Bangalore District Court
Wilson Garden Tr Ps vs Ram Charan Yadav on 3 March, 2025
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS
(TRAFFIC COURT - IV) AT BENGALURU
PRESENT: SRI GAGAN M.R. B.A.L LLB
JMFC (Traffic Court - IV),
BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3rd DAY OF MARCH 2025
CC No.8641/2023
COMPLAINANT: State by Wilson Garden Traffic P.S
Bengaluru.
(State by : Learned APP)
V/s
ACCUSED NO.1: Sri Ram Charan Yadav,
S/o. Shiveshwara Yadav,
Aged about 35 years,
R/at No.201, Anjanappa Building,
2nd main, Opp: Hoysala Hotel,
Sheshadripuram,
Bengaluru
Permanent address:
Police Station, Rajnagara,
Madhubani,
Bihar
(Represented by Sri G.V. Krishna
Reddy Adv.,)
2
C.C. No.8641/2023
ACCUSED NO.2 Sri Harish,
S/o. Late Mohan
Bengaluru
(Accused No.2 : Pleaded Guilty)
1 Date of commission of : 08-04-2023
offence
2 Offences alleged against : U/Sec.279 and 338 of IPC,
accused Sec.134(a and b) R/w.187 of
IMV Act,
3 Date of recording of : 19-07-2024
evidence
4 Date of closing evidence : 23-01-2025
5 Date of judgment : 03-03-2025
JUDGMENT
The Police Sub-Inspector of Wilson Garden Traffic Police Station has filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Sec.279 & 338 of IPC, against accused No.2 for the offences punishable Sec.279 & 338 of IPC, Sec.134(a and b) R/w.187 of M.V.Act.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under: -
That on 08-04-2023 at about 21.45 p.m. accused No.1 being the rider of Bajaj Pulsar bike bearing registration No.KA-02-KL-3280 drove the same on Dr. Marigowda road, from Dairy circle towards Lalbagh in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and he dashed to the pedestrian C.W.1 who was crossing the road from Tejas 3 C.C. No.8641/2023 sweets bakery towards NIMHANS convention gate in lakksandra, due to impact pedestrian fell down, at the same time accused No.2 being the driver of Goods Lorry bearing registration No.KA-52-4208 drove his vehicle in a negligent manner and ran over fallen C.W.1. Due to the impact C.W.1 sustained grievous injuries on his right hand, leg and nose. Further the accused No.2 did not provide medical aid to the injured nor he intimated the police about the accident. Thereby the accused No.1 have committed an offences punishable under Sec.279 & 338 of IPC, and accused No.2 have committed an offences punishable under Sec.279 & 338 of IPC, Sec.134a (a and b) R/w.187 of IMV Act.
3. Upon taking cognizance, case came to be registered against accused No.1 for the offences punishable U/s.279 & 338 of IPC, against accused No.2 for the offences punishable U/s.279 & 338 of IPC, Sec.134(a and b) R/w.187 of M.V.Act. The accused No.1 appeared before the court through his counsel & got enlarged on bail. Charge sheet copies furnished to the accused 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 & 338 of IPC. Act for which accused No.1 pleaded not guilty claimed to be tried and accused No.2 pleaded guilty.
4C.C. No.8641/2023
5. During the course of trial the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 6 and got marked Ex.P.1 to 10. The statement of accused as per Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded the accused No.1 denied the incriminating evidences recorded against him and submitted he will not lead any defence evidence.
6. Heard arguments on both sides and perused the materials available on record.
7. The point that arises for my determination is as under:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 08-04-2023 at about 21.45 p.m. accused No.1 being the rider of Bajaj Pulsar bike bearing registration No.KA-
02-KL-3280 drove the same on Dr. Marigowda road, from Dairy circle towards Lalbagh in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life, thereby accused No.1 committed an offence punishable under Sec.279 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place the accused being the driver of the said vehicle. While so driving his vehicle he dashed to the pedestrian C.W.1 who was crossing the road from Tejas sweets bakery towards NIMHANS convention gate in lakksandra, due to impact pedestrian fell down, at the same time accused No.2 being the driver of Goods Lorry bearing registration No.KA-52-4208 drove his vehicle in a negligent manner and ran over fallen C.W.1. Due to the impact C.W.1 sustained grievous 5 C.C. No.8641/2023 injuries on his right hand, leg and nose, thereby the accused No.1 has committed an offence punishable U/s.338 of IPC?
