Bangalore District Court
K R Puram Tr Ps vs Anjinappa K M on 2 December, 2025
KABC0D0242182022
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 02ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2025
C.C. No. 24045/2022
Complainant : KR Puram Tr PS
Bangalore
(Rep by: State by Sr. APP)
V/s
Accused : 1. Anjinappa. K.M
S/o. Muniyappa
Aged about 49 years
R/at No. Kadusonnappanahalli
Village, Bidarahalli Hobli
Virgonagar Post
Bengaluru - 560 049
2. Mahesh Gajanan Naik
S/o. Gajanan
Aged about 34 years
R/at No. TJN Construction Pvt
Ltd., No. 15/1, Royal Street
Abbigere, Shettihalli
Bengaluru
(Rep by: Adv. Sri. DCM)
2
C.C. No. 24045/2022
1. Date of commission of offence : 21.01.2022
2. Offence alleged : U/s.279, 304(A) IPC.
115, 194, 134(A&B) r/w
187, 190(2) IMV Act
and Rule 115 of the
Central Motor Vehicle
Rules 1989.
3. Date of recording of evidence : 20.08.2024
4. Date of Judgment : 02.12.2025
JUDGMENT
This case arises from the charge sheet filed by the PI of the K R Purum Traffci PS in crime number 7/2022 against the accused Nos 1 and 2, for the offence punishable under section 279, 304A IPC. 115,194, 134(A&B) R/W 187, 190(2) IMV act and rule 115 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules 1989.
2. The genesis of the prosecution's story is as follows:
On 21-01-2022 at 9:15 am, accused no 1, the driver of Tipper lorry number KA01AH9736, drove his vehicle from Tin Factory MM Temple towards Mahadevpur in a rash and negligent manner. He rammed into the victim into Shri Bilal Mohammed Khan S/O Mohammed Amanulla Kahn, aged 30 years, who was travelling on the same road in the same direction on his motorcycle number KA 05KC6128, near K R Puram railway station at the New Light junction. Due to the collision, the rider fell, and the accused vehicle's front left wheel ran over his stomach. When the accused entered the city with his heavy goods vehicle, there was a prohibition on the entry of such vehicles. After the accident, the accused neither assisted the injured nor reported the incident 3 C.C. No. 24045/2022 to the police. Therefore, accused no 1 has committed an offence punishable under sections 279 and 304-A IPC, 134(a) and (b) R/W 187, 115 R/W 194 IMV Act.
3. The accused no 2 is the owner of the offending vehicle. He allowed Accused no 1 to drive his vehicle during a period of restriction on heavy goods vehicle entry. At the time of the incident, the vehicle did not possess a valid fitness certificate, yet accused no 2 permitted accused no 1 to drive it. Hence, accused no 2 has committed an offence punishable under section 115 R/W 194 IMV Act and 115 CMV R/W 190(2) IMV Act.
4. The CW.1 set criminal law into motion by filing a complaint. The IO registered Cr No. 7/2022 against the accused, proceeded towards the spot, drew a spot mahazar and drew a map. He obtained the statements of the witnesses. He obtained the IMV report PM report. He conducted the inquest. After obtaining the necessary documents and statements. The IO charge sheeted the accused nos. 1 and 2 for the offence punishable under section 279, 304A IPC. 115,194, 134(A&B) R/W 187, 190(2) IMV act and rule 115 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules 1989.
5. After receipt of the charge sheet, this court verified the prosecution papers. As there are prima facie materials available against the accused nos. 1 and 2, and as there are no grounds to discharge them, a cognisance for the offence punishable under section 279, 304A IPC. 115,194, 134(A&B) R/W 187, 190(2) IMV act and rule 115 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules 1989 was taken and a criminal case was registered against the 4 C.C. No. 24045/2022 accused nos. 1 and 2, in register no III. And a summons was issued to the accused, Nos. 1 and 2.
6. The accused Nos. 1 and 2 appeared through their counsel. They were enlarged on bail. Prosecution papers were supplied to the accused as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C. The substance of the accusation was framed, read over and explained to the accused in the language best known to the accused, nos 1 and 2. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thus, the case was posted for the prosecution's evidence..
7. To prove the guilt of the accused, no.. 1 and 2, the prosecution has examined 8 witnesses as PW1 to 8 and marked 12 documents as Ex P1 to Ex P12a. After the completion of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused Nos. 1 and 2, as required under section 313 Cr. P.C., were recorded. The accused Nos 1 and 2 denied all incrimination circumstances that appeared against them in the prosecution's evidence. They did not choose to lead the defence evidence. Therefore, the case was posted for the arguments.
8. After receipt of the complaint, the investigating officer visited the spot, conducted a mahazar in the presence of mahazar witnesses. Inquired and obtained statements of witnesses. After completion of an investigation, filed charge sheet was filed against accused nos. 1 & 2 for the offences p/u/s. 279, 304A IPC. 115,194, 134(A&B) R/W 187, 190(2) IMV act and rule 115 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules 1989.
