Bangalore District Court
J B Nagar Tr Ps vs Naveen Kumar K M on 16 April, 2026
KABC0D0275712024
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS
TRAFFIC COURT-I AT MAYOHALL, BENGALURU
Present : Smt. Neelam Nitin Rao
Judicial Magistrate First Class
Traffic Court-I, Bengaluru
DATED 16th DAY OF APRIL 2026
C.C. No. 27286/2024
Complainant : JB Nagar Tr PS
Bangalore
(Rep by: State by Sr. APP)
V/s
Accused : Naveen Kumar. KM
S/o. Munibyre Gowda
Aged about 39 years
R/at: Kadedenahalli
Yeshwanthpura
Malur, Bengaluru
(Rep by : Adv Sri. DGS)
1. Date of commission of offence : 06.07.2024
2. Offence alleged : U/S.281, 125(b) IPC &.
134 (A&B) r/w 187 IMV
Act.
3. Date of recording of evidence : 17.06.2025
4. Date of Judgment : 16.04.2026
2
C.C. No. 27286/2024
JUDGMENT
The PI of JB Nagar (Indiranagar) Tr PS has filed a charge sheet in Cr No. 135/2024, against the accused for the offences punishable under sections 281, 125(b) BNSS and 134 (A&B) r/w Section 187 of the IMV Act.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution's case are as follows:
The accused was the driver of the BMTC bus No. KA 57 F 0011. On 06.07.2024 at 8.10 pm, the accused drove his vehicle on Malleshpalya main road, near Maruthinagar bus stop, from GM Pallya towards Vignanana Nagar at high speed. Passengers were boarding, and some were standing by to board the bus. The accused suddenly closed the automatic middle door of the bus. At that time, CW.4, Sri Rangaraj, was getting down from the bus. As the doors were closed, he fell and sustained injuries to his left hand and left leg. He was taken to the hospital. After the incident, neither of the accused provided medical assistance to the injured person nor reported the incident to the nearest police station. Thereby, the accused has committed an offence punishable under section 281, 125(b), BNS, and 134(A&B) read with 187 IMV Act.
3. After receipt of the complaint, the investigating officer registered the case and visited the spot, conducted a mahazar in the presence of mahazar witnesses. Inquired and obtained statements of witnesses. After completion of the investigation, the IO has filed a charge sheet against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 281 and 125(b) of the IPC, and under Section 134(A&B) r/w Section 187 of the IMV Act.
3C.C. No. 27286/2024
4. After receipt of the Charge Sheet, this court has verified all the prosecution records and considering that there are prima facie materials to proceed further against the accused, cognizance for the alleged offence punishable under section punishable under Section 281, 125(b) IPC, and under Section 134 (A&B) r/w Section 187 of the IMV Act was taken, and a criminal case was registered against the accused in a register no. III, and the process was issued against the accused.
5. Pursuant to the summons, the accused appeared through his counsel and availed bail. Prosecution papers were supplied to the accused as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.
6. Heard arguments canvassed by learned Sr APP and learned counsel for the accused as there are no grounds to discharge the accused from the case and there are materials to adjudicate the matter; hence, the substance of the accusation was framed. Read over and explained to the accused in the language best known to him. The accused pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried. Hence, the case was posted for the prosecution to present evidence. Out of 11 witnesses, the prosecution has examined 5 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.5, marked 10 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10, and closed its prosecution evidence.
7. After the conclusion of prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused as required U/s. 313 Cr. P.C. is recorded, read over and explained to the accused in the language best known to him. The accused denied all incriminating circumstances that appeared against him in the 4 C.C. No. 27286/2024 prosecution's evidence. However, not chosen to lead his defence evidence. Hence, the case was posted for arguments.
8. Heard arguments canvassed by learned Sr. APP and learned counsel for the accused. Meticulously perused documents placed on record.
9. The following points arise for my consideration; Point No.1: Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, on 06.07.2024 at 8.10 pm, the accused drove his vehicle on Malleshpalya main road, near Maruthinagar bus stop, from GM Palya towards Vignanana Nagar at high speed. Passengers were boarding, and some were standing by to board the bus. The accused suddenly closed the automatic middle door of the bus. At that time, CW.4, Sri Rangaraj, was getting down from the bus. As the doors were closed, he fell and sustained injuries to his left hand and left leg. He was taken to the hospital. Has the accused thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 281 of the BNS?
