Bangalore District Court
Shanmugham vs The State Of Karnataka, By Indiranagara ... on 3 April, 2025
KABC0A0022602024
IN THE COURT OF THE LXXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL
& SESSIONS JUDGE AT MAYO HALL
BENGALURU, (CCH-73)
Present:
Sri. Sreepada N,
B.Com., L.L.M.,
LXXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
Dated this the 3rd day of April 2025
Crl. Appeal. No.25250/2024
Appellant/ Sri. Shanmugham,
Accused:- (Actual name is Shanmughananda R)
S/o Late Ramu,
Aged about 36 years,
R/at No.2078, 16th 'C' Main,
HAL 2nd Stage, Indiranagar,
Bengaluru-560 038.
(By Sri. Narayan M. Naik - Adv.,)
V/s
Respondent/ The State of Karnataka,
Complainant: By Indiranagara Traffic Police Station,
Indiranagara,
Begaluru-560 038.
Represented by Public Prosecutor,
City Civil Court,
Bengaluru-09.
(By Public Prosecutor)
2 Crl.Appeal No.25250/2024
JUDGMENT
This appeal is by the Accused, before the Trial Court who suffered the judgment of conviction for the offence punishable U/Sec. 279, 337, 338 of IPC, Sec. 115 R/w Sec.117, 146 R/w 196 of IMV Act passed by Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court-I Bengaluru, in CC.No.11962/2016, dtd. 12.6.2024, challenging the validity of the judgment.
2. For the sake of convenience the parties hereinafter will be referred to with their ranking assigned before the trial court.
3. The facts of the case:-
It is the case of the prosecution that, on 22.02.2015, at about 10:15 am, the accused riding on Honda Activa Vehicle number KA-03 EY-3452 drove his vehicle recklessly and negligently from the side of the double road towards the 100 feet main road, at the junction of 100 feet road, 17th main road within the jurisdiction of Indiranagar traffic police station, drove his vehicle carelessly and negligently from the side of Double Road towards 100 feet road 3 Crl.Appeal No.25250/2024 without giving priority to the main road and even though the complainant gave instructions to the accused to stop the vehicle, who was on traffic duty at the junction of 100 feet road, 17th main road, the accused did not stop the vehicle and drove towards Koramangala from Indiranagar side. As a result of collision with the moving motor cycle No. KA-03 HV-
4315, Sri. Animesh Amit, aged about 24 years, the rider, suffered moderate and severe blood injuries to his back bone and other parts of the body and Sri. S. Ramu, aged about 80 years, who was sitting behind the rider of Honda Activa Vehicle, suffered severe injuries.
4. The Honda Activa Vehicle of accused was not insured at the time of accident. Hence, the police have arrayed him as accused. Thereby, accused has committed offences punishable U/s. 279, 337, 338 of IPC and 115 r/w 177, 196 of IMV Act. Thereafter the Complainant approached the Trial Court for appropriate legal action against the accused.
5. Pursuant to summons the Accused entered appearance through his Counsel before the Trial 4 Crl.Appeal No.25250/2024 Court. The substance of the accusation was read over and explained to the Accused in the language known to him. The Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The Prosecution Side got examined 06 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.6 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11 documents and closed his side. The Accused got examined himself as DW.1, but has not marked any documents to contest the case.
6. The trial court after hearing the prosecution and defense side, has convicted the Accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.279, 337, 338 of IPC and 115 R/w Section 177, 196 of IMV Act vide Judgment dtd. 12.6.2024.
7. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction, the Accused is in appeal on the following grounds:
1. The impugned judgment passed by the Learned Magistrate is contrary to law and existing facts and circumstances in the above case. Hence, the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court is liable to be set aside.5 Crl.Appeal No.25250/2024
2. The order of the Learned Magistrate is based on inferences and presumptions which is liable to be set aside.
3. Relying upon the documents produced and evidence of the Respondent, the Learned Magistrate has passed an impugned judgment convicting the Accused which is liable to be set aside.
4. The Trial Court failed to understand the facts and circumstances of the case and without considering the evidence of DW.1 in a proper perspective and conduct of the Police who has failed to register the complaint filed by the Appellant.