3. What Order?
8. My answer to the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the negative Point No.2 : In the negative Point No.3 : As per final order For the following REASONS
9. POINT Nos.1 and 2: For the sake of convenience and to avoid repetition of facts, these points are taken up for common discussions to have brevity.
10. It is the case of the prosecution that on 08-04- 2023 at about 21.45 p.m. accused No.1 being the rider of Bajaj Pulsar bike bearing registration No.KA-02-KL-3280 drove the same on Dr. Marigowda road, from Dairy circle towards Lalbagh in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and he dashed to the pedestrian C.W.1 who was crossing the road from Tejas sweets bakery towards NIMHANS convention gate in lakksandra, due to impact pedestrian fell down, at the same time accused No.2 being the driver of Goods Lorry bearing registration No.KA-52-4208 drove his vehicle in a negligent manner and ran over fallen C.W.1. Due to the impact C.W.1 sustained grievous injuries on his right hand, leg and nose. Thereby the accused No.1 have committed an offences punishable under Sec.279 & 338 of IPC.
6C.C. No.8641/2023
11. In order to prove its case the prosecution examined 6 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.6 and marked 10 documents as Ex.P.10 to Ex.P.10.
12. C.W.1/ Sri Suresh is examined as P.W.1 who is the complainant of this case. He deposed that on 08-04-2023 he has admitted his mother for treatment in Subbaiah hospital. He went to bring fruit for her and after taking food while he was crossing the road near sweet shop, one two wheeler rider came and dashed to his legs, due to impact he has fallen down and at the same time a lorry came and ran over his legs. He sustained injuries on his legs and nose and chest. After that he has given his mother's mobile number and was admitted to Sanjaygandhi hospital. Police visited hospital and taken his statement. The learned APP treated the witness as partly hostile and cross-examined him with the permission of the court. During his cross-examination by the learned APP he admitted he was crossing the road from Lakksandra towards NIMHANS gate side. He admitted the two wheeler number.
During his cross-examination by the accused counsel he deposed that there is a sky walk for crossing the road near accident spot. He admits about existence of divider at accident spot and he admits he jumped the divider and crossing the road. He denied the suggestions that only lorry driver caused accident. He denied the suggestions of the accused counsel.
7C.C. No.8641/2023
13. C.W.2/ Sri Gopi is examined as P.W.2 who is the mahazar witness of this case. He deposed that on 12-04- 2023 police written one document in NIMHANS gate and obtained his signature. They written the said document between 10.00 a.m. to 11.00 a.m. The learned APP treated the witness as partly hostile and cross-examined him with the permission of the court. During his cross-examination by the learned APP he admits the suggestion that police informed him about the accident between the pedestrian, two wheeler and lorry. He admits police also written sketch map.
During his cross-examination by the accused counsel he deposed that he does not know the date and time of the accident. He denied the suggestions of the accused counsel.
14. C.W.3/ Sri Pavan is examined as P.W.3 who is the mahazar witness of this case. He deposed that on 12-04- 2023 while he was proceeding in Marigowda road police asked him to become witness for mahazar he agreed and police informed him about accident and conducted mahazar between 10.30 to 11.30 a.m. During his cross-examination by the accused counsel he deposed that he does not know to read Kananda. He denied the suggestions of the accused counsel.
8C.C. No.8641/2023
15. C.W.6/ Sri Ramesh is examined as P.W.4 who is the eye witness of this case. He deposed that on 08-04-2023 at around 9.40 p.m. while he was walking near KIDWAi hospital one person was coming from lakksandra circle and while he was crossing the road one Pulsar bike came in high speed and dashed to said person, due to impact he fallen down and one goods vehicle ran over him. People gathered and sent him to Sanjay gandhi hospital and he deposed that he has not seen the drivers of the goods vehicle and two wheeler. The learned APP treated the witness as partly hostile and cross-examined him with the permission of the court. During his cross-examination by the learned APP h admitted the suggestion that the two wheeler rider and goods vehcile driver driven their vehicle in rash and negligent manner. He admitted the suggestions with regard to vehicle numbers and the timings of the mahazar.