Point No.2: Whether the prosecution proves beyond a reasonable doubt that on the aforementioned date, time and place, the accused was the 06.07.2024 at 8.10 pm, the accused drove his vehicle on Malleshpalya main road, near Maruthinagar bus stop, from GM Palya towards Vignanana Nagar at high speed. Passengers were boarding, and some were standing by to board the bus. The accused suddenly closed the automatic middle 5 C.C. No. 27286/2024 door of the bus. At that time, CW.4, Sri. Rangaraj, was getting down from the bus. As the doors were closed, he fell and sustained injuries to his left hand and left leg. He was taken to the hospital. Thereby, has the accused committed an offence punishable under Section 125(b) of the BNS?
Point No.3: Whether the prosecution proves beyond a reasonable doubt that on the aforementioned date, time and place, the accused was the driver of 06.07.2024 at 8.10 pm, the accused drove his vehicle on Malleshpalya main road, near Maruthinagar bus stop, from GM Palya towards Vignanana Nagar at high speed. Passengers were boarding, and some were standing by to board the bus. The accused suddenly closed the automatic middle door of the bus. At that time, CW.4, Sri Rangaraj, was getting down from the bus. As the doors were closed, he fell and sustained injuries to his left hand and left leg. He was taken to the hospital. After the incident, neither of the accused provided medical assistance to the injured person nor reported the incident to the nearest police station. Thereby, has the accused committed an offence punishable under Section 134 (A&B) r/w 187 of the IMV Act?
Point No.4: What order?
10. My findings on the above points are as follows:
Point No.1: In the negative Point No.2: In the negative 6 C.C. No. 27286/2024 Point No.3: In the negative Point No.4: As per the foregoing for the following reasons REASONS
11. Points No.1 to 3: As these point are related and will be discussed together to avoid repetition. In this case, the prosecution bears the burden of proving the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It must be proven that the accused was the driver of the vehicle involved and that he operated it in a rash or negligent manner at the relevant spot, endangering human life and causing the fatal incident.
12. To establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined five witnesses, PW.1 to PW.5, and marked ten documents as Ex.P.1. The prosecution called CW.3, Sri. Sharan, as PW.1. In his main testimony, a mahazar was marked as Ex.P.1, with his signature as Ex.P.1(a). He stated that the police obtained his signature near the Maruthinagar bus stop. During cross-examination, he said he did not know CW.1 and was not working near the incident site. He explained that on 08.07.2024, when he went to buy vegetables, the police called him. He noted that the police were inspecting the spot but did not call him; they merely told him that one boy was missing. He did not know CW.1's residence and testified about the boundaries, mentioning that the police did not give him any notice. He admitted he did not know how many people had gathered at the scene and denied other suggestions.
7C.C. No. 27286/2024
13. The prosecution then examined CW.4, Sri Rangaraju, as PW.2. In his main testimony, he stated that on 06.07 at 7:45 pm, he boarded a BMTC bus from Malleswaram heading towards Maruthi Nagar. When he was about to get off at the Maruthi Nagar bus stop, the door suddenly closed. His leg was caught, causing him to fall outside the bus. He suffered serious injuries to his left hand and leg and was admitted to Lakshmi Hospital. The bus driver then closed the bus, which had the number K57F0011. He also identified the accused.
14. During cross-examination, he stated that he was heading towards the BEML gate for work, but on that day, he had not gone to work. His working hours are from 8:30 to 5:30. He provided a bus ticket to the police and boarded the bus in Malleshpalya, heading towards Maruthinagara, which is about 1.5 kilometres away. He denied being intoxicated on the day of the incident, though he admitted to being intoxicated at some point, losing control, and being unaware of his surroundings when he fell. He mentioned that two days after the incident, the police came to see him. He had no trouble filing a complaint on the day of the event. When asked whether his medical records mention his wife being with him, he replied he knows nothing about it. Around 15 to 20 passengers were on the bus, which had a conductor. He agrees that if the conductor gives an instruction, the bus door closes, and that the hydraulic door system was installed to prevent passengers from falling out. After the bus stopped, three passengers got off while no one boarded. He was unaware of the bus ticket details. He has filed a claim petition. Since the accident, he has not spoken with the accused. He admits that the bus door closes slowly and states 8 C.C. No. 27286/2024 that all buses lack sufficient facilities for boarding or alighting comfortably. It was suggested that his negligence caused the accident, but he did not inform anyone and received only three days of medical treatment.