5C.C. No. 24045/2022
9. After filing of Charge Sheet, this court has verified all the prosecution records and considering that there are prima facie materials to proceed further against the accused, no. 1 & 2, cognizance for the alleged offence p/u/s. 279, 304A IPC. 115,194, 134(A&B) R/W 187, 190(2) IMV act and rule 115 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules 1989. was taken, and a criminal case was registered against accused nos. 1 & 2 in a register No. III, and the process was issued against accused nos. 1 & 2.
10. Pursuant to summons, accused nos. 1 & 2 appeared through their counsel and availed bail. The prosecution papers were supplied to the accused, Nos. 1 & 2, as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.
11. 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 accused no.1 & 2 in the language best known to them. Accused no.1 & 2 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the case was posted for prosecution evidence. Out of 15 witnesses, the prosecution has examined 8 witnesses as PW.1 to 8 and marked 12 documents as per Ex.P.1 to 12(a) and closed prosecution evidence.
12. After the conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused as required U/s. 313 Cr. P.C. is recorded, read over and explained to accused no.1 & 2 in the language best known to them. Accused no.1 & 2 denied all 6 C.C. No. 24045/2022 incriminating circumstances that appeared against them in the prosecution's evidence. However, not chosen to lead their defence evidence. Hence, the case was posted for arguments.
13. Heard arguments canvassed by the learned senior APP and learned counsel for the accused Nos 1 and 2. Meticulously perused the documents placed on record.
14. The following points arise for my consideration; Point No.1: Whether the prosecution proves beyond a reasonable doubt that on 21-01-2022, at 9:15 am, accused no. 1, was the driver of Tipper lorry heavy vehicle bearing no. KA 01 AH 9736, drove his vehicle at the time of prohibited period from Tin Factory MM Temple towards Mahadevpur in a rash and negligent manner. He dashed to the motorcycle no. KA 05 KC 6128, driven by Sri. Bilal Mohammed Khan, the rider of the motorcycle fell. The front left side wheel of the lorry ran over the rider. He sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the occurrence. Thereby, the accused no.1 has committed offences punishable under sections 279, IPC.
Point No.2: Whether the prosecution proves beyond a reasonable doubt that on the aforementioned date, time and place, when there was a prohibition to enter the city, the accused No. 1, being a driver of Tipper lorry number KA 01 AH 9736, drove his vehicle from Tin Factory MM Temple towards Mahadevpur in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motorcycle no. KA 7 C.C. No. 24045/2022 05 KC 6128, driven by Sri. Bilal Mohammed Khan. Due to the collision, the rider of the bike fell, at that time, The tipper lorry's front left side wheel ran over the rider. He sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the occurrence. Thereby, the accused no.1 has committed an offence punishable under section 304(A) of the IPC?
Point No.3: Whether the prosecution proves beyond a reasonable doubt that on the aforementioned date, time and place, accused no.1, when there was a prohibition to enter the city, the accused No. 1, being a driver of Tipper lorry number KA 01 AH 9736, drove his in a rash and negligent manner and dashed in the city to the motorcycle no. KA 05 KC 6128, driven by Sri. Bilal Mohammed Khan. Due to the collision, the rider of the bike fell, at that time, The tipper lorry's front left side wheel ran over the rider. The accused no.1 neither provided any medical assistance to the injured nor informed the incident to the nearest Police Station. He sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the occurrence. Thereby, accused no.1 has committed an offence punishable under section 134 (A & B) r/w 187 of IMV Act?
Point No.4: Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, on the aforementioned date, time and place, the accused No. 1, being the owner of the offending vehicle No. KA 01 AH 9736 entered the city despite there is a prohibition. At at time, the vehicle the vehicle did not possessed Fitness Certificate.
8C.C. No. 24045/2022 Thereby, he has committed offences p/u/s. 194 r/w 115, 115 CMVR r/w 190(2) of the IMV Act ?
Point No.5: Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, on the aforementioned date, time and place, the accused No. 2, being the owner of the offending vehicle No. KA 01 AH 9736, has allowed the accused no.1 to drive his vehicle at the prohibited time to enter the city, its a heavy goods vehicle, that resulted in the fatal accident. Thereby, he has committed offences p/u/s. 194 r/w 115, 115 CMVR r/w 190(2) of the IMV Act ?
Point No.6: What order?
15. My findings on the above points are as follows:
Point No.1: In the affirmative Point No.2: In the affirmative Point No.3: In the affirmative Point No.4: In the affirmative Point No.5: In the affirmative Point No.6: As per the foregoing for the following reasons REASONS
16. Points No.1 to 5: As these points are interlinked with each other, they are taken together for common discussion to avoid repetition of facts and for brevity.
9C.C. No. 24045/2022
17. In the instant case, the burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt lies with the prosecution. To hold a person liable for an offence under section 304AIPC, the prosecution is under a duty bound to establish that the rash or negligent act done by the accused has led to the death of the victim. In other words, to hold a person liable for an offence U/s. 304(A) IPC, it is necessary to establish that the death of the victim was a resultant consequence of the act of rashness or negligence of the accused.
18. Learned senior APP placed on record the circular of the Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru dated 16.12.2014, and argued that the accused No. 1, knowing the restriction on the vehicles' movements, the accused no 1 not only entered the city at the prohibited time but also drove his vehicle in a rash or negligent manner and rammed into the victim and his bike, which resulted in a fatal accident. The prosecution's witnesses supported the prosecution's case. There are sufficient materials available on record; thus, we pray to convict the accused.
