Bangalore District Court
State By P.S.I vs Karibasappa.T on 31 January, 2020
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE TRAFFIC
COURT - V, BENGALURU
PRESENT : SMT.POOJA SHETTI
B.A., LL.B. (Hon's).
M.M.T.C - V, BENGALURU
DATED THIS 31st DAY OF JANUARY 2020
C.C.No.1518 - 2017
COMPLAINANT : STATE BY P.S.I
HIGH GROUNDS TR. P.S.
BANGALORE.
// VS //
ACCUSED : KARIBASAPPA.T,
S/O.LATE.T.BASANNA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
KANAHOSAHALLI,
KUDLAGI TALUK,
BELLARY DISTRICT,
KARNATAKA.
Date of Commission of Offence 22.10.2016.
Date of report of Offence 22.10.2016.
Name of the complainant Krishna Murthy.G.
Date of recording of evidence 14.06.2017.
Date of closing of evidence 04.06.2019.
Offences complained of U/Sec.279 and 304(A) of IPC.
Opinion of the Judge Accused found not guilty.
2 C.C.No.1518 - 2017
JUDGEMENT
The Police Inspector of High Grounds Traffic Police Station, Bengaluru, has filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under section 279 and 304(A) of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution cases is as under:
That on 22.10.2016 at about 8.00 p.m., within the jurisdiction of High Grounds Traffic Police Station at P.F.Road near K.M.F. Junction, the accused being the driver of the KSRTC Bus bearing its registration No.KA.33.F.231 drove the same in rash and negligent manner, so as to endanger human life and dashed a pedestrian, who was crossing the road. Due to the impact of accident, the said pedestrian sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries on his way to hospital. Hence, the complaint.
3. On receipt of the compliant lodged by the complainant, the police have registered a case in Cr.No.338/2016 against the accused for the offence punishable under section 279 and 304(A) of IPC.
4. Thereafter, the investigating officer conducted spot mahazar and prepared a sketch in the presence of CW.3, CW.10 and CW.11 and on the same day, he recorded the statement of CW.2 to 3 C.C.No.1518 - 2017 CW.4. After the completion of investigation, the inspector of High Grounds Police Station has submitted the charge sheet against the accused.
5. Cognizance of the offence was taken. The accused is on bail.
6. The copies of prosecution papers along with charge sheet were furnished to the accused as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C.
7. The plea for the offence punishable under section 279 and 304(A) of IPC., was recorded and read over to the accused, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried by this court. Hence, summonses were issued to the prosecution witness.
8. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined 6 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.6 and got marked 12 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12 and the prosecution side was closed. Thereafter, the statement of the accused as required under section 313 of Cr.P.C was recorded. The accused has denied all incriminating evidences appeared against him but did not adduce defense evidence. 4 C.C.No.1518 - 2017
9. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the documentary evidence on record.
10. The points that arise for my consideration are;
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 22.10.2016 at about 8.00 p.m., within the jurisdiction of High Grounds Traffic Police Station at P.F.Road near K.M.F. Junction, the accused being the driver of the KSRTC Bus bearing its registration No.KA.33.F.231 drove the same in rash and negligent manner, so as to endanger human life and dashed a pedestrian, who was crossing the road and thereby accused committed an offence punishable u/Sec.279 of the IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that on above said date, place and time, due to the impact of accident, the said pedestrian sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries on his way to hospital and thereby accused committed an offence punishable u/Sec.304(A) of the IPC ?
3. What order ?
11. My findings on 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:
5 C.C.No.1518 - 2017
:REASONS:
12. POINT NO.1 and 2: As these points are interlinked with each other, they are taken up together for consideration in order to avoid repetition.
13. PW.1, one Krishnamurthy claiming to be complainant deposed that, on 22.10.2016, when he was at his house, at about 9.00 pm., High Grounds Police called and informed that, his son has met with an accident and has been admitted to K.C. General hospital. When he went hospital, he came to know that, his son has succumbed to the injuries. Thereafter, he came to know that, when his son was walking towards Jakkarayana Lake, in front of Krishna Flour Mill, a KSRTC Bus bearing its registration No.KA.33.F.231 being driven in high speed, came from Okalipuram and dashed his son. According to this witness, at the time of accident, his son was crossing the roads on zebra crossing, hence, on the same day, he lodged complaint with respect to accident. The complaint identified by the witness was marked as Ex.P.1. According to this witness, police had shown the accused to him at police station and the witness identifies the accused present before the court. During his cross- 6 C.C.No.1518 - 2017 examination, the witness denies the suggestion that, he has seen the accused, only in the court and claims that, he has seen the accused at police station also.
