Bangalore District Court
State By P.S.I vs Bhagavan Kumar on 26 August, 2015
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE TRAFFIC
COURT - V, BANGALORE.
PRESENT : RANGEGOWDA C.
B.A.L. LLB.
M.M.T.C- V, BANGALORE
DATED THIS 26th DAY OF AUGUST 2015
C.C.No.213 - 2013
COMPLAINANT : STATE BY P.S.I
SADASHIVANAGARA TR. P.S.
BANGALORE.
// VS //
ACCUSED : BHAGAVAN KUMAR,
S/O.MANJUNATH,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
HERAGU GRAMA,
DUDDA HOBLI,
HASAN.
JUDGEMENT
This is a case registered against the accused on the basis of the charge sheet submitted by the P.S.I. Sadashivanagara Tr. P.S. alleging the offences punishable u/Sec.279 and 338 of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is as follows:
That on 27.10.2012 at about 10.55 a.m., at Ramanamaharshi road, the accused being driver of the car its bearing registration No.KA-50-7722 drove the same in rash and negligent manner and 2 :C.C.No.213/2013: dashed to the pedestrian. Due to the impact, the said pedestrian by name Smt.Sangeeta fell down and sustained grievous injuries.
On the basis of the complaint lodged by the C.W.1, the P.S.I has registered the case against the driver of the car its bearing registration No.KA-50-7722 alleging offences u/Sec.279 - 337 of IPC. After completion of the investigation P.S.I. has submitted the charge sheet against the accused alleging offence u/Sec. 279 - 338 of the IPC.
3. After filing of the charge sheet it is noticed that the accused was released on police bail. After perusal of the charge sheet cognizance of the above said offence taken against the accused and case is registered. Thereafter presence of the accused is secured by issuing process. Accused was released on bail. Copies of the prosecution papers supplied to the accused. Substance of the accusation framed and read over to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried. His plea recorded accordingly.
4. Thereafter the prosecution in order to prove the accusation leveled against the accused has got examined five witnesses as P.W.1 to 5 and in the evidence of the prosecution Ex.P.1 to 8 documents are got marked.
3 :C.C.No.213/2013:
5. Learned counsel for the accused has filed memo stating that accused is not disputing the 133 notice and reply to 133 notice, wound certificate and I.M.V report. Therefore at the request of learned APP CW.5, 6 and 7 are given up.
6. After completion of the evidence of the prosecution statement of the accused as required u/Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. is recorded. The accused has denied the incriminating evidence in the prosecution evidence. The accused did not choose to adduce defence evidence.
7. Heard Learned APP and Learned counsel for the accused. Perused the materials and evidence on record.
8. The points that are arise for my determination are as under:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that on 27.10.2012 at about 10.55 a.m., at Ramanamaharshi road, the accused being driver of car it's bearing registration No.KA-50-7722 drove the same in rash and negligent manner, and dashed to the pedestrian and thereby the accused committed the offences punishable u/Sec. 279 of the IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that because of the accident the said pedestrian by name Smt.Sangeeta fell 4 :C.C.No.213/2013: down and sustained grievous injuries and thereby the accused committed the offences punishable u/Sec. 338 of the IPC?
3. What order ?
9. After hearing both sides and after appreciation of the evidence placed on record, my findings on the above said 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:
:REASONS:
10. POINT NO.1 and 2 : Since these points are inter
connected with each other, hence taken together for consideration in order to avoid repetition.
11. In this case, the PW.1 is the complainant who is the PSI who was on duty on the said road at the time of accident. The PW.1 deposed that the public have gathered at B.M.T.C bus stop near Tripuravasini Gate, he came to know that there was an accident between the pedestrian and a car, the car driver was also present on the spot. He has taken the injured to the M.S.Ramaiah Hospital for treatment and returned to police station and lodged compliant. The 5 :C.C.No.213/2013: PW.1 further deposed that on the same day, the I.O has conducted mahazar in his presence. The PW.1 has deposed that he can identify the accused, if accused is shown. Learned counsel for the accused filed Exemption Petition stating that identity of the accused is not disputed. In the cross-examination by learned counsel for the accused PW.1 admitted that there was no zebra crossing on the place of accident.