19. On the contrary, despite granting sufficient opportunities, the accused, Nos. 1 and 2, counsel did not submit any arguments. They have also not filed any written arguments.
20. Let me appreciate the oral and documentary evidence put forth by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. To bring home the guilt of the accused, no. 1 and 2, the prosecution has examined CW1 Sri. Mohd Amanulla Khan was examined as PW1. In his chief evidence, he deposed that deceased Bilal Muhammed Khan is 10 C.C. No. 24045/2022 his son. He didn't know CW4. CW4 and CW5 were colleagues of his son. On 21.01.2022 at 09.15 a.m. When he was at home, he received an unknown phone call. He came to know that near the K R Purum railway station bridge, his son suffered an accident from a tipper lorry, and he succumbed to the incident on the spot. He had been to the incidental spot. There was His body was shifted to Rammurthy Government Hospital. He had been there and seen that his son was grievously injured. When he enquired about the incident, he came to know that one tipper lorry came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed into the bike of his son behind. When his son fell in front at that time, the tipper lorry ran over his son. The tipper lorry number is 9736, and the bike number is 6128. In this regard, he has filed a complaint, which was marked as Ex. P1 and his signature as 1A. The name of the accused is K.M. Anjanappa. He has not seen the accused. What the fuck are you talking about? He deposed there was a restriction prohibition that during morning hours the heavy goods vehicles cannot enter the city. However, the accused came in a restricted time and entered the city and causing the accident. The accident was caused due to the negligence of the accused.
21. The learned counsel for the accused fully cross- examined him. During cross-examination, he deposed that the 20 kilometres distance from his house and the place where his son was working. His son works hours 10.00 a.m. to 06.00 p.m. His son left the house at 08.30 a.m. He usually left the house daily at 08.30 p.m. There was an 18-kilometre distance from the incident to and spot in the house. One person called to him and informed him about the incident at 09.20 p.m. The call came 11 C.C. No. 24045/2022 from his son's mobile. When he reached the spot, it was 10.15 a.m. There was a police officer and a public. He has seen the tipper lorry on the spot. The bike was also there. Thereafter, the police took him to the Rammoorthy Nagara Government Hospital. He denied the suggestion that there was no accident by the accused. It was suggested that there was no accident by the accused and the accident was caused due to with another vehicle. He denied the suggestion. He deposed the police, and the eyewitnesses told him that there was a restriction on Heavy vehicles to enter the city at that time. Other suggestions he denied. On overall perusal of the testimony of the CW1, it could be seen that, so far filing of the complaint and setting criminal law into motion, he supported the prosecution's case. Nothing contrary to the CW1 evidence by the defence side.
22. The prosecution has examined CW2, Sri. Sandeep, as PW2. In his chief evidence, he deposed on 21.01.2022, the police have sent him a mahazar notice to appear for a spot mahazar. Accordingly, he had been to the incident spot at 11.00 a.m. He identified the notice, which was marked as Ex. P2 and his signature as Ex. A2. There was a public on the incidentous spot. The accident occurred during a peak hour. He deposed that there was a restriction on the heavy goods vehicles from entering the city. However, the accused entered the vehicle. The tipper lorry number is 9736. He didn't remember the bike number. The police verified and inspected the incident spot, and he obtained his signature. During his chief evidence, mahazar was marked as Ex. P3 and his signature as Ex. P3A. The police have also drawn a map. The accused dashed his lorry into his colleague's bike.
12C.C. No. 24045/2022
23. During cross-examination, he denied that he signed the mahazar in the police station. Deposed. The police have called him. The police have not given any notice to him. He and the deceased were police. It was suggested that, as the deceased was his friend, he was deposing falsely. He denied the suggestion put to him. It was suggested that the other vehicle dashed to the deceased Bilal. He denied the suggestion. On careful review of the evidence of PW2, it could be seen that the PW2 notice was marked that bears his signature. Though PW2 during cross-examination denied giving any notice to him. However, except for this, nothing contrary was established to From the evidence of PW2 by the defense side.
24. The prosecution has examined CW3, Sri. Rajnikant, as PW3. In its chief evidence deposed on 21.01.2022, the police gave him a notice. At 11.30 a.m. to 12.30 p.m., near KR.Puram railway station, the police conducted the spot mahazar. At that time, CW2 and CW4 were present. The police marked the spot. They typed the mahazar in a laptop. They read it over to him and thereafter obtained his signature. His signature on the mahazar was marked as Ex. P3(a). The accident occurred between the bike and the tipper lorry. He didn't remember the vehicle number. He identified the photographs of the vehicle. During cross-examination, he deposed that he admittedly signed Ex. P2 in a police station. However, he deposed that the police had called him to the incidental spot and obtained his signature. At that time, 11.40 a.m. to 12.00 p.m. deceased Bilal was his coolie. He denied the suggestion that, as he was deceased, his colleague. He is deposing falsely.
13C.C. No. 24045/2022
25. On careful perusal of the evidence of PW2 and PW3, it could be seen that they are the merger witnesses. Though it was made to establish that PW2 and PW3, as they were colleagues of the deceased Bilal, they are deposing falsely. However, except for this, nothing contrary was established as Ex. P2 and Ex. P3. Remained unrebutted by the accused.
26. The prosecution examined CW4 Sri. Rajappa as PW4 in his chief evidence report on 21.01.2022 at 09.15 a.m. He was going on his motorcycle from Indinadakal towards ITPL. At that time, when he was going towards the steel factory on a service road near the railway station, his friend said one bike was going, and one tipper lorry was going. The Dipper lorry was coming in the same direction. When a lorry driver gave him a horn, he gave way to the lorry to move forward. The lorry moved a high speed on the front side and dashed into the bike, which was going in front of it. When he heard the noise, he parked his vehicle beside. He saw that when the bike rider fell, the front left side wheel of the lorry ran over the body of the bike rider. After the accident, the accused came there. The injured succumbed to the occurrence. The accused tried to run away from the spot. He left the vehicle on the spot and ran away from there. The public and police came there. The accused was taken to the Kairapuram Hospital in an auto. The doctors declared the injured dead in hospital.
27. He further deposed on 24.01.2022 police summoned him and confronted him. The accused was present before the court, and he also deposed that he had stated to the police. The police summoned him to the spot and marked the incident spot, 14 C.C. No. 24045/2022 typed it in the computer, read it over to him and obtained his signature. The accident was caused due to the negligence of the accused.
28. During cross-examination, it was questioned whether he is a friend of CW1. PW4 specifically denied this. A deposition accident occurred at 09.15 a.m. The bike rider was going front side. At that time, one lorry overtook him. The lorry number is KAKC 6128. And dashed to the bike. They didn't remember the colour of the tipper lorry. There were 10 wheels to it. An accident has caused a railway station under a bridge. He was going to his work. After the accident, the motorcycle fell left side. The rider fell right side. The front wheel of the lorry ran over the rider. There was no damage to two-wheelers. He denied the suggestion that he had not seen the accident. The accused's counsel further cross-examined him, wherein it was suggested that the junction was 20 feet distance from the incidental spot and the police station. At the time of the accident, the traffic was stopped. He denied the suggestion and deposed that there was 20 20-foot distance from the incidental spot and the junction. The lorry was going at a 40 to 50 kmph. At that time, his vehicle was front left side. The lorry's front left side wheel dashed into the vehicle. If a 50 kilometer speed, the lorry dashes to any two-wheeler, there is a chance of small damage. He deposed to the motorcycle that there were small damages behind. Photographs were shown to him and asked if there was no damage to the motorcycle. He deposed that if he sees the original motorcycle, he can depose. It was suggested that the accident was caused by a different vehicle. Another vehicle. He denied the suggestion as there was movement of many other 15 C.C. No. 24045/2022 vehicles. He was run over by a bike rider, and three wheels ran over him. He denied the suggestion put to him. In this regard, nothing contrary was established from the evidence of this witness.
29. The prosecution examined CW5, Sri. Krishnamoorthy, as PW5. In his chief evidence, he deposed on 21.01.2022 at 09.15 a.m., he was near KR Puram railway station. At that time, one two-wheeler was going from the tin factory towards Mahadevapura. Near New Light Junction Circle, near MM temple, a Bharat Benz Tipper Lorry came from the tin factory towards Mahadevapura a high speed and dashed into the motorcycle rider. When the rider fell, the front left side wheel ran over him. The driver of the lorry parked his lorry beside the road and ran away from the spot. The public called the father of the injured. The injured person was taken to the hospital in an ambulance. The two-wheeler number is 6128, and the tipper lorry number is 2736. He identified the accused no. 1, who was present before the court, and he had stated to the police.
30. During cross-examination, he deposed on 21.01.2020 at 09.15 a.m., when the accident occurred, he was going to his work. He was waiting for his friend. His working time is 09.30 a.m. The company from his house is 11 kilometer distance. He commutes daily to his company from KR Road. At 09.00 a.m., he was waiting for his friend. He denied the suggestion that he had not seen the accident. He denied the suggestion that the CW1 is his friend. The two-wheeler was going from the tin factory towards Mahadevapura. At that time, near New Light Junction Circle, near the MM temple, a Bharat Benz Tipper Lorry came 16 C.C. No. 24045/2022 from the tin factory towards Mahadevapura a high speed and dashed into the motorcycle rider. When the motorcycle rider fell, a lorry ran over him. The Driver of the lorry stopped his vehicle and ran away from the spot. The other vehicles were going there. He denied other suggestions put to him.
