Bangalore District Court
State By K.R Pura Traffic Police vs Ramachandra S/O Muddaiah on 27 February, 2023
1 CC No.12485/2018
KABC0D0125742018
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITIAN MAGISTRATE TRAFFIC COURT-I AT
MAYOHALL, BANGALORE.
DATED THIS THE 27th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023.
Present : Smt. REKHA H C
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
TRAFFIC COURT-I, BENGALURU.
C.C. No.12485/2018
Complainant : State by K.R Pura Traffic Police
Station, Bengaluru.
(Represented by APP)
V/S
Accused : Ramachandra S/o Muddaiah
40 years, No.350, Deshahalli
Maddur, Mandya District
(Represented by Sri.HGP)
1. Date of commission of offence: 22.08.2017
2. Offences alleged against accused: U/sec.279,338 of IPC
3. Date of recording of evidence: 03.04.2021
4. Date of Judgment: 27.02.2023
JUDGMENT
The Sub-Inspector of Police of K.R Puram Traffic P.S. has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/sec. 279, 338 of IPC.
2 CC No.12485/2018
2. The brief case of the prosecution is that:
On 22.08.2017 at about 2.45 p.m. within the jurisdiction of K.R Puram Traffic Police station the accused being the driver of KSRTC Bus bearing Reg.No.KA-42-F-2083 drove the same vehicle on Old Madras road, near ITI bus stop raod from K.R.Puram towards Tinfactory drove his vehcle in very speed, rash and negligent manner and dashed to a pedistrian who was crossing the road from ITC play ground towards ITI colony. Due to the accident the front left side wheel of the alleged bus run of the feet of two legs of the pedistrian and the pedistrian sustrained grevious blood injuries. Based on the FIS registered by CW-1, the case came to be registered against the accused in Cr.No.347/2017. The I.O took up the investigation, visited the spot, drawn the spot mahazar, recorded the statement of witnesses, obtained the wound certificate and on completion of investigation has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable U/sec 279 and 338 of IPC.
3. Upon taking cognizance, case came to be registered against accused for the offences punishable U/sec.279 and 338 of IPC. The accused appeared before court engaged counsel and enlarged on bail. Charge sheet copy furnished to the accused and thereby provision U/sec 207 duly complied 3 CC No.12485/2018 with.
4. Plea came to be framed for the offence punishable U/sec 279 and 338 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 4 and got marked exhibited documents as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11. As there was no incriminating evidence against accused recording of statement U/sec 313 of Cr.P.C was dispensed with.
6. Heard arguments on both sides.
7. The points that arise for my consideration are as follows.
Point No.1. Whether prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on 22.08.2017 at about 2.45 p.m.. within the jurisdiction of K.R Puram Traffic Police station the accused being the driver of KSRTC Bus bearing Reg.No.KA-42-F-2083 drove the same vehicle on Old Madras road, near ITI bus stop raod from K.R.Puram towards Tinfactory and dashed against the dashed to a pedistrian who was crossing the road from ITC play ground towards ITI colony in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger the human life. Thereby the accused has committed the offences punsihable U/sec.279 of IPC?
4 CC No.12485/2018Point No.2. Whether prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on the above date, time and place, due to the accident the front left side wheel of he alleged bus run of the feet of two legs of the pedistrian and the pedistrian sustrained grevious blood injuries. and there by accused has committed an offence punishble U/sec 338 of IPC?
Point No.3. What order?
8. Now, my findings to the above points are as follows:
Point No.1 & 2: In the Negative Point No.3 : 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. It is the case of the prosecution that On 22.08.2017 at about 2.45 p.m. within the jurisdiction of K.R Puram Traffic Police station the accused being the driver of KSRTC Bus bearing Reg.No.KA-42-F-2083 drove the same vehicle on Old Madras road, near ITI bus stop raod from K.R.Puram towards Tinfactory drove his vehcle in very speed, rash and negligent manner and dashed to a pedistrian who was crossing the road from ITC play ground towards ITI colony. 5 CC No.12485/2018 Due to the accident the front left side wheel of the alleged bus run of the feet of two legs of the pedistrian and the pedistrian sustrained grevious blood injuries.
10. CW-6 Deepak Srinivasan was examined as PW-1 who was eye witness of this case. He deposed that on 22.08.2007 he was the conductor of the alleged bus No.KA- 45-F-2083 which was driven by the accused. They were returnig from Tirupathi to Kanakapura at 2.45p.m near ITI gate bus stop when the passengers of the alleged bus were diboarding at than time one lady was lying on the road and she sustained injuries by other vehicle and her name was Narayanamma. The traffic police shifted her by ambulance for treatment. He has given his statement to the police. Having turned partly hostile to the case of the prosecution nothing is elicited from the mouth of the eye witness to prove the alleged accident.
11. CW10 Nagaraju M examined as PW.2 the Investigation Officer of this case states that on 22.08.2017 at 4.30p.m on the basis of the statement of CW.1 he registered case in crime No. 347/17 and dispatched FIR as per Ex.P1 to the court. On the same day in the presence of 6 CC No.12485/2018 CW.2 and 3 he drawn spot mahazar as per Ex.P8 and also drawn rough sketch as per Ex.P9. On the next day sent requisition to IMV Officer. On the nex day the accused of this case appeared before the police statation and after completing arrest proceedure he was released on station bail.
