Bangalore District Court
State By Kamakshipalya Traffic Police ... vs Kantharaju. G S/O Ganganna. G.C. Aged; ... on 13 October, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
TRAFFIC COURT- II BENGALURU.
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2015
Present: Sri. Rajendra Kumar. K.M.
LLM. M Phil,
Metropolitan Magistrate,
Traffic Court-II, Bengaluru.
C.C. No. 1306/2014
Complainant: State by Kamakshipalya Traffic Police Station,
Bangalore.
(Represented by: Sr. APP)
V/s
Accused:- Kantharaju. G S/o Ganganna. G.C. aged; 37 Yrs,
Driver, token No. 17628, BMTC 9th Depot,
Peenya 2nd Stage, Bengaluru.
Driver of KSRTC Bus no. KA 01 F 9583.
(Represented by Sri. HSS, Advocate)
1. Date of commission of offence: 5.5.2014
2. Offences alleged against accused : U/sec. 279, 337 and
338 of IPC.
3. Date of recording of evidence: 3.12.2014
4. Date of Judgment: 13.10.2015
JUDGMENT
This case emanates from the charge sheet filed by Police Inspector of Kamakshipalya Traffic P.S. against the accused 2 CC 1306/2014 alleging that he has committed the offence punishable U/sec. 279, 337 and 338 of IPC.
2. The brief case of the prosecution is that;
It is the case of the prosecution that on 5.5.2014 at about 9-15 a.m. the accused being the driver of BMTC bus no. KA 01 F 9583 drove the same on Magadi main road from Sunkadakatte towards Vigneshwara Nagar in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger the human life and dashed against motor cycle no. KA 02 HN 6083 which was coming from Byadarahalli towards Sunkadakatte. Due to the impact rider/CW-1 and pillion rider/CW-2 fell down and CWs- 1 & 2 suffered simple and grievous injuries. Thereby the accused has committed the offences punishable U/sec. 279, 337 and 338 of IPC.
3. The record discloses that accused person was released on court bail.
4. On receipt of charge sheet this court has taken cognizance of the offences U/sec. 190 of Cr.P.C.
5. Acting U/sec. 207 of Cr.P.C. all the copies of prosecution papers were furnished to the counsel for the accused. Since, there are grounds for presuming that the accused person has committed the offences triable by this court, this court proceeded to frame the substance of accusation. The accused person pleaded not guilty and 3 CC 1306/2014 claimed to be tried. Therefore, the matter was posted for recording the evidence of prosecution.
6. For the proof of the case, the prosecution has examined 7 witnesses out of 10 witnesses and got exhibited documents as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10. The CWs. 5 to 7 are dropped with consent.
7. Since, there was incriminating evidence, the statement of the accused person U/sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. The case of the accused is that of total denial.
8. I have heard both sides.
9. Now the points that arise for my consideration are as follows:
1. Whether prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 5.5.2014 at about 9-15 a.m. the accused being the driver of BMTC bus no. KA 01 F 9583 drove the same on Magadi main road from Sunkadakatte towards Vigneshwara Nagar in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger the human life and dashed against motor cycle no. KA 02 HN 6083. 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, Due to the impact rider/CW-1 and pillion rider/CW-2 fell down and CWs-1 & 2 suffered simple and 4 CC 1306/2014 grievous injuries. Thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable U/sec. 337 and 338 of IPC?
3. What Order?
10. Now, my findings to the above points are as follows:
Point Nos.1 & 2 : Negative Point No. 3: As per order, for the following:
REASONS
11. Point Nos. 1 & 2 :- It is well laid that in a criminal case the entire burden of proof rest upon the prosecution and the accused need prove nothing. Suffice for the accused to create doubt about the case of the prosecution and the reliability of the witnesses for prosecution. With this background, I proceed to discuss the evidence available on record.
12. It is the case of the prosecution that on 5.5.2014 at about 9-15 a.m. the accused being the driver of BMTC bus no. KA 01 F 9583 drove the same on Magadi main road from Sunkadakatte towards Vigneshwara Nagar in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger the human life and dashed against motor cycle no. KA 02 HN 6083 which was coming from Byadarahalli towards Sunkadakatte. Due to the impact rider/CW-1 and pillion rider/CW-2 fell down and CWs- 1 & 2 suffered simple and grievous injuries. Thereby the accused has committed the offences punishable U/sec. 279, 337 and 338 of IPC.
5 CC 1306/201413. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution got examined the PW-1 who is injured and first informant deposes that on 5.5.2014 at about 9-15 a.m. he along with CW-2 were proceeding on two wheeler no. KA 02 HN 6083 from Byadarahalli towards Basaveshwaranagar, near Bellada Hanumanthappa circle, Sunkadakatte, one BMTC bus came in negligent manner and dashed against their vehicle. Due to the impact, he fell down and became unconscious and was shifted to Unity hospital for treatment. The police came to hospital and recorded his statement. The PW-1 further deposes that the accident had happened due to the fault of bus driver and the registration number of the bus is KA 01F 9583 and he suffered injuries to his head and right leg and CW-2 suffered injuries to his right hand. The said first information is marked as Ex.P.1 and his signature at Ex.P.1
(a).
