the rider C.W.1 and the pillion rider C.W.2 both are fell on road along with vehicle and the rider C.W.1 sustained grievous injuries, thereby the 1st accused committed an offence punishable U/s.338 of IPC.
3. Whether the prosecution further proves that on the said date, time and place the 1st accused did not provide medical aid to the injured nor he intimated the police about the accident, thereby the 1st accused committed an offence punishable U/s.134 (a & b) R/w. 187 of M.V.Act?6
C.C.No.2627/2018
4. Whether the prosecution further proves that on the said date, time and place the 1st accused was not in possession of driving license on the day of the accident, thereby the 1st accused has committed an offence punishable U/s.3(1) R/w.181 of M.V.Act?
5. What order?
8. My findings on the above said points are as under:
1. POINT NO.1: IN THE AFFIRMATIVE
2. POINT NO.2: IN THE AFFIRMATIVE
3. POINT NO.3: IN THE AFFIRMATIVE
4. POINT NO.4: IN THE AFFIRMATIVE
5. POINT NO.5: AS PER FINAL ORDER For the following REASONS
9. POINT No.1 and 2: These points are inter related, hence they are taken together for common discussion.
10. It is the case of the prosecution that on 29112017 at about 7.30 p.m. the 1st accused being the rider of Scooter bearing registration No.KA05/HX5246 drove the same without driving license on M.V. Seetaramaiah road, from north to west in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life he dashed to Scooter bearing registration No.KA05/KF 7 C.C.No.2627/2018 7151 which was proceeding on Hanumanthnagar 4th cross road, from west to east. Due to the impact the rider C.W.1 and the pillion rider C.W.2 both fell on road along with vehicle and the rider C.W.1 sustained grievous injuries. Further on the day of accident the 1st accused did not provide medical aid to the injured nor he intimated the police about the accident and the 1 st accused was not having valid driving license on the day of accident, thereby the 1st accused is alleged to have committed the offences punishable U/s.279, 338 of IPC, Sec.134(a & b) R/w.187 and Sec.3(1) R/w.181 of M.V.Act.
11. In order to prove its case the prosecution examined 4 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.4 and marked 9 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9.
12. C.W.1/ Vinod Kumar is examined as P.W.1 who is the eye witness and complainant of this case. He deposed that on 29112017 at about 7.30 p.m. he along with C.W.2 as a pillion rider were going in his motor cycle bearing registration No.KA05/KF7151 on Hanumanthnagar main road, at that time one motor cycle came in a rash and negligent manner from left side and dashed to his vehicle. Due to the impact he sustained grievous injuries and C.W.2 sustained simple injuries. Further the general public shifted them to 8 C.C.No.2627/2018 hospital. In this regard he has lodged complaint. Due to the negligence of the accused driver the accident has occurred and identified the accused before the court.
During his crossexamination by the accused counsel he deposed that he has given statement in hospital. Police visited hospital after receiving intimation from hospital. He deposed that the scooter which dashed to his vehicle is white in colour and deposed the registration number of the same. He denied the suggestion that the said road is high density of traffic. He deposed that the accused dashed to h is left side and he has taken treatment in hospital for five days and he denied the suggestions of the accused counsel.
13. C.W.3/ Sachin is examined as P.W.2 who is the eye witness and mahazar witness of this case. He deposed that on 29112017 at about 7.30 p.m. while C.W.1 and C.W.2 were proceeding in motor cycle on Hanumanthnagar main road, he was in his motor cycle at a distance of 10mtrs, at that time the accused came in his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to C.W.1's vehicle. Due to the impact C.W.1 sustained grievous injuries and C.W.2 sustained simple injuries. Further the general public shifted injured to hospital.
9C.C.No.2627/2018 Further he deposed that police conducted the mahazar at the spot and he has signed the said mahazar.
During his crossexamination by the accused counsel he deposed that the injured persons were going in their vehicle and he was coming in their behind. He denied the suggestions of the accused counsel.
14. C.W.2/ Sowmya is examined as P.W.3 who is the eye witness and injured of this case. She deposed that on 29112017 at about 7.30 p.m. she was proceeding along with her sister's husband in two wheeler to Kidwai hospital. While they were at Hanumanthnagar road, at that time one two wheeler came in a opposite direction in a high speed and dashed to their vehicle. Due to the impact her sister's husband sustained grievous injuries and she sustained simple injuries. Further the general public shifted them to hospital. In this regard she has given statement before police. She identified the accused before the court. The learned APP treated the witness as partly hostile and crossexamined her with the permission of the court. During her crossexamination by APP she admits the suggestions with regard to vehicle numbers and identification of accused in police station.