During his cross-examination by the accused counsel he deposed that the accident has taken place while crossing the road. He admits the injured jumped the divider and after that accident has taken place. He admits injured is his friend. He denied the suggestions of the accused counsel.
16. C.W.5/ Sri Mohammad Saleem is examined as P.W.5 who is the eye witness of this case. He deposed that on 08-04-2023 at 9.45 p.m. while he was proceeding from 9 C.C. No.8641/2023 Koramangala towards Wilson garden in his two wheeler, when he came near NIMHANS gate one two wheeler rider driven his vehicle in high speed and dashed to person who was crossing the road, immediately goods vehicle came from his behind and it ran over the fallen person. He pulled him out and upon enquiry injured stated his mother is admitted in hospital and they sent him to Sanjay gandhi hospital in an auto.
During his cross-examination by the accused counsel he deposed the said road is a main road and at that time it has high density of traffic. He admits about existence of 4ft divider. He admits the injured was crossing the road by jumping the divider. He denied the suggestions of the accused counsel.
17. C.W.12/ Sri Nagaraju is examined as P.W.6 who is the Investigating Officer of this case. He deposed that 11-04- 2023 while he was discharging his duty as SHO in station, he received information about accident and injured taking treatment in Sanjay gandhi hospital. On the basis of said information he visited hospital and recorded the statement of the injured in the presence of doctor. Later he came to police station and on the basis of said statement he registered the case in Crime No.84/2023 against the accused and forwarded the same to court and senior officers. On the next day he visited the accident spot and conducted spot mahazar in the presence of C.W.2 and 3 between 10.00 to 11.00 a.m. and 10 C.C. No.8641/2023 prepared one rough sketch. He recorded the statement of C.W.5 and 6. He recorded the statement of the pillion rider C.W.4. He issued Sec.133 notice to the owner of the vehicle and received reply to the said notice. He recorded the voluntary statement of accused. He arrested the accused and released him on station bail after obtaining necessary bonds. He collected wound certificate. He collected motor vehicle inspection report. Upon perusal of records investigation was completed and filed charge sheet against the accused and forwarded the same to court. He has identified the accused present before the court. During his cross-examination by the accused counsel he denied the suggestions of the accused counsel.
18. Out of the documents marked for prosecution Ex.P.1 is the Complaint, Ex.P.2 is the is the spot mahazar, Ex.P.3 is the FIR, Ex.P.4 is the rough sketch, Ex.P.5 is the 133 notice, Ex.P.6 is the 133 notice, Ex.P.7 is the reply for the notice, Ex.P.8 is the reply for the notice, Ex.P.9 is the wound certificate and Ex.P.10 is the motor vehicle inspection report.
19. In the instant case the prosecution is alleging that the accused No.1 being the driver of the bike drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the pedestrian and he sustained grievous injuries. The prosecution has alleged that accused No.1 has committed the offences punishable under section 279 and 338 of IPC, Section 279 11 C.C. No.8641/2023 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.
20. To prove the said aspect the prosecution has examined the victim complaint as P.W.1, P.W.2 and 3 are the mahazar witness, P.W.4 and 5 are the eye witnesses, P.W.6 is the investigating officer.
21. In the instant case it is the accused No.1 who dashed to pedestrian who was crossing the road due to the impact he has fell down and accused No.2 drove his vehicle over his legs and caused grievous injury. The accused No.2 has pleaded guilty and accused No.1 is facing the trial. The prosecution has the burden to establish that the accused 12 C.C. No.8641/2023 No.1 driven his vehicle in rash and negligent manner and caused accident due to which the injured complainant sustained grievous injury.
