Bangalore District Court
Banaswadi Traffic Police Station vs Ningaraju Y.C @ Cheluvayya on 27 December, 2021
1 CC.No.27082/2015
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE TRAFFIC
COURT-I
AT MAYOHALL, BANGALORE.
Present : Smt.Sharmila Kamath. K. B.A L.L.M
Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court-I
Bengaluru.
Dated this 27th of December 2021.
C.C. No. 27082/2015
Complainant: Banaswadi Traffic Police Station
(Represented by Sri: APP)
V/s
Accused : Ningaraju Y.C @ Cheluvayya,
23 years, No.39, Triveni Service
Station, Hesarughatta Main road,
Bagalukunte, Bengaluru560073.
(Represented by Adv.Sri.SGG )
1. Date of commission of offence: 26.04.2013
2. Offences alleged against accused:U/S.279, 338 of IPC
3. Date of recording of evidence: 12.03.2014
4. Date of Judgment: 27.12.2021
JUDGMENT
The Police SubInspector of Banaswadi Traffic P.S. has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/sec.279, 338 of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 26.04.2013 at 9.30 a.m within the jurisdiction of Banaswadi Traffic Police station the accused being the driver of car bearing Reg.No.KA 2 CC.No.27082/2015 02MF8520 driven the same in rash and negligent manner so as to endenger human life in front of 23 rd BMTC Depot from Hebbal towards KR Puram and dashed to the pedesterian who was crossing the road from north towards south direction. Due to the impact the pedesterian sustained grevious injuries and shifted to hospital. Based on the FIS registered by CW1, the case came to be registered against the accused in Cr.No.44/2013. The I.O took up the investigation, visited the spot, drawn the spot mahazar, recorded the statement of witnesses, collected the wound certificate and IMV report and on completion of investigation has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable U/sec 279 and 338 of IPC.
3. Upon taking cognizance, case came to be registered against the accused for the offences punishable U/sec. 279 and 338 of IPC. The accused appeared before court engaged counsel and enlarged on bail. Charge sheet copies furnished to the accused and thereby provision U/sec 207 duly complied with.
4. Plea came to be framed for the offences punishable U/sec 279 and 338 of IPC for which accused pleaded not guilty claimed to be tried.
5. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined P.Ws1 to 4 and got exhibited documents as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8. After closure of evidence on prosecution side statement of accused U/sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. recorded. The 3 CC.No.27082/2015 accused denied all the incriminating evidence alleged against him. No defence evidence led.
6. Heard arguments on both sides.
7. The points that arise for my consideration are as follows:
Point No.1.Whether prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on 26.04.2013 at 9.30 a.m within the jurisdiction of Banaswadi Traffic Police station the accused being the driver of car bearing Reg.No.KA02 MF8520 driven the same in rash and negligent manner so as to endenger human life in front of 23 rd BMTC Depot from Hebbal towards KR Puram and dashed to the pedesterian who was crossing the road from north towards south direction. Thereby the accused has committed the offence punsihable U/sec.279 of IPC?
Point No.2.Whether prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on the above date, time and place, due to the rash or negligent driving of accused the pedastrian sustained grevious injuries. There by the accused committed offence P/U/Sec. 338 of IPC? Point No.3. What order?4 CC.No.27082/2015
8. My findings to the above points are as follows:
Point No. 1 and 2 : In the Negative Point No.3: As per order for the following:
REASONS
9. Point Nos.1 and 2: Since both points are interlinked they are taken together for common discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts. It is the specific case of the prosecution that on 26.04.2013 at 9.30 a.m within the jurisdiction of Banaswadi Traffic Police station the accused being the driver of car bearing Reg.No.KA02MF8520 driven the same in rash and negligent manner so as to endenger human life in front of 23rd BMTC Depot from Hebbal towards KR Puram and dashed to the pedesterian who was crossing the road from north towards south direction. Due to the impact the pedesterian sustained head injuries and shifted to hospital.
10. PW.1 is an eye witness to the case of the prosecution states that in May 2013 at about 9.30 a.m she was preceeding by car bearing registration no. KA02MF8520 driven by the accused from Rajajinagar towards Hoskote. When they were preceeding by ring road near Kalyananagara one person fell near their car and he was unable to get up. There after the injured was shifted to hospital by their car. The injured sustained scratch injuries.