5. The Trial Court failed to consider the evidence of the PW.1 who has filed complaint before the Respondent Police and wrongly come to conclusion that the Appellant was found guilty of the alleged offence.
6. The Trial Court failed to consider the evidence of the witnesses, the PW.1 who is injured had not identified the Accused before the Trial Court.6 Crl.Appeal No.25250/2024
7. The Trial Court has wrongly come to the conclusion that the Appellant is guilty of offence punishable under Section 279, 337, and 338 of IPC and Section 115 R/w Section 177, 196 of IMV Act.
8. The Trial Court before passing the sentence also failed to consider the fact that, the Appellant is not a habitual offender and there is criminal antecedents against the Appellant.
9. The Trial Court failed to consider the evidence of DW.1.
10. Under the above grounds the Appellant sought for acquittal by allowing the appeal.
8. Heard both sides.
9. Perused the evidence, documents on record and also impugned Judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court.
10. On re-appreciation of the evidence, documents on record, the following points would emerge for the consideration of this court.
1. Whether the appellant has made out a case that the trial court 7 Crl.Appeal No.25250/2024 has committed any error in appreciating the oral and documentary evidence placed before it?
2. Whether the interference of this court is necessary in the impugned judgment of the trial court?
3. What Order?
11. My finding on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative. Point No.2 : Partly in the Affirmative. Point No.3 : As per final order for the following :
REASONS
12. POINT NOs.1 and 2:-
Since the above two points are interlinked, in order to avoid repetition of facts the above points have been taken up together for consideration.
13. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant vehemently argued and submitted that the Trial 8 Crl.Appeal No.25250/2024 Court has not properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence relied upon by the prosecution. Further argued that the Trial Court has much relied upon the evidence of PW.4, but he has not identified the Accused before the Court. Even he admitted in the cross-examination that he had given signal to move the vehicle running through the Double Road. This itself prove that, when there was signal to move from Double Road to 17 th Cross, the Appellant was moving from Double Road to towards 17th Cross Road, at the 100 Feet Road Junction. PW.3 who was coming towards Koramangala by riding his motor cycle bearing No.KA-03-HV-4315 in a rash and negligent manner had dashed against the vehicle of the Appellant and caused accident, due to which PW.3, Appellant and his father got injured. The Trial Court has failed to consider these material facts and wrongly come to conclusion that the Appellant was found guilty. Even the Accused himself has given evidence before the Trial Court and stated that he was riding the motor cycle with care and by following traffic signal. Though the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the PW.3, the Respondent Police without registering 9 Crl.Appeal No.25250/2024 the complaint against the PW.3 had filed false charge sheet against the Appellant herein. Since, the Appellant and his family members are not having much knowledge about filing of complaint and taking action on the complaint lodged by the PW.4, had not approached the superior authority. Further argued that no one has stated that the Appellant had violated the traffic signal and dashed against the vehicle bearing No.KA-03-HV-4315. PW.4 deposed that there was a signal to move the vehicle from the Double Road. When such being the fact, it is very clear that the Appellant by following the traffic rules was riding his motor cycle. Therefore, the impugned judgment and sentence passed by the Trial Court is against to law and needs for interference by this Court.
14. Per contra, the Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that though the Appellant contended that by following rules he was riding the motor cycle in a slow manner and not at all caused accident and the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the PW.3 etc., but in this regard, no one prevented the Appellant herein to file 10 Crl.Appeal No.25250/2024 complaint against the PW.3. On the other hand, PW.4 the Police who was very much present at the time of accident has lodged the complaint. Further he identified the Accused and deposed that the Accused himself has caused the accident. Even in the cross- examination made by Learned Public Prosecutor also he clearly admitted the suggestion that he drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused accident to the vehicle of the victim. There is no personal interest to the witness to give false evidence against the Appellant herein. Further argued that the Trial Court after considering the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in proper manner and so also considering the mahazar, sketch and complaint has properly come to conclusion that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the motor cycle by the Appellant herein. Further argued that the Appellant herein without insuring his vehicle drove the same and caused the accident. Even he admits that his vehicle was not insured. So looking from any angle, the Trial Court has properly come to conclusion that the Accused has commuted the offence as alleged against him. Thereby the Trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence and 11 Crl.Appeal No.25250/2024 convicted the Accused. Therefore, there is no materials to interfere with the judgment of the Trial Court.