22. In the instant case the complainant is the victim. He contended that he was crossing the road and accused no.1 driven his vehicle and dashed to him. During his cross- examination he clearly admitted that he was crossing the road by jumping the road divider and admits near accident spot crossing road is restricted. P.W.4 claims he was walking in the said road and he saw the accident. But the said witness did not identify the accused present before the court, though he was subjected to cross-examination he denied the suggestions of the APP. He admits the injured is known to him and he come to court with his sister. He also admits the accident has taken place while crossing the road in the middle of the road. P.W.5 is the other eye witness who claims he was proceeding in his two wheeler and at that time the accident has taken place. He claims that the accused is driven his bike in high speed due to which accident has taken place. He admits that the accident spot is a main road and it is a busy road. He admits the suggestion that since it is a busy road driving vehicle in high speed is not possible. He also admits that there is a 4ft divider in the said road and injured was crossing the road after jumping the divider.
13C.C. No.8641/2023
23. Apart from them prosecution examined two mahazar witness who deposed about conducting mqahazar. Among them PW..3 admits he signed maahzar in police station. The investigating officer in his cross-examination admits that accident has taken place soon after crossing the divider. Prosecution claims accused driven his vehicle in rash and negligent manner. Upon perusal of sketch map the injured has crossed one lane and after attempting to cross the another lane within 5ft from the divider the accident has taken place. There is no option for crossing the road and divider is put to avoid people crossing the road. The said suggestion is admitted by the eye witness and victim which becomes clear that the injured was crossing the road in restricted area. P.W.5 the eye witness clearly deposed that the victim jumped the divider and crossing the road. Admittedly it is a main road and since there is a divider generally vehicle riders will have presumption that nobody will cross the road and they will proceeding the road.
24. The burden is upon the prosecution to prove that accused being the driver of the bike drove the same in rash and negligent manner and thereby caused accident. In the instant case has discussed earlier the injured was crossing the road in a restricted area. In such circumstances the contributory negligence on his part has to be seen by the court. Here the injured all of a sudden entered the main road 14 C.C. No.8641/2023 that too from middle of the road which is a sudden distraction to the vehicle riders. If he has come from footpath side then the riders might have a cautiousness towards the pedestrians, but they were proceeding on the right side fo the road they think that since there is a divider with a height of 4ft nobody will come and they will proceed. Here the negligence on the part of the victim is crystal clear. Further in the instant case since accused dashed to victim he has fallen down and after that a goods vehicle came in the same road and it ran over the victim's leg. Here victim has sustained fracture on his legs and hence prosecution is alleging victim sustained grievous injuries. Whether the said injury has taken place due to the act of accused No.1 the said fact is not established by prosecution. In the case on hand the accused No.2 has already pleaded guilty and since his vehicle ran over the injured leg the fracture has taken place. Whether due to the act of accused No.1 the fractured has taken place that fact is not satisfactorily established by prosecution.
25. 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 doubtful. There is doubt as to whether the accused had driven the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, so as to endanger the human life and personal safety of others. Therefore, in the circumstances of the case, as per the rules of criminal justice if any doubt 15 C.C. No.8641/2023 arise about the commission of the act then such doubt shall be in favour of accused. The prosecution has failed to prove the alleged offence against the accused. Accordingly, the points under consideration are answered point No.1 and 2 IN THE NEGATIVE.
26. POINT No.3: In view of the findings on Point Nos.1 and 2, this court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER Acting U/sec. 255(1) of Criminal procedure code, the accused No.1 is hereby acquitted of the offences alleged against him punishable U/sec. 279 and 338 of IPC.
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 on this the 3rd day of March 2025) (GAGAN M.R.) JMFC (Traffic Court - IV), BENGALURU ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION:
PW.1 Sri Suresh
PW.2 Sri Gopi
PW.3 Sri Pavan
PW.4 Sri Ramesh
PW.5 Sri Mohammad Saleem
PW.6 Sri Nagaraju
16
C.C. No.8641/2023
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 Complaint Ex.P.2 Spot mahazar Ex.P.3 FIR Ex.P.4 Rough Sketch Ex.P.5 133 Notice Ex.P.6 133 Notice Ex.P.7 Reply Ex.P.8 Reply Ex.P.9 Wound certificate Ex.P.10 IMV Report
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR ACCUSED:
Nil LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR ACCUSED:
Nil (GAGAN M.R.) JMFC (Traffic Court - IV), BENGALURU