31. The prosecution has examined CW6. Sri. Suresh as PW6. In his chief evidence, he deposed on 21.01.2022 at 09.15 a.m. He came near KR railway station by bus and was going towards A. Narayanapura. Near the M.M. temple, a motorcycle was going. At that time, one tipper lorry came a high speed and dashed into the motorcycle. When the rider of the motorcycle fell, the front left side wheel ran over the motorcycle rider. He sustained grievous injuries. He was taken to the KR Puram Hospital in an auto. The bike number is K05KC-6128, and the deeper lorry number is KA05H-9236. The deeper lorry driver stopped his lorry beside the road and ran away from the spot. The accused's name is Anjanappa. He identified the accused, no. 1, present before the court. During cross-examination, he deposed that the police had summoned him to give his evidence before the court. He was working in a store in charge of Bhargavi Enterprises. He is residing near KR Puram. At the time of the occurrence, he had just got off the bus. He came from the tin factory towards KR Puram. He was standing there at 09.30 a.m. to go to his work. At 09.15 a.m., he was at the incidental spot. The accused vehicle was travelling at 50 to 60 kilometres per hour. There was a signal in the incidental spot. At that time, there was no signal. There was no heavy traffic. The two-wheeler and the motorcycle rider are going from the tin factory towards Mahadevapura. The accused vehicle was also going in the same 17 C.C. No. 24045/2022 direction. He denied the suggestion that CW1 brought him to the court to depose. He denied suggestions put to him.
32. The prosecution examined CW7, Sri. Shanta Gowda, as PW7. In his chief evidence, he deposed on 21.01.2022 at 09.15 a.m. The motorcycle was going from the tin factory towards Mahadevapura. At that time, one tipper lorry came from the tin factory towards Mahadevapura and dashed into the motorcycle behind it. When the motorcycle rider fell, the front left side wheel ran over him. The tipper lorry driver stopped his lorry and ran away from the spot. The motorcycle rider sustained grievous injuries. The public admitted the injured to the Kirpuram Hospital. The motorcycle number is K05KC6128, and the tipper lorry number is K01AH9736. The public informed the incident to Father of the injured. The injured's name is Bilal. He identified the accused no. 1, who is present before the court. During cross-examination, he deposed that the police had summoned him to give evidence before the court. He was a mechanic in a shopping company. He was residing at Bidarahally. He was going to his work. After leaving his friend at the tin factory, he was 10 km away from the incident spot. His work timing is 09.30 a.m. to 06.30 p.m. From the incident transport to reach his workplace, it took 20 minutes. He denied the suggestion that he had not seen the accident. He also denied the suggestion that the accident was not caused by to negligence of accused no. 1.
33. On careful review of the evidence of PW4 to PW7, it could be seen that they not only identified the accused but also deposed that on 21.01.2022 at 09.15, when the accident was 18 C.C. No. 24045/2022 caused, they were present on the spot. They also deposed that the accused came a high speed and dashed to the Bike from the back side. When the bike rider fell, the front left side wheel of the tipper lorry ran over him. That resulted in the spot death of Sree Bilal. It was an attempt to establish that the accident was caused by the other vehicle and that there was no negligence of the accused. This defence remained unestablished as the witnesses PW4 to PW7 denied all suggestions put to them.
34. Lastly, the prosecution examined CW8 as PW8. In his chief evidence, he deposed to the procedure he has followed during the investigation of this case. He deposed at 11 a.m. he received a complaint from CW1 and registered Crime No. 7 bar
22. For the offence under Section 279, 304A IPC, 134A and B, 117, 115, 194 IMV Act. Registered FIR had been to the spot, conducted the spot merger. He has issued a Section 133 IMV notice to the vehicle owner. The GPA holder received the notice and replied to it. PW8 deposed. He also caught FSL reports and IMB reports. He conducted the inquest. Obtained post-mortem report. After completion, And stated that there was no fitness certificate for the accused vehicle, and the accused was driving the vehicle at the prohibited time when there was a restriction to enter heavy goods vehicles into the city. After completion of the case, he filed a charge sheet against the accused no. 1 and no. 2 for the aforementioned offences.
35. During cross-examination, he admits that on the incident spot, there was heavy traffic. There was no traffic signal, and there was a manual traffic signal, i.e. police officer stood on the junction and controlled the traffic. When the 19 C.C. No. 24045/2022 accident occurred, the traffic police were at work. He has not mentioned who was working on the spot. He also admits that on the incident road, the vehicle's movement is slow. It was suggested that there is a circular on the incident spot, stating that heavy goods vehicles cannot travel. PW8 deposed since 2015, there was a direction and a circular from the tin factory towards the railway station, there was a prohibition, and there was a Prohibition restriction board was also installed on the spot. Thus, there was a prohibition to enter the spot at a particular time. Other suggestions he denied.
36. On scrutiny of the prosecution's oral testimony, it could be seen that CW1 has deposed, setting criminal law into motion by filing a complaint. His evidence was supported by PW8 IO by stating that he received a complaint, thereby. Further, PW2 and PW3, being major witnesses, have deposed that the police went to the spot, inspected the incidental. Typed the mahazar and obtained their signature. It was read over to them. Though there was one contrary stray admission, however, it is not fatal to the prosecution's case. As far as the evidence of PW4 to PW7 is concerned, they specifically deposed that it is the accused who came in a high speed and dashed to the deceased vehicle. When he fell, the front left side wheel ran over him. Nothing contrary is established by the defence side.
37. PW4, in his chief evidence, clearly deposed that the accused was giving a horn to him. He gave a side to the vehicle. It overtook him a high speed and dashed to the motorcycle rider. The statements of PW4 and PW5 are sufficient to prove that the accused was moving and trying to move forward a high speed.