15. In the present case the Trial Court has convicted the Accused for the offence punishable under Section 279, 337, 338 of IPC, Sec. 115 R/w Sec.117, 196 of IMV Act. The Accused has been sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for violation of Section 279, Rs.500/- for violation of Section 337 of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and also imposed fine of Rs.1,000/- for violation of Section 338 of IPC, imposed fine of Rs.100/- for violation of Section 115 R/w Section 117 of IMV Act and also sentenced for Rs.1,000/- for violation of Section146 R/w Section 196 of IMV Act. Admittedly, except to Section 338 of IPC, the Trial Court has imposed minimum fine to the Accused.
16. It is the argument of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant is that PW.4 who is the Complainant and according to Prosecution he is the material witness, in the examination-in-chief stated that the Accused rode his motor cycle in no entry 12 Crl.Appeal No.25250/2024 road and caused the accident to the victim motor cycle. In the result both riders of the vehicle have sustained injuries, as such he himself admitted to them to Chinmaya Hospital. On the other hand, in the Ex.P.2 Complaint, he has not stated that the Accused came from no entry road and caused accident. Further in the complaint he has not stated that he got admitted both riders of the vehicle to the hospital. For the first time in his examination-in-chief stated that he himself got admitted them to the hospital. Even in the complaint he stated that at the time of accident he allowed the vehicles from 13th Main Road towards Koramangala and stopped the vehicles coming from Double Road. At that time the Accused suddenly came from the Double Road and caused the accident. However, this fact is not at all stated by PW.4 in his examination-in-chief. Further argued that, interestingly, at the time of cross- examination made by the Learned Public Prosecutor he admitted that at the time of accident, he allowed the vehicles of Double Road to proceed, at that time the Accused violated the said direction rode his motor cycle and caused accident.
13 Crl.Appeal No.25250/202417. I have carefully perused the above arguments of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant with the evidence of PW.4 with the contents of complaint averments. As argued by the Learned Counsel for the Accused, there are some contradictions in the evidence of PW.4 with the averments of Ex.P.2 Complaint. However, all these some minor contradictions in the evidence of PW.4 with his complaint only, this Court cannot hold that the Accused has not committed the offence as alleged against him. As opined by the Trial Court in its judgment, PW.3 who is the victim of this case has clearly supported the case of the prosecution. Further on careful perusal of evidence of PW.3, he specifically deposed that when he was going home on his motor cycle, the Accused came in a rash and negligent manner towards his right side and dashed to his vehicle, due to the accident he became unconscious and admitted to the hospital. Further he stated that since the accident had happened about 04 years back and he did not remember the Accused face, but he specifically deposed that he has given statement with the help of others, he knows the vehicle number and name of the Accused, which was told by his 14 Crl.Appeal No.25250/2024 family members. That apart, this witness immediately after the accident sustained grievous injuries and became unconscious. Therefore, there is no much evidence can be expected from the mouth of this witness. As discussed above, PW.4 who is the eye-witness to the incident has clearly identified the Accused before the Court and clearly stated that the Accused himself has rode his motor vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused accident to the vehicle of the victim.
18. It is the further argument of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant is that when the prima- facie there is lot of contradiction in the evidence of prosecution witness to prove, to be fatal to the case of the prosecution, then these contradiction goes to the root of the matter, the Accused is entitle for benefit of doubt.
19. Here in this case, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that the Accused has not at all rode his motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner, on the other hand, PW.3 himself rode his motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner and 15 Crl.Appeal No.25250/2024 caused the accident. Because of the Accused not having any knowledge about lodging of the complaint, immediately he did not lodge any complaint. On the other hand, in the said accident the pillion rider of the Accused vehicle who is none other than the father of the Accused sustained grievous injuries, as such the Accused got admitted his father to the Manipal Hospital and thereafter he came to the Police Station, at that time the Police have obtained some signatures of the Accused and the Accused also lodged complaint. However, in this regard, no action has been taken on PW.3. Therefore, it is clear that the Police without taking any action on the complaint of the Accused, only at the instance of PW.4 filed this false complaint. Further the Learned Counsel for the Accused has drawn attention of this Court to the evidence of DW.1 in this case. In support of his arguments he has relied on the following decisions:
1) 2017 (13) SCC 98 Krishnegowda & Others V/s State of Karnataka.
2) 2017 SCC Online SC 222 Prem Chand V/s State of Himachal Pradesh.16 Crl.Appeal No.25250/2024
3) AIR 2021 SC 3197 Surendran V/s Sub-
Inspector of Police.
20. First of all this Court gone through the evidence of DW.1. As argued by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant, the Accused stated in his examination-in-chief that the Complainant himself ride the motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against his vehicle. Further stated that in Double Road, 17th Main, 100 Feet Junction, when he was coming from Western to Eastern Side, at that time two wheeler of the Accused came from Northern Side to Southern Side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to his motor cycle towards left side, as a result himself and his father sustained injuries and when he went to Police Station they have obtained his signatures on some papers and so also he lodged complaint. However, the Police have filed false case against him and he has not committed any offence. During the course of cross- examination it is suggested to him that even though there is no signal given to him, he rode his motor cycle in a Service Road and dashed against the vehicle of the PW.3. Interestingly, in the cross-
17 Crl.Appeal No.25250/2024examination he has stated that though he was ready to lodge complaint, the Police have not at all received his complaint. However, he has not stated anything about this in his examination-in-chief. On the other hand, he stated that he lodged complaint against the victim. Further admitted in the cross-examination that he has not intimated to the higher officers of the Police Station about non-receiving of the complaint by the Police. Further stated that he was not aware to intimate to the same to higher authority. Further stated that he has not lodged any private complaint against the Complainant. Further admitted the suggestion that in 313 Statement he has not stated that he has not caused accident, but the vehicle of the victim only has caused the accident to his vehicle.
21. So by going through above evidence of DW.1, it is clear that if really the Accused had not rode his motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner and the victim himself has rode his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused accident, there was no impediment for him to lodge complaint against the victim. Even there is no impediment for him to give complaint to the higher officers of the 18 Crl.Appeal No.25250/2024 Police for non-receiving his complaint. As admitted by the Accused he could have lodge private complaint against the victim vehicle if the Police did not receive his complaint. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the conclusion arose by the Trial Court that the Accused has committed the offence as levelled against him is proper and correct.
22. PW.5 & PW.6 who are the Investigating Officers have deposed about conducting the investigation in this case and also deposed about preparing Sport Mahazar and Spot Sketch. No doubt, PW.3 who is the Spot Mahazar and Spot Sketch witness has supported the case of the prosecution. Even on perusal of Ex.P.4 hand sketch it can be seen that the accident had occurred in the middle of the road, wherein the vehicle of the Accused rushed towards center of the road, at the same time the vehicle of the victim also came in the opposite side, both vehicles collided with each other, the accident had occurred. Further on careful perusal of Ex.P.10 IMV Report also it is clear that the vehicle of the Accused was damaged towards right side and front side. On the other hand, the vehicle of the victim also 19 Crl.Appeal No.25250/2024 damaged on the front side. Anyhow, from the IMV Report and as well as Spot Sketch it can be seen that at the time of accident the vehicle of the Accused was in a rash and negligent manner, at the same time the vehicle of the victim also appears to be very speed. Though there is some contradiction in the evidence of Complainant with the complaint averments and as well as Spot Sketch etc., however, as discussed above, in the accident both victim and Accused have sustained grievous injuries. Even the father of the Accused also suffered injury in the said accident.
23. It is the main argument of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant is that though there are some contradictions in the evidence of Complainant with the complaint averments and as well as Spot Sketch and Spot Mahazar, the Trial Court without considering that aspect simply convicted the Accused only on the basis of the evidence of Complainant and other witnesses. Even though the injured not identified the Accused, wrongly come to conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt.