14. PW.2, one Armugam claiming to be eye witness deposed that, on 22.10.2016 at about 8.00 pm., when he was proceeding towards Sampige Road in his motorcycle, a bus bearing its registration No.KA.33.F.231 came from Okalipuram being driven in rash manner, while taking U turn near Krishna Flour Mill, dashed a pedestrian by name Jagadeesh. Due to the impact of accident, the said Jagadeesh sustained injuries, hence driver and conductor of the said bus, took the Jagadeesh to K.C. General Hospital. Thereafter, he came to know that, Jagadeesh succumbed to the injuries. According to this witness, he can identify the driver of the bus and identifies accused present before the court. During his cross-examination by counsel for the accused, the witness deposes that, his working hours is between 8.00 am to 8.00 pm., and the accident spot is not situated between his house and work place. He further admits the suggestion that, at P.F junction there will be heavy traffic. He further admits the 7 C.C.No.1518 - 2017 suggestion that, in the said road, for every 10 to 20 kilo meter, there is a turn, hence every vehicle has to move slowly.
15. PW.3, one Surendra claiming to be eye witness, turned partly hostile to the prosecution case and deposed that, on 22.10.2016, he has been deputed to discharge duty at KMF Junction from 2.00 pm to 10.00 pm., at about 10.00 pm., a KSRTC bus bearing its registration No.KA.33.F.331, which was proceeding towards P.F.Junction, being driven in rash and negligent manner, while taking right turn, at K.M.F. Junction dashed a pedestrian, hence the pedestrian fell down and sustained injuries to his chest, hand and leg. Thereafter, with the help of accused, conductor and public, injured was sent to K.C. General Hospital in an auto rickshaw. Thereafter, he came to know that, the injured has succumbed to the injuries at the hospital, hence he has given information about the accident to his station. The witness further deposes that, on the next day, between 2.00 to 3.00 pm., investigating office conducted spot mahazar at the spot shown by him and at the time of spot mahazar, two people were also present. The spot mahazar identified by the witness was marked as Ex.P.7. During his cross-examination by the prosecution, the 8 C.C.No.1518 - 2017 witness admits the suggestion that, the registration number of KSRTC Bus is KA.33.F.231 and along with him, CW.10 and CW.11 have also signed Ex.P.7. He further admits the suggestion that, injured has sustained injuries to his head also. During his cross-examination by counsel for the accused, the witness deposes that, he was 30 to 35 feet away from the accident spot. He further admits the suggestion that, as the accident took place during peak hours, there was heavy traffic and metro railway construction was under progress. According to this witness, he does not know as to which signal was there, when the accused was taking U turn. However, he admits the suggestion that, only when there is green signal, vehicle can move and when there is green signal for vehicles, the pedestrians are not supposed to cross the road. He further deposes that, within 30 seconds of the noise, he went to accident spot and as per sketch, in the center of the road, accident has taken place.
16. PW.4, one Ravindranath claming to the spot mahazar witness, when confronted with spot mahazar deposed that, on 23.10.2016 at KMF Junction, with respect to an accident, when police conducted spot mahazar and prepared a sketch between 2.00 pm to 3.00 pm., he has signed the same. During his cross-examination, the 9 C.C.No.1518 - 2017 witness admits the suggestion that, as police asked him to sign the spot mahazar, he has signed the same and deposes that, police have issued notice to him to become a witness.
17. PW.5, one Saravan claming to the spot mahazar witness, when confronted with spot mahazar deposed that, on 23.10.2016 at KMF Junction, with respect to an accident, when police conducted spot mahazar between 2.00 pm to 3.00 pm., he has signed the same. During his cross-examination by the prosecution, witness admits the suggestion that, at the time of spot mahazar, police also prepared a sketch. During his cross-examination by counsel for the accused, witness deposes that, he does not know reading and writing kannada language. When it has been suggested that, he has signed spot mahazar, as per the instruction of police, the witness claims that, he has read the spot mahazar. On perusal of spot mahazar i.e., Ex.P.7, it has been written in kannada.