5 CC.No.27082/201511. PW2 another eye witness states that on 26.04.2013 at 9.30 a.m when he was proceeding on Ring road from Hennuru junction towards KR puram near Kalyananagara bus stop one car bearing registration no. KA02MF8520 overtook his car and dashed to the pedesterian who was crossing the road. Due to the impact the pedesterian sustained injuries to waist and forehead. There after the injured was shifted to hospital in the same car.
12. PW3 is IMV inspector states that on 30.04.2013 he inspected the car bearing reg No. KA02 MF8520 and issued IMV report. On examining the vehicle he found that right front headlight assembly was damaged. The break system of the car was intact. The alleged accident was not due to any mechanical defect.
13. PW4 is the Investigating officer states that on 28.04.2013 based on the FIS given by CW1 he registered the case in Crime No.44/2013 and dispatched FIR to the Court. On 29.04.2013 he conducted the spot mahazar and drawn rough sketch. He recorded the statements of CW4. He issued notice to the owner of offending vehicle and obtained reply. He obtained IMV report. The accused was arrested and released on station bail. After obtaining wound certificate on concluding the investigation he filed charge against the accused.
6 CC.No.27082/201514. The preliminary conditions to prove the section 279 of IPC are:
a) It is the manner in which the vehicle is driven:
b) It be driven either rashly or negligently and
c) Such rash or negligent driving should be such as to endanger human life.
15. The essential ingredients of section 338 of IPC are as follows.
a) That some grevious hurt was caused to any person.
b) That such hurt was caused by doing rash or negligent act.
c) Such any act endanger human life or the safety of others:
16. The burden on the prosecution is to prove that the alleged accident occurred due to rash or negligent driving of rider of motor cycle. Inorder to prove its case the prosecution relied on evidence of PW2 an eye witness. PW2 not stated from which side of the road pedestrian was crossing the road. As per the case of prosecution the offending car came in a rash and negligent manner. PW2 stated that offending car came in a high speed and by overtaking his car proceeded further and dashed to pedestrian. Ex.P3 shows that offending vehicle came from Hebbal in a rash and negligent manner there is no mention as to overtaking of offending vehicle by the vehicle of PW2. As per PW2 the offending vehicle overtook his vehicle near 7 CC.No.27082/2015 Kalyananagar bus stop, the alleged spot of accident is Kalyananagar bus stop . Such being a case, if at all the offending vehicle is overtaken by the vehicle of PW2 then definetly the injured would have mentioned in his statement about rash and negligent manner driving of accused i.e., over taking of vehicle of PW2. The evidence of PW4 Investigating Officer is formal in nature. The available evidence on record does not inspire the confidence of this Court that the accused has committed offence P/U/S 279 and 338 of IPC. The prosecution failed to prove ingrediants of Sec.279 and 338 of IPC. The prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, I answer the above point Nos.1 and 2 in the negative.
17. Point No.3: In view of the discussion made 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 and 338 of IPC .
The bail bond and surety bond stands cancelled after completion of appeal period. (Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, corrected and then pronounced by me on this the 27th day of December 2021.) (Sharmila Kamath.K) MMTCI, MAYOHALL UNIT, BANGALORE.8 CC.No.27082/2015
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESS EXAMINED ON PROSECUSION SIDE:
PW.1 : Dr.Poornima PW.2 : Srinivas PW.3 : N Prabhu PW.4 : K.Krishna
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON PROSECUSION SIDE:
Ex.P.1 : Statement of PW1 Ex.P.2 : IMV Ex.P.3 : Complaint Ex.P.4 : Spot mahazar Ex.P.5 : Sketch Ex.P.6&7 : 133 notice and Reply Ex.P.8 : Wound Certificate
LIST OF WITNESS EXAMINED ON DEFENCE SIDE:
NIL LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON DEFENCE SIDE: NIL (Sharmila Kamath.K) MMTCI, MAYOHALL UNIT 9 CC.No.27082/2015 10 CC.No.27082/2015 11 CC.No.27082/2015 12 CC.No.27082/2015 13 CC.No.27082/2015 14 CC.No.27082/2015 15 CC.No.27082/2015 16 CC.No.27082/2015 17 CC.No.27082/2015 18 CC.No.27082/2015 19 CC.No.27082/2015 20 CC.No.27082/2015 21 CC.No.27082/2015 22 CC.No.27082/2015