12. CW11 Anitha Kumari M examined as PW3 who was the another Investigating Officer, continued the investigation proceedure of this case in her examination deposed that on 18.02.2018 she received wound certificate from Bowring hospital as per Ex.P2 and trip sheet is marked as per Ex.P10 and Log sheet marked as per Ex.P11.
13. CW5 Harshavardhan examined as PW4 as eye witness of this case. He deposed that on 22.08.2017 at 2.45p.m he was proceeding with his two wheeler bearing No.KA-53-L-3247 at that time near ITI gate one KSRTC Bus No.KA-42-F-6083 was proceeding from old madras road towards Tin factory came in rash and negligent manner and dashed to a pedestrian who 7 CC No.12485/2018 was crossing the road from ITI ground towards ITI colony. Due to the accident the pedestrian fell down on the road and the left tyre of the alleged bus run on her two legs and she sustained major blood injuries. Further he shifted the victim to the Bowring hospital for further treatment with the help of the public. Then he given report to his officers. He specifically deposed in his evidence that the rash and neglegent act is the cause of the accident. In his cross examination he specifically deposed that there was no road humps, signals or pootpath at the alleged spot of the accident. Further he admitted that generally pedestrians should cross the road only where there is a zebra cross.
14. Out of the exhibits marked for prosecution Ex.P1 is IMV, Ex.P.2 is wound certificate, Ex.P.3 133 notice, Ex.P.4 reply to 133 notice, Ex.P.5 is statement of PW1, Ex.P6 is complaint, Ex.P7 FIR, Ex.P8 is spot mahazar, Ex.P9 is sketch, Ex.P10 is Trip Sheet, Ex.P.11 is Log Sheet.
15. 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. 8 CC No.12485/2018
16. The learned counsel for the accused argued that there is no evidence to show rash or negligent driving 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.
17. I have carefully gone through the charge sheet materials and also evidence made available in the file. I have perused the evidence of PW-1 who was the eye witnesses as he turned hostile to the case of the prosecution, his evidence is not enough to prove the case of the prosecution. PW2 and PW3 who are the investigation officers of this case deposed about the part of the investigation conducted by them and that are formal in nature. Further on perusal of the evidence of the PW4 examined as eye witness in his cross examination specifically admitted that there was no road humps, signals or footpath at the alleged spot of the accident and also admitted that generally pedestrians should cross the road only where there is a zebra cross. Hence it appears that the alleged accident was happened due to the unscientific road crossing attempted by the victim in a non-zebra crossing 9 CC No.12485/2018 area of the alleged road. Hence evidence of this accused does not inspire this court to prove the rash and negligent driving of the accused.
18. On perusal of prosecution papers, the prosecution utterly failed to prove its case as the complainant/victim of this alleged accident has not examined by the prosecution. It is the main fatal to the case of the prosecution. Even though prosecution has not examined the passenger of the said alleged bus. Further PW1 the eye witness and the conductor of the alleged bus has admitted that the alleged acciedent was happened by other vehicles. And No independent witnesses were examined by the prosecution and moreover the PW4 the eye witness specifically admitted that there was no road humps, signals or footpath at the alleged spot of the accident and pedestrians should cross the road only where there is a zebra cross. By the evidence of the PW4 the eye witness it is evident that there was no zebra crossing at the alleged spot of the accident. Hence at this juncture it is proved that the alleged accident was happened due to the negligent act of the pedestrian.
19. The essential ingredients of section 279 of IPC are as follows.
10 CC No.12485/2018
a) It is the manner in which the vehicle is driven:
b) it be driven either rashly or negligently and
c) Such rash or negligent driving should be such as to endanger human life.
20. The essential ingredients of section 338 of IPC are as follows.
a) That some grevious hurt was caused to any person.
b) That such hurt was caused by doing rash or negligent act.
c) Such any act endanger human life or the safety of others:
21. 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 relied on the evidence of Pws.1 to 4. The PW-1 to PW4 have not specifically deposed anything about the alleged accident to prove the guilt of the accused. There is no cogent and reliable evidence to prove the ingridents of Sec.279, 338 of IPC. It is pertinent to note that none of the prosecution witnessess deposed about the alleged accident.
22. The available evidence does not inspire the confidence of this court that accused had committed offence 11 CC No.12485/2018 punishable U/sec.279, 338 of 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.
23. Point No.3: In view of the discussion 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.
Bail bonds of accused and surety bonds shall stand cancelled after completion of appeal period.
(Dictated to the stenographer, directly on the computer, typed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 22 nd day of February 2023.) (REKHA H C) MMTC-I, MAYOHALL UNIT BANGALORE.12 CC No.12485/2018
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESS EXAMINED ON PROSECUSION SIDE:
PW.1 : Deepak Srinivas PW.2 : Nagaraju PW.3 : Amita Kumari PW.4 : Harshavardhan
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON PROSECUSION SIDE:
Ex.P.1 : IMV report Ex.P.2 : Wound certificate Ex.P.3 : 133 Notice Ex.P.4 : 133 Reply notice Ex.P.5 : Statement of witness PW1 Ex.P.6 : Complaint Ex.P.7 : FIR Ex.P.8 : Spot Mahazar Ex.P.9 : Sketch Ex.P.10 : Trip Sheet Ex.P.11 : Log Sheet
LIST OF WITNESS EXAMINED ON DEFENCE SIDE:
---NIL---
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON DEFENCE SIDE:
---NIL---
(REKHA H C) MMTC-I, MAYOHALL UNIT BANGALORE.