18. PW.6 - Investigating Officer deposed that, on 22.10.2016 at about 10.00 pm., on the basis of written complaint lodged by CW.1, he registered a case in Cr.No.338/2016 and submitted FIR to the court. On the same day, he visited to K.C.General Hospital and 10 C.C.No.1518 - 2017 shifted deceased from K.C.General Hospital to Bowring Hospital. On 23.10.2016, he visited the Bowring Hospital and conducted inquest on the body of the deceased in the presence of CW.6 to CW.9, thereafter he issued requisition to the doctor to conduct post mortem and after completion of the post mortem, the body was handed over to the legal heirs of the deceased. Thereafter, between 2.00 to 3.00 pm., he visited the accident spot, conducted spot mahazar, prepared a sketch in the presence of CW.3, CW.10 and CW.11, thereafter he recorded the statement of CW.2 to CW.4. Thereafter, he sent a requisition to RTO - Yeshwanthpur to conduct vehicle inspection. On the same day, CW.14 examined the said vehicle. On 25.10.2016, he issued notice under section 133 of MV Act., to CW.12 and obtained reply to the said notice. Thereafter, he received Trip Sheet and Log Sheet. On 10.11.2016, he received post mortem report and on 07.11.2016, he received IMV Report and after completion of the investigation, he submitted charge sheet against the accused to the court.
19. When reconsidered all the evidences available on record, it is the contention of the accused that, the pedestrian suddenly tried to cross the road, where there was no zebra crossing, hence the accident 11 C.C.No.1518 - 2017 took place and there was no rashness or negligence on part of the accused. In order to bring guilt of the accused home, the prosecution has examined PW.2 and PW.3 as eye witnesses. PW.1 is a hearsay complainant, however as per his deposition, at the time of accident, his son was crossing the road at Zebra Crossing. Further, according to him, he has seen driver of the bus at police station and it is the police who had shown the accused to him. However, on perusal of Ex.P.1 i.e., complaint, the complainant has nowhere stated that, his son was crossing the road at zebra crossing. Further, according to Ex.P.1, the police and public sent the injured to hospital along with the accused. According to PW.2, at the time of accident, he was proceeding towards majestic in his motorcycle. However, as per his statement given to police, he came to KMF Junction by walking and while he was waiting to cross the road, accident took place. Further, no where this witness deposes about presence of traffic police at the time of accident. According to him, it is driver and conductor of alleged bus, who took the injured to hospital. Further, during his cross-examination, the witness admits the suggestion that, at P.F junction there will be heavy traffic. He further admits the suggestion that, in the said road, for every 10 to 20 kilo meter, there is a turn, 12 C.C.No.1518 - 2017 hence every vehicle has to move slowly. With respect to PW.3, he claims that, he was present at the spot and he has witnessed the accident. However, during his cross-examination, he admits the suggestion that, as the accident took place during peak hours, there was heavy traffic and metro railway construction was under progress. According to this witness, he does not know as to which signal was there, when the accused was taking U turn. However, he admits the suggestion that, only when there is green signal, vehicle can move and when there is green signal for vehicles, the pedestrians are not supposed to cross the road. He further deposes that, within 30 seconds of the noise, he went to accident spot and as per sketch, in the center of the road, accident has taken place. Hence, it is very clear that, as there was green signal for the vehicle, when the accused was taking U turn. Further, during the cross-examination of investigating officer i.e., PW.6, he also admits the suggestion that, at the accident spot, there was no zebra crossing. Further, PW.5, on one hand deposes that, he does not know reading and writing kannada language, on another hand claims that, he has reads spot mahazar which is in kannada language. Under such circumstances, when there is negligence on part of the pedestrian, the benefit of doubt 13 C.C.No.1518 - 2017 should be given the accused, hence the evidences of prosecution is not substantial, cogent and convincing to attach the guilt of the accused to the alleged offences. Hence, Point No.1 and 2 are answered in the NEGATIVE.
20. Point No.3: For forgoing discussion and findings on point No.1 and 2, following order is passed:
ORDER Acting u/Sec.255(1) of the Cr.P.C., the accused is hereby acquitted for the offences punishable u/Ss.279 and 304(A) of the IPC.
The bail bond of the accused shall stand cancelled.
(The judgment dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, transcribed and typed by him and corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this 31st day of January 2020) (POOJA SHETTI) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, TRAFFIC COURT- V, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION:
P.W.1 G.Krishnamurthy.
P.W.2 Armugam.S.
P.W.3 Surendra.
P.W.4 Ravindranath.
14 C.C.No.1518 - 2017
P.W.5 Saravana.
P.W.6 Suresh.M.R.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION
Ex.P.1 Complaint.
Ex.P.2 Inquest.
Ex.P.3 Post Mortem Report.
Ex.P.4 & 5 Notice & Reply u/Sec. 133 of M.V.Act.
Ex.P.6 IMV Report. Ex.P.7 Spot mahazar. Ex.P.8 FIR. Ex.P.9 Sketch. Ex.P.10 Trip Sheet. Ex.P.11 Log Sheet. Ex.P.12 Two Photos.
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR ACCUSED:
NIL (POOJA SHETTI) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, TRAFFIC COURT- V, BENGALURU.