12. The PW.2 and 4 are the eye witnesses and PW.3 is the injured witness. The PW.2 has deposed that when he was waiting in the Tripuravasini Bus Stop, a car which came from Mekhri Circle side and dashed to a girl standing on the road in front of bus stop. He further deposed that police have called him later and conducted mahazar in his presence. The PW.2 has deposed that he can identify the accused, if accused is shown. Learned counsel for the accused filed Exemption Petition stating that identity of the accused is not disputed. In the cross-examination by learned counsel for the accused PW.2 has admitted that he has not noticed the injured and the car before the accident. The PW.4 another eye witness has deposed that when a girl aged about 25 years was attempting to cross the road near Gayathri Vihar, a Indica car came in a high speed and 6 :C.C.No.213/2013: dashed to that girl. Because of the accident, she fell down and sustained grievous injuries and became unconscious, the injured was taken to the hospital. The PW.4 further deposed that on the same day in the afternoon he was called to place of accident and conducted mahazar in his presence. This witness is treated as hostile in so far as identification of the accused by this witness in the police station and recording of further statement. Though learned APP cross- examined nothing is elicited in support of the further statement Ex.P.3. Learned counsel for the accused has submitted no cross of PW.4.
13. The PW.3 the injured witness has deposed that when she was crossing the road near palace road bus stop, a car came and dashed to her and she don't know the number of the car, she sustained head injury and became unconscious. She further deposed that when she re-gained consciousness, she was in M.S. Ramaiah hospital, police have shown the accused in the police station and recorded her statement. The PW.3 has deposed that she can identify the accused, if accused is shown. Learned counsel for the accused filed Exemption Petition stating that identity of the accused is not disputed. In the cross-examination by learned counsel for the 7 :C.C.No.213/2013: accused PW.3 has deposed that before the accident she has not noticed the car.
14. The I.O - PW.5 has deposed in respect of registration of the case, drawing of mahazar on the spot and filing of charge sheet after completion of the investigation. In the cross-examination by learned counsel for the accused PW.5 has deposed that the road in which the accident was taken place is a main road and there is no zebra crossing on the place of accident. The PW.5 further admitted that the accident as happened when the pedestrian was attempting to cross the road.
15. In this case, the evidence of PW.2 is effect that the injured was standing on the road in front of bus stop, on the other hand PW.3 and 4 have deposed that the injured was crossing the road at the time of accident. The injured PW.3 herself has deposed that she has not noticed the car before the accident. It is admitted by the PW.5 - the I.O and complainant PW.1 that on the place of accident, there is no zebra crossing. On perusal of the sketch, it becomes clear that there is no zebra crossing and there is no provision for pedestrians to cross the road and there is a road divider. The sketch clearly reveals that the pedestrian was crossing the road where there is no zebra crossing 8 :C.C.No.213/2013: and she has gone into the middle of the road. The evidence on record clearly indicates that the accused was driving the car and learned counsel for the accused has not disputed the identity of the accused. However, there is no evidence on record to prove the rashness or negligence on the part of the accused. Since, it is a main road, the driver cannot expect the pedestrians crossing the road where there is no provision for the same. Therefore, this court has come to the conclusion that prosecution has failed to prove the accusation leveled against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, Point No.1 and 2 are answered in the NEGATIVE.
16. Point No.3: For forgoing discussion and findings on point No.1 and 2, following order is passed:
ORDER Exercising powers u/Sec.255 (1) of the Cr.P.C., accused is hereby acquitted for the offences punishable u/Ss.279 and 338 of the IPC.
The bail bond of the accused stands 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 26th day of August 2015) (RANGEGOWDA C.) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, TRAFFIC COURT- V, BANGALORE.9 :C.C.No.213/2013:
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION:
P.W.1 Govindaraju.S. P.W.2 Rajashekar. P.W.3 Smt.Sangeeta. P.W.4 Dandapani. P.W.5 E.Kaverappa.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION Ex.P.1 Complaint.
Ex.P.2 Spot Mahazar. Ex.P.1(a) & 2(a) Signature of PW.1. Ex.P.2(b) Signature of PW.2. Ex.P.3 Further Statement of PW.4. Ex.P.4 Sketch. Ex.P.5 & 6 Notice and Reply to 133 Statement. Ex.P.7 I.M.V Report. Ex.P.8 Wound Certificate. Ex.P.1(b), 2(c) 4(a) to 8(a) Signature of PW.5.
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR ACCUSED:
NIL (RANGEGOWDA C.) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, TRAFFIC COURT- V, BANGALORE.10 :C.C.No.213/2013: 11 :C.C.No.213/2013: