Bangalore District Court
State By Byatarayanapura Traffic ... vs G.S. Ranganath S/O Srinivasaiah on 19 February, 2021
IN THE COURT OF THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
TRAFFIC COURT- II, BENGALURU.
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021
Present: Smt. Rekha. H.C.
B.A.LLB
Metropolitan Magistrate,
Traffic Court-II, Bengaluru.
CC No. 1111/2012
2
Complainant: State by Byatarayanapura Traffic Police Station,
Bangalore.
(Represented by: Sr. APP)
V/s
Accused:- G.S. Ranganath S/o Srinivasaiah, 43 Yrs, R/at.
Gundanahalli Village, Thamagondlu Hobli,
Nelamangala Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District.
Driver of BMTC Bus bearing Reg. no. KA 50 F 090
(Represented by Sri. UPK Adv.)
1. Date of commission of offence: 18.4.2012
2. Offences alleged against accused U/sec. 279, 304-A of IPC
3. Date of recording of evidence: 24.2.2014
4. Date of Judgment: 19.02.2021
JUDGMENT
The Inspector of Police, Byatarayanapura Traffic P.S. has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/sec. 279 and 304-A of IPC.
2. The brief case of the prosecution is that;
On 18.4.2012 at about 7.20 p.m., within the jurisdiction of Byatarayanapura Traffic police station, the accused being the driver of BMTC Bus bearing Reg. no.
2 CC 1111/2012KA 50 F 090 drove the same on Mysore Road from Madhu Petrol Bunk towards Bidadi in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger the human life and dashed against pedestrian/Gangaram who was crossing the road near Kengeri Masjid. Due to the impact, said pedestrian fell down and front right wheel of the said bus ran over on him and he sustained severe injuries and succumbed at spot. Based on the first information statement registered by CW-1, the case came to be registered against the accused in Cr. No. 115/2012. The I.O. took up the investigation, visited the spot, drawn the spot mahazar and recorded the statement of witnesses. The I.O. after obtaining the postmortem report and other documents and on completion of investigation has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/sec. 279 and 304-A of IPC.
3. Upon taking cognizance, case came to be registered against accused for the offences punishable U/sec. 279 and 304-A of IPC. The accused appeared before court engaged counsel and enlarged on bail. Charge sheet copies furnished to the accused and thereby provision U/sec. 207 duly complied with.
4. Plea came to be framed for the offence punishable U/sec. 279 and 304-A of IPC for which accused pleaded not guilty claimed to be tried.
5. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PWs-1 to 7 and got exhibited documents as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9. On completion of prosecution side 3 CC 1111/2012 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:
1. Whether prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 18.4.2012 at about 7.20 p.m., the accused being the driver of BMTC Bus bearing Reg. no. KA 50 F 090 drove the same on Mysore Road from Madhu Petrol Bunk towards Bidadi in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger the human life. 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, the accused being the driver of BMTC Bus bearing Reg. no. KA 50 F 090 dashed against pedestrian/Gangaram who was crossing the road near Kengeri Masjid and said pedestrian fell down and front right wheel of the said bus ran over on him and he sustained severe injuries and succumbed at spot. Thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable U/sec. 304-A of IPC?4 CC 1111/2012
3. What Order?
8. Now, my findings to the above points are as follows:
Point Nos.1 & 2 : In the Negative Point No.4: As per order, for the following:
REASONS
9. Point Nos. 1 & 2 :- Both points taken together for common discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts and for appreciation of evidence It is the specific case of the prosecution that on 18.4.2012 at about 7.20 p.m., within the jurisdiction of Byatarayanapura Traffic police station, the accused being the driver of BMTC Bus bearing Reg. no. KA 50 F 090 drove the same on Mysore Road from Madhu Petrol Bunk towards Bidadi in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger the human life and dashed against pedestrian/Gangaram who was crossing the road near Kengeri Masjid. Due to the impact, said pedestrian fell down and front right wheel of the said bus ran over on him and he sustained severe injuries and succumbed at spot.
10. To prove its case, the prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 7 and marked Exs.P.1 to 9 with sub marking.
11. CW-1 is Yathiraj examined as PW-1 who is complainant, eye witness and spot mahazar witness of this case. He deposed that on 18.4.2012 near Kengeri bus stand near Masjid he was standing to cross the road, at that time BMTC bearing Reg. no. KA 50 F 090 came 5 CC 1111/2012 from Bengaluru side and dashed against one Gangaram who was standing 5ft away from him. Due to the impact, said person fell down and front wheel of the bus ran over on leg of injured and succumbed. The said accident was happened due to the fault of bus driver and the injured was shifted Rajarajeshwari hospital where doctor declared brought dead and he lodged complaint as per Ex.P.1 and signed spot mahazar as per Ex.P.2.
11. PW-1 in the cross-examination admits that there was sky walk in the spot for the pedestrians to cross the road. In the spot iron rods were fixed in the road divider. Further he did not stated time of the accident. Even though he deposed in his examination-in- chief he gave complaint to police in accident spot.
12. CW-8 Suresh Kumar examined as PW-2 who turned hostile to the case of prosecution deposed that on 18.4.2012 at about 7.45 p.m. he was conductor of bus bearing Reg. no. KA 50 F 090 was issuing tickets. He don't know about the accident.
Having turned hostile to the case of the prosecution, the learned Sr. APP cross examined PW-2 in detail, but nothing worth is elicited from the mouth of PW-2 to support the case of the prosecution.
13. CW-2 Murthy examined as PW-3 mahazar witness states that on 19.4.2012 at about 8.00 a.m. near Kengeri Masjid the police have conducted spot mahazar as per Ex.P.2.
6 CC 1111/2012In the cross-examination he admits that he don't know reading and writing. Further he specifically stated that he don't know the contents of Ex.P.2 and when he reached the spot the police have already drawn the mahazar.
14. CW-9 S. Manohar examined as PW-4 ATI states that on 20.4.2012, the Byatarayanapura police have issued in notice u/s 133 of IMV Act and he gave reply to the same that on the alleged date of accident G.S. Ranganath, token no. 11133 was the driver and Suresh Kumar. D.K., token no. 2295 was the S. Mahendra, token no. 18130 was the conductor of the offending bus. He identified the accused before the court.
15. CW-10 Dr. Anand. P. Rayamane examined as PW-5 states that on 19.4.2012 at about 11.45 a.m. to 12.45 p.m. he conducted postmortem of deceased Gangaram and issued postmortem report as per Ex.P.9.
16. CW-13 Shankarachar-P.I. examined as PW-7 Investigating Officer states that on 18.4.2012, he received the first information statement from CW-1 and on its basis he registered the case in Cr. No. 115/12 and dispatched FIR to the court. On 19.4.2012, he visited the spot and conducted spot mahazar and prepared rough sketch and conducted inquest mahazar in presence of panchas and on 15.5.2012 obtained IMV report and handed over further investigation of CW-14 for further investigation.
7 CC 1111/201217. Out of the exhibits marked for prosecution Ex.P.1 is the complaint, Ex.P.2 is spot mahazar, Ex.P.3 is inquest mahazar, Ex.P.4 is statement of PW-2, Ex.P.5 is copy of 133 notice, Ex.P.6 reply, Ex.P.7 log sheet, Ex.P.8 way bill and Ex.P.9 postmortem report.
18. In the light of the above material available on record, the learned Sr. APP argued that there is sufficient material on record to convict the accused.
19. The learned counsel for the accused argued that there is no evidence to show rash or negligent riding on the part of the accused. Further, he argued that the material and evidence available on record is not sufficient to believe the case of prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, he prayed to acquit the accused.
20. Sec. 279 of IPC deals with rash and negligent driving any vehicle or riding on a public way in 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/sec. 279 of IPC, it must be established that the accused was driving the vehicle on a public way in a rash and negligent manner to endanger human life or to likely cause hurt or injury to any other person. For the purpose of section 279 of IPC, 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 Sec. 279 of IPC are; i) Rash and negligent driving or riding on public way. (ii) The act must be such 8 CC 1111/2012 as to endanger human life or likely to cause hurt or injury to any person.