10C.C.No.2627/2018 During her crossexamination she deposed that they were proceeding to hospital and deposed the vehicle number. She deposed that accident ahs taken place at 7.30 p.m. and denied the suggestions about high density of traffic in the said road. She deposed the road in which they were proceeding is a one way road and she denied the suggestions of the accused counsel.
15. C.W.9/ Krishnappa G.V. is examined as P.W.4 who is the Investigating Officer of this case. He deposed that on the basis of information given by C.W.1 he received the complaint and registered the case in Crime No.437/17 against the accused. He visited the spot and conducted spot mahazar and prepared rough sketch. He has arrested the accused and released him on bail. He has issued 133 notice and received reply for notice. He has received IMV report from RTO officer and he received the wound certificate. After completion of investigation he has filed a Charge Sheet against the accused. During his crossexamination he denied the suggestions of the accused counsel.
16. Out of the documents marked for prosecution Ex.P.1 is the Complaint, Ex.P.2 is the Spot mahazar, Ex.P.3 is the FIR, Ex.P.4 is the Rough Sketch, Ex.P.5 is the Wound certificate, Ex.P.6 is the IMV Report, 11 C.C.No.2627/2018 Ex.P.7 is the IMV Report, Ex.P.8 is the 133 notice and Ex.P.9 is the Reply.
17. In the instant case the prosecution is alleging that the accused being the rider of the scooter drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and caused accident due to which the victim sustained grievous injuries and prosecution contended that accused committed the offences punishable U/s.279 and 338 of IPC. Section 279 IPC deals with rash and negligent driving of any vehicle or riding on a public way in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life or likely to cause hurt or injury to any person. In order to constitute an offence U/s.279 of IPC, it must be established that the accused was driving the vehicle on a public way in rash and negligent manner to endanger human life or to likely cause to hurt or injury to any other person. For the purpose of section 279 rash and negligent may be described as criminal rashness or criminal negligence. It must be more than mere carelessness of error of judgment. The essential ingredients of section 279 are: (1) rash and negligent driving or riding on a public way, (ii) The act must be such as to endanger human life or likely to cause hurt or injury to any person.
12C.C.No.2627/2018
18. Among the witnesses examined on the behalf of prosecution P.W.1 is the complainant and injured and further prosecution relied on P.W.2 who is the eye witness and P.W.3 who is injured cum eye witness. All the eye witnesses examined before the court supported the case of the prosecution. They deposed that they were proceeding in their road and accused came from another road in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to their vehicle. Though they were subjected to crossexamination nothing contrary to their version in chief examination was elicited from their mouth. The injured persons and eye witness stood firm in their crossexamination. The accused was not able to shake their version and not successful in obtaining any admission contrary to the case of the prosecution.
19. The prosecution is alleging that accused being the driver of the two wheeler drove his vehicle in rash and negligent manner. As discussed earlier negligence means which is more than general term of negligence. With regard to negligent act the Hon'ble Apex court in "Mohammed Aynuddin @ Miyan vs State of Andhra Pradesh (decided on 28.07.2000)" , wherein the Court discussed in detail the constituents of a "rash or negligent act" and observed:
13C.C.No.2627/2018 "A rash act is primarily an over hasty act. It is opposed to a deliberate act. Still a rash act can be a deliberate act in the sense that it was done without due care and caution. Culpable rashness lies in running the risk of doing an act with recklessness and with indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negligence is the failure to exercise duty with reasonable and proper care and precaution guarding against injury to the public generally or to any individual in particular. It is the imperative duty of the driver of a vehicle to adopt such reasonable and proper care and precaution."
In Alister Anthony Pareira vs. State of Maharashtra(2012) 2 SCC 648, Hon'ble Apex Court examined the provisions of section 304A, 337 & 338 and explained as under :
"37. In Empress of India v. Idu Beg [ILR (1881) 3All 776] Straight, J. explained the meaning of criminal rashness and criminal negligence in the following words :(ILR pp.77980)"... criminal rashness is hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is so, and that it may cause injury, but without intention to cause injury, or knowledge that it will probably be caused. The criminality lies in running the risk of doing such an act with recklessness or indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negligence is the gross and culpable neglect orfailure to exercise that reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard against injury either to the public generally or to an individual in particular, which, having regard to all the circumstances out of which the charge hasarisen, it was the imperative duty of the accused person to have adopted."
20. In the case in hand, whether the prosecution was able to prove the rash and negligence on the part of accused , from the evidence of Vinod Kumar (PW1), 14 C.C.No.2627/2018 Sachin (PW2) and evidence of Sowmya (PW3) who were on the spot at the time of accident clearly deposed about the negligence of accused , it is found proved that accused Rudresh drove his motorcycle rashly and negligently and thereby rammed into the motorcycle of complainant Vinod Kumar , which resulted in the grievous injury to complainant (PW1) and simple injury to Sowmya (PW3). Further in the instant case the accused does not posses license to drive a two wheeler at the time of Accident, which itself amounts to negligence i.e he has the knowledge that he does not have the prescribed documents to drive a vehicle , in spite of that he drove the vehicle in a public road in rash manner and caused untoward incident valid driving Thus, I am of the view that accused drove his vehicle in negligent manner. further the accused counsel did not establish that the witnesses examined on the behalf of prosecution has any previous enmity with the accused and hence they are deposing false facts.
21. Upon perusal of the records of the instant case the witness speak about collusion by the vehicle, they also speak about high speed and negligent driving of the accused vehicle on the said road, admittedly the The accident has taken place in the middle of the road in a junction accused is coming from a cross road, he 15 C.C.No.2627/2018 should be cautious but he has not shown anyy cautiousness on his part. Merely because the two wheeler is being driven at a high speed it would be speak of either negligence or rashness. High speed is a relative term and that has to be examined in the light of the facts & circumstances of the case. In the instant case the accused is approaching a junction and he must check and enter the main road, which is a one way main road. With the available materials the court cannot come to the conclusion that the accident has occurred due to the speed and negligence of the accused alone. Therefore, in this circumstance of the case, the case of prosecution regarding rash and negligent act and also regarding involvement of the vehicle of accused could is made out beyond reasonable doubt.
22. Therefore, looking to the evidence available on record and the materials placed by way of oral and exhibits, the case of prosecution appears to be true, Therefore, in the circumstances of the case, the prosecution has proved the alleged offence against the accused. Accordingly, the points under consideration are answered point No.1 and 2 IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
23. POINT No.3 and 4: In the instant case it is alleged that the accused has failed to provide medical aid 16 C.C.No.2627/2018 to the injured nor he has intimated the police about the accident on the date of the accident and accused No.1 was not having driving license on the day of accident. In the instant case the accident is not disputed by the accused counsel and they have not taken a stand that the accused was not the driver of the alleged vehicle. With regard to involvement of the vehicle in the accident, the IO In his evidence has clearly deposed that he has issued Sec.133 notice and the same was duly replied and admitted that he was the driver of the vehicle. In the similar manner the eye witness who was present at also noted down the vehicle number and no suggestion was made to him that he has not seen the vehicle. Since the witnesses depose the vehicle number there is no question about non involvement of th alleged vehicle or non commission of accident by the alleged vehicle. The said fact was deposed by P.W.1 to 3 as well as Investigating officer. Not even a single suggestion was put to witnesses denying the said allegation. admittedly on the alleged day the vehicle was driven by the accused and accident has taken place due to the act of his vehicle and it is his responsibility to provide medical aid to the injured person. In the instant case the accused has not provided the medical aid nor he has intimated the concerned police about the accident. Accordingly he has committed the 17 C.C.No.2627/2018 offence punishable U/s.134(a and b) R/w.187 of M.V.Act. The accused has not contested this aspect and did not crossexamine the witnesses on this aspect, and they did not furnish any documents to deny the case of the prosecution with regard to the allegations leveled against him. Hence, the court answer this point No.3 and 4 IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
24. POINT No.5: In view of the above discussions and findings I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting U/sec. 255(1) of Criminal procedure code, the accused No.1 is hereby convicted of the offences alleged against him punishable U/sec.279 and 338 of IPC, Sec.134(a and b) R/w.187 and Sec.3(1) R/w.181 of M.V.Act.
The accused No.1 is directed to pay fine of Rs.3,500/ for the offences punishable U/s.279 and 338 of IPC, Sec.134(a and b) R/w.187 and Sec.3(1) R/w.181 of M.V.Act. In default shall under go SI for a period of 3 months.18
C.C.No.2627/2018 The bail bonds of accused and surety bonds shall stands cancelled after the appeal period.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court this the 2nd day of March 2024.) (GAGAN M.R.) MMTC - IV, BANGALORE.
ANNEXURE
1) LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
P.W.1: Vinod Kumar P.W.2: Sachin P.W.3: Sowmya P.W.4: Krishnappa G.V.
2) LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1: Complaint Ex.P.2: Spot mahazar Ex.P.3: FIR Ex.P.4: Rough Sketch Ex.P.5: Wound certificate Ex.P.6: IMV Report Ex.P.7: IMV Report Ex.P.8 133 notice Ex.P.9: Reply
3) LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE ACCUSED:
NIL
4) LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE ACCUSED:
NIL (GAGAN M.R.) MMTC - IV, BANGALORE.