14. The PW-1 is the first informant and injured witness. The learned counsel for the accused has cross examined the PW-1 wherein he admits that as soon as the accident had happened, he became unconscious and therefore he was unable to observe the bus number or the driver. The PW-1 further admits that he has not observed the bus. The PW-1 further admits that as there is a junction and right turn in the spot of the accident, all the vehicles move in slow manner. The PW-1 further admits that there were other vehicles moving in front and rear side of the bus.
6 CC 1306/201415. The PW-2 is an eye witness deposes that on 5.5.2014 at about 9-15 a.m. he along with CW-1 were proceeding on two wheeler no. KA 02 HN 6083 on Magadi road, near Bellada Hanumanthappa circle, Sunkadakatte, one BMTC bus came in negligent manner and dashed against their vehicle. Due to the impact, he and CW-1 fell down and CW-1 became unconscious and he suffered injuries to his right hand and they were shifted to hospital by the public. The PW-2 further deposes that the accident had happened due to the fault of bus driver and also identified the accused before court and the registration number of the bus is KA 01 F 9583 and he gave statement before the police.
16. The PW-2 is an eye witness. The learned counsel for the accused has cross examined the PW-2, wherein he admits that as there is a junction in the spot of the accident all the vehicles will move slowly. The PW-2 further admits that there were other vehicles proceeding in front and rear side of the bus.
17. The PW-3 is an eye witness and spot mahazar witness who partly turned hostile to the case of the prosecution deposes that on 5.5.2014 at about 9-15 a.m. on Magadi road, one BMTC bus no. KA 01 F 9583 came from Sunkadakatte while taking right turn in the said circle dashed against two wheeler which was coming from Byadarahalli. Due to the impact, the rider suffered injuries to his head and right leg and pillion rider suffered injuries to his right leg and hand 7 CC 1306/2014 and they were shifted to hospital by him and the driver of the offending bus. The PW-3 also identified the accused before court and accident had happened due to the fault of bus driver and the police called him to the spot and took his signature. The said spot mahazar is marked at Ex.P.2 and his signature at Ex.P. 2 (a).
18. The PW-3 has partly turned hostile to the prosecution case. During the course of cross-examination of this witness by the learned Sr. APP, nothing has been elicited from the mouth of this witness so as to hold that he is deposing falsely in order to help the accused person. The statement of the witness is marked at Ex.P.3.
19. The learned counsel for the accused has cross examined the PW-3 wherein he admits that the injured witness is known to him. The PW-3 further admits that prior to him going to the spot of the accident, there was already accident had happened in between the bus and the two wheeler. The PW-3 further admits that he has not seen the bus prior to the accident and volunteers that he went there after hearing sound. The PW-3 also admits that as there was a junction in the spot of the accident, all the vehicles move in slow manner. The PW-3 also feigned his ignorance that he do not know who were present along with him at the time of signing the spot mahazar.
20. The PW-4 is another spot mahazar witness who deposes that on 5.5.2014 at about 5-45 p.m. on Magadi road, 8 CC 1306/2014 Belladahanumanthappa circle the police called him and conducted spot mahazar and took his signature. The said spot mahazar is already marked at Ex.P.2 and his signature at Ex.P. 2 (b) and he came to know that the accident had happened in between the BMTC bus and the two wheeler.
21. The PW-4 is a panch witness. The learned counsel for the accused has cross examined the PW-4 wherein he admits that the injured person is known to him. The PW-4 also admits that he has signed the spot mahazar as per Ex.P.2 (b) at Kamakshipalya police station.
22. The PW-5 is ARTO deposes that on 5.5.2014, the Kamakshipalya police have issued the notice u/sec. 133 of IMV act with respect to accident caused by the bus no. KA 01 F 9583 and he gave reply to the same and further deposes that one Kantharaju. G, token no. 17628 was the driver and one Yarnag, token no. 12167 was the conductor of the said bus. The said copy of 133 notice and reply are marked at Exs.P. 4 & 5 respectively and his signatures at Exs.P.4 (a) and 5 (a) respectively.
23. The learned counsel for the accused has cross examined the PW-5 wherein he admits that on that date he has not deputed the driver and conductor.