20C.C. No. 24045/2022 In a hurry, he dashed to the motorcycle. The fact that the front left side wheel of the deeper lorry ran over the rider when he fell is sufficient to establish that the motorcycle rider was going towards the left side of the road and the lorry was trying to overtake him. It is pertinent to note that there was no defence set up by the accused. He merely suggested to the prosecution that it was the other vehicle that caused the accident. It is not the case of the accused that he was not present on the spot, or that it was not his negligence. There is no questionnaire in this line, and He merely suggested that there was no negligence on the accused's side. Under such circumstances, the accused no. 1 and 2 utterly failed to establish anything contrary and the prosecution's evidence. PW1 to PW8 is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
38. The prosecution has marked 12 documents. As far as the documentary evidences are concerned, the prosecution marked 12 documents. Ex. P1 is the complaint, which was already established by the prosecution. Ex. P2 is the notice that bears the signature of PW2. Ex. P3 is the spot mahazar. Ex. P4 is another police notice. Thus, it is sufficient to establish that the police summoned the mahazar witnesses by giving notice to them as per Ex. P2 and P4 and conducted the mahazar in their presence. Even during Cross-examination, nothing contrary was established in this regard. Ex. P6 is the Hand Sketch Map. Ex. P7 is the Inquest. Ex. P11 is the IMB report. According to it, the motorcycle was damaged in the front wheel mudguard, right handle corner, right fuel tank, right foot pedal, and right pipe was scratched. On the other hand, the offending vehicle's front left side bumper was scratched. The offending vehicle is the 21 C.C. No. 24045/2022 tipper lorry. Thus, there may be less damage, like a scratch, to the left side. However, the motorcycle was damaged on the right side. This itself is sufficient to prove that the left side of the lorry dashed into the motorcycle. Ex. P10 is the post-mortem report. According to it, the external injuries that reflected on the victim's body are a degloving injury of the right lower limb, involving the whole thigh is present exposing the lacerated skin. Subcutaneous tissue, muscles, vessels, and nerves. The injury is extended to the pubic region. Second, a lacerated wound measuring 4 centimetres, 3 centimetres into the cavity deep, is present over the right lower abdomen region. Abrasion measuring 5 centimetres, X3 centimetres is present over the right side forehead region. The death was caused due to the multiple injuries sustained. Ex. P10 reflects the grievous nature of injuries that resulted in the spot death of the motorcycle rider.
39. The entire oral and documentary evidence of the prosecution categorically establishes the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. This Court has no reason to disbelieve the oral testimony of PW1 to PW8 that the accused was present on the incidental spot on 21.01.2022 at 09.15 a.m., he drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motorcycle rider. When he fell, the front left wheel ran over the CW1's son, Sribilal. That resulted in his instant death. Apart from this, the prosecution has placed on record the circular dated 2015. That reflects there was a restriction on entering the city. There was a restriction on the heavy goods vehicles from entering the city. It was also established that after the accident, the accused no. 1 neither reported the incident to the nearest police nor did he provide any medical assistance to 22 C.C. No. 24045/2022 the injured. Thereby, it was also established that he caused the accident and ran away from the spot.
40. At this juncture, it is pertinent to refer to sections 279 and 304(A) IPC. They read as follows:
Section 279 of IPC-Rash driving or riding on a public way.
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 fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
Section 304 (A) Causing death by negligence.
Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
41. The Section 279 IPC makes rash driving or riding on a public way to endanger human life or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person an offence. Culpable negligence lies in the failure to exercise reasonable and proper care, and the extent of its reasonableness will always depend upon the circumstances of each case. Rashness means doing an act with the consciousness of a risk that evil consequences will follow, but with the hope that it will not. Negligence is a breach of duty imposed by law. The question whether the conduct of the 23 C.C. No. 24045/2022 accused amounted to culpable rashness or negligence depends directly on the question as to what is the amount of care and circumspection which a prudent and reasonable man would consider to be sufficient, considering all the circumstances of the case. Criminal rashness means hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is dangerous or wanton and the further knowledge that it may cause injury, but done without any intention to cause injury or knowledge that it would probably cause injury.
42. Relevantly, from a perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it is observed that the essential ingredients to constitute an offence punishable under Section 279 IPC inter alia are that there must be, "rash and negligent driving or riding on a public way and the act must be to endanger human life or be likely to cause hurt or injury to any person.".
43. In a road accident case, to convict a person for the offence punishable under Section 304A IPC, the prosecution is required to bring on record the basic requirement of the said Section, i.e. "Rash or Negligent Act" with the following conditions:
1) There must be the death of the person in question.
2) That the accused must have caused such death.
3) That such an act of the accused was rash or negligent and that it did not amount to culpable homicide.
44. Needless to mention, in criminal law, the burden of proof on the prosecution is that of beyond a reasonable doubt.
24C.C. No. 24045/2022 The presumption of innocence of the accused has to be rebutted by the prosecution by adducing cogent evidence that points towards the guilt of the accused. The evidence in the present case is to be weighed keeping in view the above legal standards.