20 Crl.Appeal No.25250/202424. As discussed above, the Complainant has clearly identified the Accused. Even he is the eye- witness to the incident has deposed about rash and negligent riding of the motor cycle by the Accused. As discussed above, accident was occurred in the middle of the road, wherein the vehicle of the Accused rushed to the center of the road. Though the Accused has taken defense that the accident had not occurred due to his fault and on the other hand the victim himself has rode his motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to his vehicle. In this regard, he has not lodged any complaint. Even though he has contended that he lodged complaint, but in this regard he has not placed any materials. As opined by the Trial Court in its judgment, at the time of the accident the Accused was riding his motor cycle without insuring his vehicle. Merely taking defense by the Accused that the accident had not taken place on his part, but it has taken place on the part of the victim is not sufficient ground to hold that he is innocent. As opined by the Trial Court in its judgment the Accused should have rebutted the said defense by placing sufficient materials. That apart, the Accused had admitted that he was riding his 21 Crl.Appeal No.25250/2024 motor cycle at the time of incident in the alleged place of the incident. Therefore, looking from any angle, this Court feels that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt.
25. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant much argued about simple imprisonment of one month to the Accused for the offence committed by him under Section 338 of IPC. In this regard, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Appellant is the first time offender and he does not have any criminal background and therefore, he may be dealt with Section 360 of Cr.P.C. Further argued that there is no complaint with regard to behavior of this Appellant during the pendency of this proceedings. Therefore, simple imprisonment awarded against him may be set aside. In this regard, he further drawn attention of this Court with regard to the decisions reported in 2017 SCC Online 222 and AIR 2021 SC 3197. Admittedly, in the first decision the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case filed against the Accused under Section 279 and 337 of IPC opined as under:
22 Crl.Appeal No.25250/20244. It is evident from the materials placed on record that the Appellant is a first-time offender. He does not have any criminal antecedents of offender.
There is also no complaint with regard to his behavior during the pendency of the proceedings.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the High Court ought to have granted the benefit of probation to the Appellant.
Therefore, the appeal is allowed in part and while upholding the conviction, the sentence of imprisonment awarded against him is set aside. The Trial Court is directed to deal the Appellant under the provisions of Section 360 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
26. Here in this case also it appears from the records that the Accused/Appellant is the first time offender and he does not have any criminal antecedents of offender. Moreover, there is no complaint with regard to his behavior during the pendency of this proceedings. That apart, on careful 23 Crl.Appeal No.25250/2024 perusal of the materials of this case and nature of the accident occurred and also considering the injuries sustained by the Appellant and his father, conviction and sentence of imprisonment awarded against the Appellant has to be set aside. However, he is liable to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 338 of IPC. Further this Court opines that, except modifying the sentence of imprisonment awarded against the Appellant in respect of Section 338 of IPC, remaining sentence imposed by the Trial Court has to be confirmed. That apart, the Trial Court has imposed minimum sentence of fine to the Appellant in connection with the other offences committed by the Appellant/Accused. Therefore, I found no illegality committed by the Trial Court in convicting the Accused for the offences charged against the Appellant. However, as discussed above, the Trial Court has not considered the injuries sustained by the Appellant and his father during the accident and also not considered the contribution made by the injured victim in the accident. Therefore, as aforesaid, imprisonment of one month imposed by the Trial Court to the Accused shall have to be 24 Crl.Appeal No.25250/2024 modified as aforesaid. Hence, I answer Point No.1 in the Affirmative and Point No.2 Partly in the Affirmative.
27. Point No.3:
In view of the findings on the above points the appeal filed by the Appellant deserves to be allowed in part. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER The appeal filed by the Appellant U/Sec.374 (3) of Cr.P.C., is hereby allowed in part.
Consequently the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Metopolitan Magistrate Traffic Court-I, Bengaluru, in C.C.No.11962/2016 dtd: 12.6.2024 is hereby confirmed in respect of offence U/Sec. 279, 337 of IPC, Sec. 115 R/w Sec.117, 146 R/w 196 of IMV Act.
The Judgment of conviction passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court-I, Bengaluru, in respect of offence U/Sec.338 of IPC is hereby confirmed.
However, sentence of simple imprisonment of One month passed against the Accused is hereby set aside. On the other hand, the Accused 25 Crl.Appeal No.25250/2024 is hereby sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- only for violation of Section 338 of IPC and in default of payment of fine he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.
Send back the records with a copy of this Judgment to the Trial Court.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me, in the open court on this the 3rd day of April 2025.) [Sri. Sreepada N] LXXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. (CCH-73).