24. The PW-7 is the PSI who has investigated the case has supported the case of the prosecution to the extent that on 5.5.2014 he visited the Unity Life Line hospital and recorded the statement of CW-1 as per Ex.P.1 and on its basis, 9 CC 1306/2014 he registered the case in Cr. No. 64/14 and sent FIR to the court and his superior officers. FIR is marked at Ex.P.9 and his signature at Ex.P.9 (a) and he visited the spot and drawn spot mahazar in presence of panch witnesses and prepared rough sketch which are marked at Exs.P. 2 & 10 respectively. The signatures marked at Exs.P.2 (c) & 10 (a) respectively. Then he got issued notice u/sec. 133 of IMV Act to supervisor of BMTC authorities as per Ex.P.4 and obtained reply as per Ex.P.5 and his signatures are marked at Exs.P.4 (b) & 5 (b) respectively and he arrested the accused and released on bail and gave requisition to RTO authorities to inspect the vehicle and handed over further investigation to CW-10.
25. The learned counsel for the accused has cross examined the PW-7 wherein he admits that as there is right turn in the spot of the accident all the vehicles will move slowly. The PW-7 also admits that the accident had happened during peak hours and that there was huge traffic.
26. The PW-6 is also investigating officer deposes that he took further investigation from CW-9 and on 30.5.2014 he received Wound certificates as per Exs.P. 6 & 7 respectively and his signatures at Exs.P. 6 (a) and 7 (a) respectively and on 19.5.2014 received IMV report as per Ex.P.8 and his signature at Ex.P. 8 (a) respectively and on conclusion of investigation he filed the charge sheet against the accused.
27. The learned counsel for the accused has cross- examined the PW-6 wherein nothing has been elicited from the 10 CC 1306/2014 mouth of this witness which is useful to the case of the accused person. All the suggestions put forward to the witness are denied.
28. On marshalling entire evidence and on meticulous perusal of the documentary proof, in this case the PW-1 who is injured witness himself has not properly identified the accused person as he became unconscious after the accident. The panch witnesses have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. All the witnesses have categorically admitted that there was a junction and right turn, all the vehicles move slowly in the spot of the accident. There is nothing on record to hold that the accused person had drove his bus in a rash and negligent manner. All the panch witnesses i.e., PWs. 3 & 4 are known to the injured person. The prosecution has failed to explain as to how and why only the persons known to the injured were present at the spot of the accident. The prosecution has not arrayed any independent witnesses as witness in this case. It is well settled principle of law that only on the basis of the evidence of official witnesses, no conviction can be given to the accused. Hence, I am of the opinion that in this case there is no rash and negligent driving of the accused person. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, this court is of the firm opinion that the benefit of doubt shall be extended to the accused person holding that prosecution is unable to bring home the guilt of accused 11 CC 1306/2014 beyond all reasonable doubt. The defence side has successfully created doubt in the case of the prosecution.
29. Thus, the evidence made available by the prosecution falls short of legal evidence to establish the accusations or charges leveled against the accused person. Thus, under the above circumstances, I am of the clear opinion that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of accused person beyond all shadow of doubt. Hence, I am of the firm opinion that this is a fit case wherein benefit of doubt can be given to accused person. Hence, I answer the above points in the negative.
30. Point No.3: In view of the discussions 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. 279 337 & 338 of IPC.
The accused person is set at liberty.
His bail bond stands cancelled after the period of six months.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 13th day of October 2015).
(Rajendra Kumar. K.M) M.M.T.C-II, Bengaluru.
12 CC 1306/2014ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for Prosecution:-
PW-1 Gangadhar PW-2 Kantharaju. G PW-3 Gopal PW-4 Jagadeesh PW-5 C. Madappa PW-6 K. Gangadharaiah PW-7 H. Chandrashekar
List of documents marked for Prosecution:
Ex.P.1: First information
Ex.P.1 (a & b) Signature of PWs 1 & 7
Ex.P.2 Spot mahazar
Ex.P.2 (a to c) Signatures of PWs. 3, 4 & 7
Ex.P.3 Statement of PW-3
Ex.P.4 Copy of 133 notice
Ex.P.4 (a & b) Signatures of PWs 5 & 7
Ex.P.5 Reply
Ex.P.5 (a & b) Signature of PWs-5 & 7
Ex.P.6 & 7 Wound certificates
Ex.P.6 (a) & 7 (a) Signature of PW 6
Ex.P.8 IMV report
Ex.P.8 (a) Signature of PW-6
Ex.P.9 FIR
Ex.P.9 (a) Signature of PW-7
Ex.P.10 Rough sketch
Ex.P.10 (a) Signature of PW-7
13 CC 1306/2014
List of witnesses examined for defence side:-
Nil.
List of documents marked for defence side:
Nil (Rajendra Kumar. K.M) M.M.T.C-II, Bengaluru.14 CC 1306/2014
Orders vide separate Order sheet 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.
The accused person is set at liberty.
His bail bond stands cancelled after the period of six months.
(Rajendra Kumar. K.M) M.M.Tr.Ct-II, B'lore.
15 CC 1306/2014