15. The prosecution then questioned CW.1, Sri Abhishek, who is CW.4's son and the PW.3. He testified that on 06-07-2024 at 8:15 pm, his sister called to inform him of an accident involving his father and bus no. KA57F0011, which occurred around 8:10 pm. His house is approximately 200 meters from the accident scene. They arrived at the hospital around 8:40 pm. He acknowledged that he experienced no issues in filing a complaint the following day. He also confirmed that Ex. P.2 stated the bus struck CW.4's left hand and leg. However, he denied that such an injury would typically result in fractured bones. When advised that CW.4's supposed negligence caused the accident, he denied this claim.
16. The prosecution then examined CW.5, Sri Sridhar, as PW.4. He testified that on 06.07.2024 at 8:10 pm, he was engaged in his work. At that moment, a bus travelling from Malleshpalya to Maruthi Nagar arrived. After all passengers disembarked, CW.4 was exiting when the bus door closed, causing CW. 4's right leg got caught, resulting in a fall. He stated that as the bus doors were closing, the accused's bus started to move. CW.4 shouted, and he went to the scene. The bus had the number KA57F0011, and he identified the accused.
17. During cross-examination, he stated that when he went to the spot, there were 50 to 70 persons. The accused 9 C.C. No. 27286/2024 moved his bus 50 meters. He stated that the bus wheel did not run over the hand and leg of CW.4. Whether the bus was travelling at high speed, he cannot certainly state. He cannot state that the bus dragged CW.4 for 10 meters. There was no hurdle to his lodging a complaint. He denied other situations.
18. Lastly, the prosecution has examined CW.11, B.G. Matthew as PW.5. She is the investigating officer of this case. She deposed the procedure she followed during the investigation of this case.
19. Based on the oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses, PW.1 was examined as a Mahazar Witness. However, it is unclear whether he authored Ex.P.1 or the Mahazar, as he stated that he was called by the police when someone was absent. PW.2, the injured person himself, admits that the bus door closed as instructed by the conductor and that he was about to get off when it closed. There is no evidence suggesting that the accused suddenly moved the bus and dragged him. Additionally, his testimony does not mention the bus wheel running over his hand or leg. PW.3 is the complainant but not an eyewitness. PW.4, who was examined as an eyewitness, falsely claimed that the bus dragged PW.4, but he admits that the bus did not run over his hand or leg.
20. A careful review of the oral testimony reveals contradictions among the prosecution witnesses. No supporting evidence is on record. It is unclear whether the accused was aware that CW.4 was disembarking negligently close to the bus. The conductor's responsibility cannot be dismissed since he was 10 C.C. No. 27286/2024 on board to guide the driver, who cannot see behind him. There is no evidence that the conductor instructed the accused or that the accused acted based on such instructions. Additionally, the prosecution witnesses do not support the claim that the bus door closed suddenly.
21. Regarding the document evidence, Ex.P.1 is the spot mahazar. Although PW. 2, the mahazar witness, stated that the police obtained his signature, PW. 1 did not claim to have written it. Ex.P.2 is the complaint. Notably, it mentions that when CW.4 was exiting, the door closed suddenly without warning, or he fell, and the bus ran over his left leg and left hand. This detail is absent from CW.4's account, while witnesses provide a different version. The accused, who was the bus driver, was present at the scene, as confirmed by Exs. P.3 and 4. No damage to the bus is shown in Ex.P.5, and if the bus had run over CW.4, there would likely be blood stains on the wheel, but Ex. P. 5 does not mention this. Ex.P.6 is the wound certificate. The hand-drawn map, Ex. P. 8 indicates the bus travelled from west to east, with no mention of a bus stop. It states CW. 4 was getting off on the left side, without clarifying whether there was a bus door there or if the door was visible. The wound certificate shows lacerations on the left leg, foot, and elbow, and a fracture of the left calcaneus. The accused's claim of rash and negligent driving remains unsubstantiated.
