Bangalore District Court
State By P.S.I vs Shankara Prasada.N on 22 October, 2020
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE TRAFFIC
COURT - V, BENGALURU
PRESENT : SMT.POOJA SHETTI
B.A., LL.B. (Hon's).
M.M.T.C - V, BENGALURU
DATED THIS 22nd DAY OF OCTOBER 2020
C.C.No.6639 - 2018
COMPLAINANT : STATE BY P.S.I
HEBBAL TR. P.S.
BANGALORE.
// VS //
ACCUSED : SHANKARA PRASADA.N,
S/O.NARASIMHA BHAT.C.K.,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
NO.C0514, 1ST FLOOR,
BRIGADE MEDOWS APARTMENT,
UDAYAUR KANAKAPUR ROAD,
BENGALURU.
Date of Commission of Offence 26.07.2018.
Date of report of Offence 26.07.2018.
Name of the complainant Kumar.
Date of recording of evidence 25.02.2019.
Date of closing of evidence 22.10.2019.
Offences complained of U/Sec.279, 337 and 304(A) of
IPC.
Opinion of the Judge Accused found not guilty.
2 C.C.No.6639 - 2018
JUDGEMENT
The Police Inspector of Hebbal Traffic Police Station, Bengaluru, has filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under section 279, 337 and 304(A) of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution cases is as under:
That on 26.07.2018 at about 9.30 a.m., within the Jurisdiction of Hebbal Traffic Police Station at Hebbal Ring Road, near Bethel Church, the accused being driver of the Car bearing its registration No.KA.05.MR.6013 drove the same in rash and negligent manner, so as to endanger human life and dashed two pedestrians, who were crossing the road. Due to the impact of the accident, one among the pedestrians by name Kumar, aged about 49 years fell down and sustained simple injuries, whereas another by name J.Raju, aged about 49 years sustained grievous injuries to his head, legs, hands and chest. On 05.08.2018, the said J.Raju succumbed to the injuries at Victoria Hospital. Hence, the complaint.
3. On receipt of the compliant lodged by the complainant, the police have registered a case in Cr.No.93/2018 against the accused for the offence punishable under section 279, 337 and 304(A) of IPC. 3 C.C.No.6639 - 2018
4. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer has conducted inquest in the presence of CW.6 to CW.8 at Victoria Hospital and forwarded a requisition for post mortem. After completion of the inquest and post mortem, the body of the deceased was handed over to the legal heirs. After the completion of investigation, the inspector of Hebbal Police Station submitted the charge sheet against the accused.
5. Cognizance of the offence was taken. The accused is on bail.
6. The copies of prosecution papers along with charge sheet were furnished to the accused as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C.
7. The substance of accusation for the offence punishable under section 279, 337 and 304(A) of IPC., was recorded and read over to the accused, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried by this court. Hence, summonses were issued to the prosecution witness.
8. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined 9 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.9 and got marked 12 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12 and the prosecution side was closed. Thereafter, 4 C.C.No.6639 - 2018 the statement of the accused as required under section 313 of Cr.P.C recorded. The accused has denied all incriminating evidences appeared against him but did not adduce defense evidence.
9. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the documentary evidence on record.
10. The points that arise for my consideration are;
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 26.07.2018 at about 9.30 a.m., within the Jurisdiction of Hebbal Traffic Police Station at Hebbal Ring Road, near Bethel Church, the accused being driver of the Car bearing its registration No.KA.05.MR.6013 drove the same in rash and negligent manner, so as to endanger human life and dashed two pedestrians, who were crossing the road and thereby accused committed an offence punishable u/Sec.279 of the IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that on above said date, place and time, due to the impact of the accident, one among the pedestrians by name Kumar, aged about 49 years fell down and sustained simple injuries and thereby accused committed an offence punishable u/Sec.337 of the IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that on above said date, place and time, due to the impact 5 C.C.No.6639 - 2018 of the accident, another by name J.Raju, aged about 49 years sustained grievous injuries to his head, legs, hands and chest. On 05.08.2018, the said J.Raju succumbed to the injuries at Victoria Hospital and thereby accused committed an offence punishable u/Sec.304(A) of the IPC ?