21. For an offence punishable U/sec. 304-A of IPC the point to be established is that the act of accused was responsible for resulting in the death and such act of accused was rash and negligent although it did not amount to culpable homicide. To establish either of Sec. 279 or 304-A of IPC, rash and negligent has to be established, but only distinction is that in Sec. 279 rash and negligent act relates to the manner of driving or riding on a public way, while offence punishable U/sec. 304-A of IPC extends to any rash and negligent act falling short of culpable homicide. As indicated above, rashness or negligence to be established must be more than an error of judgment. Distinction between rashness and negligence is that negligence connotes want of proper care while rashness conveys an idea of reckless doing of an act without consideration of any consequences.
22. I have carefully gone through the charge sheet materials and also evidence made available in the file. PW-1 is the eye witness cum spot mahazar witness of this case. In the examination-in-chief he deposed that when deceased was crossing the road at that time the offending vehicle dashed against her. But in the cross- examination he admitted that there was no zebra crossing to cross the road for the pedestrians. It restrained from iron rods to avoid the crossing the road. The evidence of PW-1 shows that the accident was happened due to negligence of pedestrian. Investigating 9 CC 1111/2012 Officer also admitted that there was no zebra crossing to cross the road. Further, I have carefully perused the evidence of PW-3, he has also fully not supported the case of prosecution. PWs. 5 to 7 are official witnesses have deposed part of work done by them. None of the passengers who were traveling in the offending bus were not examined by the prosecution.
23. Though, the inquest mahazar, Postmortem report and IMV report are marked, even then no offence could be made out beyond reasonable doubt.
24. The material witnesses to the case of prosecution have not supported the case. 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 a doubt as to whether the accused was driver of bus. So also there is a doubt as to whether the accused had driven the said vehicle in a rash or negligent manner, so as to endanger the human life and personal safety of others and dashed against pedestrian. Therefore, in the circumstances of the case, the prosecution has failed to prove the alleged offence against the accused.
25. In a road traffic accident cases first the prosecution has to prove the rash and negligent driving of the accused. In order to prove this fact the case in hand the prosecution fully depend upon the evidence of Investigating Officer who deposed about the accident. On the other hand, the accused has not disputed the fact that he was the driver of the offending vehicle on the date 10 CC 1111/2012 of accident. Here itself it is pertinent to note that while recording statement u/sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. the accused has not offered any explanation. As such it can be safely said that the accused does not dispute the fact that the accident had occurred due to his rash and negligent driving. In view of the discussion made supra, this court considered view that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed an offence punishable U/sec. 279, 304-A of IPC. Hence, for the above discussions, I answer point nos. 1 & 2 in the negative.
26. Point No.3: In view of 'Negative' findings on the above points, the accused is entitled for acquittal on the ground of doubt benefit. Therefore, 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, 304-A of IPC.
Bail bonds of accused and surety bonds shall stand cancelled.
(Dictated to the stenographer, directly on the computer, typed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 19th day of February 2021).
(Rekha. H.C.) M.M.T.C-II, Bengaluru.11 CC 1111/2012
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for Prosecution:-
PW-1 Yathiraj PW-2 Suresh Kumar PW-3 Murthy PW-4 S. Manohar PW-5 Dr. Anand. P. Rayamane PW-6 T. Mallesh Ex.P.7 B. Shankarachar
List of documents marked for Prosecution:
Ex.P.1: Complaint
Ex.P.2 Spot mahazar
Ex.P.3 Inquest mahazar
Ex.P.4 Statement of PW-2
Ex.P. 5 Copy of 133 notice
Exs.P. 6 Reply
Ex.P.7 Log sheet
Ex.P.8 Way bill
Ex.P.9 Postmortem report
M.M.T.C-II, Bengaluru.