45. What would constitute a rash and negligent act has been described by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mohammed Aynuddin @ Miyan V State of Andhra Pradesh, (2007)7SCC72, observed as under:- A rash act is primarily an over-hasty act. It is opposed to a deliberate act. Still, a rash act can be a deliberate act in the sense that it was done without due care and caution. Culpable rashness lies in running the risk of doing an act with recklessness and with indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negligence is the failure to exercise duty with reasonable and proper care and precaution, guarding against injury to the public generally or to any individual in particular. It is the imperative duty of the driver of a vehicle to adopt such reasonable and proper care and precaution.
46. An accident is an unforeseen incident, but it must not be a ground to let off the offender. If a person who is the sole breadwinner of his family dies in an accident caused by the rash or negligent act of a person, such a family may become destitute forever. The Supreme Court in Dalbir Singh guarded against leniency in relation to the drivers found guilty of rash driving and observed as under:-
47. When automobiles have become death traps, any leniency shown to drivers who are found guilty of rash driving would be at the risk of further escalation of road accidents. All 25 C.C. No. 24045/2022 those who are manning the steering of automobiles, particularly professional drivers, must be kept under constant reminders of their duty to adopt utmost care and also of the consequences befalling them in cases of dereliction. One of the most effective ways of keeping such drivers under mental vigil is to maintain a deterrent element in the sentencing sphere. Any latitude shown to them in that sphere would tempt them to make driving frivolous and frolicsome.
48. In Suleman Rehiman Mulani v. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 1968 S C 829. It was held:
This section requires that the death of any person must have been caused by the accused by doing any rash or negligent act. In other words, there must be proof that the rash or negligent act of the accused was the proximate cause of the death. There must be a direct nexus between the death of a person and the rash or negligent act of the accused."
49. Black's Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition) defines 'criminal negligence' as under:
"Criminal negligence which will render killing a person manslaughter is the omission on the part of the person to do some act which an ordinarily careful and prudent man would do under like circumstances, or the doing of some act which an ordinarily careful, prudent man under like circumstances would not do by reason of which another person is endangered in life or bodily safety; the word 'ordinary' being synonymous with 'reasonable' in this connection"26
C.C. No. 24045/2022
50. To impose criminal liability under this section, it is necessary that the death should have been the direct result of a rash or negligent act of the accused, and that act must be the proximate cause without the intervention of another's negligence. It must be the causa causans; it is not enough that it may have been the causa sine qua non. Culpable rashness is acting with consciousness that the mischievous and illegal consequences may follow, but with the hope that they will not, and often with the belief that the driver has taken sufficient precautions to prevent their happening. Culpable negligence is acting without the consciousness that the illegal and mischievous effect will follow, but in circumstances which show that the driver has not exercised the caution required of him, and that if he had, he would have had the consciousness. A rash or negligent act is an act done not intentionally or deliberately. A rash act is primarily an over-hasty act, and is thus opposed to a deliberate act, but it also includes an act which, though it may be said to be deliberate, is yet done without due deliberation and caution. Negligence is the breach of a duty caused by omission to do something which a reasonable man guided by considerations that ordinarily regulate human conduct would do, or the doing of something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. Negligence is the genus of which rashness is a species. For rashness or negligence to be criminal, it must be of such a degree as to amount to taking a hazard, knowing that the hazard was such that injury or death was most likely to be caused thereby. The criminality lies in running the risk or doing such an act with recklessness and indifference to the consequences.
27C.C. No. 24045/2022
51. Further, In a criminal trial, the onus remains on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, and the benefit of doubt, if any, must necessarily go in favour of the accused. The element of rashness and negligence is sine qua non for offence under section 279/304-A IPC, and the same cannot be presumed. In the case of B. C. Ramachandra v. State of Karnataka, 2007 Cri. L. J. 475, the Court relied upon several decisions of the Apex Court and concluded that in criminal proceedings, the burden of proving negligence as an essential ingredient of the offence lies on the prosecution. It was also observed that "such an ingredient cannot be said to have been proved or made out by resorting to the rule of principle of res ipsa loquitur."
52. Having observed the settled legal position of the law in respect of the rash or negligent driving, resulting in the death of the person, reverting to the case in hand, the PW 1to 8 supported the prosecution's case. The ocular testimony of these witnesses reveals that the death of Shri Mohd Bilal is the proximate act of the accused no 1, without taking any precautions and his negligent driving. Further, the speed hardly matters in the offence under sections 279 and 304A IPC, as the word used is "rash or negligent " driving. Thus, if the rashness or negligence is established, that is sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused. In my considered view, the act of accused no 1, thereby hitting the vehicle of the victim from behind, was grossly rash and negligent. The very manner of driving by accused no 1 reeks of risk-taking and demonstrates his casual attitude towards the other road users, including the victim. The negligence of accused no 1 is writ large in the present case. Therefore, I answer points 1 to 4 in the affirmative.
28C.C. No. 24045/2022
53. Point no 5: It was alleged against the accused no 2 that he, being the owner of the offending vehicle number KA01AH9736, has not obtained the air pollution fitness certificate. Having knowledge of the same, he permitted the accused no 1 to drive his vehicle. To prove this, the prosecution has produced the notice under section 13 IMV Act, which was marked as EX P 8, and the answer as EX P 9. In Ex P9, the accused no 2 categorically mentioned that the vehicle fitness certificate was not possessed by him. This document bears his signature. Though he contested the case, he has not made any effort to disprove the case of the prosecution. When the prosecution placed on record Ex P 8 and 9, then the burden shifted on the accused no 2 to prove anything contrary. The accused does not speak 2 silently in this regard. This court has no reason to doubt EX P8a nd9 and its contents.
54. At this juncture, it is pertinent to refer to section 115 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act. It reads as follows:
Section 115. Power to restrict the use of vehicles. The State Government or any authority authorised in this behalf by the State Government, if satisfied that it is necessary in the interest of public safety or convenience, or because of the nature of any road or bridge, may by notification in the Official Gazette, prohibit or restrict, subject to such exceptions and conditions as may be specified in notification, the driving of motor vehicles or of any specified class or description of motor vehicles or the use of trailers either generally in a specified area or on a specified road and when any such prohibition or restriction is imposed, shall cause appropriate traffic signs to be placed or erected under section 116 at suitable places:29
C.C. No. 24045/2022
55. Provided that where any prohibition or restriction under this section is to remain in force for not more than one month, notification thereof in the Official Gazette shall not be necessary, but such local publicity as the circumstances may permit shall be given of such prohibition or restriction.
56. Further rule 115 of the central motor vehcile rules 1989 provides that, Rule 115 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, primarily covers emission standards for motor vehicles, including idling emission limits for petrol, CNG, and LPG vehicles and smoke density for diesel vehicles.
57. It also mandates that vehicles must be maintained to comply with these standards and that owners must obtain a "Pollution under Control" (PUC) certificate a year after the first registration. Considering these aspects, this court is of the view that the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, I answer point no 4 in the affirmative.
58. Point No.6: For myriad reasons discussed supra, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The accused no. 1 is found guilty of the offences punishable under sections 279, 304(A)IPC and U/s. 115, 194, 134(A&B) R/W 187, IMV Act.
The accused no. 2 was found guilty of the offence punishable under section 190(2) IMV Act and rule 115 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules 1989 30 C.C. No. 24045/2022 Acting under section 255(2) Cr.P.C., accused no.1, is hereby convicted for the offence punishable under section 279, 304(A) IPC. 115,194, 134(A&B) R/W 187 IMV Act.
Accused no.1 is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 279 IPC. In default, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days The accused no.1 is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 year. For the offence punishable under Section 304(A) IPC.
The accused no.1 is hereby sentenced to pay Rs 10,000/- for the offence punishable under section 134(A&B) r/w 187 IMV Act. In default, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for 30 days The accused no.1 is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 115 r/w 194 IMV Act. In default, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days Acting under section 255(2) Cr. P.C., the accused no.2, is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days.
Accused no.2 is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- for the offence punishable under the section 115 r/w 194 in default, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days.
The default sentences shall run concurrently The bail bond of the accused Nos. 1 and 2, and that of their surety bond, shall continue till the expiry of the appeal period Supply a free copy of this judgment to the accused Nos. 1 and 2 forthwith.
(Dictated to stenographer, transcribed and typed by her on the computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this, the 02nd December 2025).
Digitally signed by NEELAM NEELAM NITIN NITIN RAO Date: 2025.12.12 RAO 12:28:35 +0530 (Neelam Nitin Rao) JMFC, Traffic Court - 1 Bangalore 31 C.C. No. 24045/2022 ANNEXURE
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON PROSECUTION SIDE:
1. PW.1 : Sri. Mohammed Amanulla Khan
2. PW.2 : Sri. Sandeep
3. PW.3 : Sri. Rajnikanth
4. PW.4 : Sri. Rajappa
5. PW.5 : Sri. Krishnamurthy
6. PW.6 : Sri. Suresh
7. PW.7 : Sri. Shantha Gowda
8. PW.8 : Sri. Mohammed. M.E. LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON PROSECUTION SIDE:
Ex.P.1 : Complaint
Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of PW.1
Ex.P.1(b) : Signature of PW.8
Ex.P.2 : Notice
Ex.P.2(a) : Signature of PW.2
Ex.P.3 : Spot Mahazar
Ex.P.3(a) : Signature of PW.2
Ex.P.3(b) : Signature of PW.8
Ex.P.4 : Notice
Ex.P.4(a) : Signature of PW.2
Ex.P.5 : FIR
Ex.P.5(a) : Signature of PW.8
Ex.P.6 : Sketch
Ex.P.6(a) : Signature of PW.8
Ex.P.7 : Inquest
Ex.P.7(a) : Signature of PW.8
Ex.P.8 : 133 Notice
Ex.P.8(a) : Signature of PW.8
32
C.C. No. 24045/2022
Ex.P.9 : 133 Reply
Ex.P.9(a) : Signature of PW.8
Ex.P.10 : Postmortem report
Ex.P.10(a) : Signature of PW.8
Ex.P.11 : IMV report
Ex.P.11(a) : Signature of PW.8
Ex.P.12 : GPA
Ex.P.12(a) : Signature of PW.8
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 02 nd December 2025).Digitally signed by
NEELAM NEELAM NITIN RAO
NITIN RAO Date: 2025.12.12
12:28:27 +0530
(Neelam Nitin Rao)
JMFC, Traffic Court - 1
Bangalore