22. At this juncture, it is pertinent to refer to Section 281, Section 125(b) BNS. It reads as follows:
Section 279 of IPC- rash driving or riding on a public way.11
C.C. No. 27286/2024 Whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on any public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with a fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
Section 338 of IPC: Causing grievous hurt by an act endangering the life or personal safety of others. Whoever causes grievous hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
23. The primary issue revolves around the rash or negligent driving by the accused. According to the prosecution's witnesses and case, the accused was not operating the vehicle during the incident. The bus was stationary, and CW.4 was disembarking when the door closed. Section 281 of BNS does not apply here, as it only concerns those who drive or ride on a public way in a rash or negligent manner that endangers human life. Since the accused was not driving, these provisions do not apply. Regarding 125(b) BNS, any act that endangers human life or safety due to rashness or negligence is punishable. However, the prosecution failed to prove the essential elements of these charges. The presence of CW.4 on the bus, which has not been established, is also unproven. The accused, accused of rash or negligent driving under section 125(b) BNS, has not been proven to have caused such behaviour. Given uncorroborated witnesses, the conviction is unjustified. In criminal law, proof beyond a reasonable doubt is required, not just a preponderance of probabilities. When two interpretations are possible, the one that favours the accused should be considered, and doubt should benefit the accused. Therefore, I answer points 1 to 3 in the negative.
12C.C. No. 27286/2024
24. Point No.4: For myriad reasons discussed supra, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The accused was not found guilty of the alleged offence punishable under Sections 281, 125(b) BNS and 134(A&B) r/w 187 of the IMV Act.
Acting under Section 276(1) of BNSS, the accused is hereby acquitted of the offences alleged against him, punishable under Sections 281, 125(b) BNS, and 134(A&B) r/w 187 of the IMV Act.
Bail bonds of the accused and that of his surety bond shall continue till the expiry of the appeal period. (Dictated to stenographer, transcribed and typed by her on the computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this, the 16th day of April 2026).
Digitally signed by NEELAM NEELAM NITIN RAO
NITIN RAO Date: 2026.04.29
(Neelam Nitin Rao)
12:40:33 +0530
JMFC, Traffic Court - 1
Bangalore
13
C.C. No. 27286/2024
ANNEXURE
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON PROSECUTION SIDE:
1. PW.1 : Sri. Sharan
2. PW.2 : Sri. Rangaraju
3. PW.3 : Sri. Abhishek
4. PW.4 : Sri. Shidhar
5. PW.5 : Sri. B.G. Mathew LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON PROSECUTION SIDE:
Ex.P.1 : Spot Mahazar
Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of PW.1
Ex.P.1(b) : Signature
Ex.P.2 : Complaint
Ex.P.2(a) : Signature of PW.2
Ex.P.2(b) : Signature of PW.5
Ex.P.3 : 133 Notice
Ex.P.3(a) : Signature
Ex.P.4 : 133 Reply
Ex.P.4(a) : Signature
Ex.P.5 : IMV report
Ex.P.5(a) : Signature
Ex.P.6 : MLC
Ex.P.7 : FIR
Ex.P.7(a) : Signature
Ex.P.8 : Sketch
Ex.P.8(a) : Signature
Ex.P.9 : Logsheet
Ex.P.10 : Wound Certificate
Ex.P.10(a) : Signature
14
C.C. No. 27286/2024
LIST OF WITNESS EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS MARKED ON DEFENCE SIDE:
NIL (Dictated to stenographer, transcribed and typed by her on the computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this, the 16th day of April 2026).
NEELAM Digitally by NEELAM signed NITIN NITIN RAO Date: 2026.04.29 RAO 12:40:27 +0530 (Neelam Nitin Rao) JMFC, Traffic Court - 1 Bangalore