4. What order ?
11. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1: In the NEGATIVE;
Point No.2: In the NEGATIVE;
Point No.3: In the NEGATIVE;
Point No.4: As per final order
for the following:
:REASONS:
12. POINT NO.1 to 3: As these points are interlinked with
each other, they are taken up together for consideration in order to avoid repetition.
13. PW.7, one Kumar claiming to be complainant deposed that, on 26.07.2018 at about 9.30 am., he and deceased Raju were crossing road towards Bethel Church, when they have crossed 75% of the road, a car bearing its registration No.6013 being driven in high 6 C.C.No.6639 - 2018 speed came from Hebbal signal and in spite of the signal given by them, the car dashed them. Due to the impact of accident, said Raju fell down and sustained injuries to his head, whereas he fell on the footpath and sustained injuries to his waist. Thereafter, the driver of the car took them to Baptist Hospital. At about 12.30 pm., police came to hospital, however he was unable to give statement, hence on 27.07.2018, he went to police station and had given his re-statement. The complaint identified by the witness was marked as Ex.P.5. Thereafter, witness deposes that, he can identify the car and driver of the car, who caused accident to him and identifies the accused present before the court. During his cross-examination by counsel for the accused, the witness admits the suggestion that, accident took place on high way, where there was no zebra crossing. He further admits the suggestion that, during morning hours, there will be more traffic on the said road.
14. PW.3, one Punith claiming to be eye witness deposes that, he and CW.5 are friends. On 26.07.2018 at about 10.00 am., near Bethel Church, they were having break fast and two people crossed the road towards Bethel Church and after crossing they were standing at the left side of the service road, meanwhile a car bearing its 7 C.C.No.6639 - 2018 registration No.KA.05.MR.6013 being driven in rash and negligent manner, came and dashed those pedestrians. Due to the impact of accident, one among the pedestrian fell on the car and sustained injuries to his leg and chest, likewise another sustained injury to his leg. Thereafter, police came to the spot, obtained the statement of witness and sent the injured to Baptist Hospital in the ambulance. The witness further deposes that, he can identify the car and driver of the car. Thereafter witness identifies the accused present before the court and 4 photographs of the car. The photographs identified by the witness were jointly marked as Ex.P.2. Thereafter he was treated as partly hostile witness by the prosecution and during his cross- examination by the prosecution, the witness admits the suggestion that, accident took place at about 9.30 am to 10.00 am. During his cross-examination by counsel for the accused, witness admits the suggestion that, accident took place on two way road and there is a road divider. He further admits the suggestion that, there is no zebra crossing. According to this witness, accident took place 5 feet away from the road divider and he has not observed as to from which direction pedestrians came. He further admits the suggestion that, within 300 to 400 meter distance, there is a zebra crossing and if the 8 C.C.No.6639 - 2018 pedestrian would have crossed the road at zebra crossing, accident could have been avoided.
15. PW.4, one Rakesh claiming to be eye witness deposed that, he and CW.4 are friends. On 26.07.2018 at about 10.00 am., near Bethel Church, they were having break fast, meanwhile a car bearing its registration No.KA.05.MR.6013 being driven in high speed came and dashed pedestrians. Due to the impact of accident, one among the pedestrian fell on the car and sustained injuries to his leg and chest, another sustained injury to his leg. Thereafter, police came to the spot, obtained the statement of witness and sent the injured to Baptist Hospital in the ambulance. The witness further deposes that, he can identify the car and driver of the car and identifies the accused present before the court and Ex.P.2. When this witness is confronted with spot mahazar, he deposes that, he has signed the same at police station. Thereafter he was treated as partly hostile witness and during his cross-examination by the prosecution, he admits the suggestion that, accident took place at about 9.30 am to 10.00 am. He further admits the suggestion that, he has signed spot mahazar, when police conducted mahazar at the accident spot between 1.30 pm to 2.30 pm., and along with him, being present at 9 C.C.No.6639 - 2018 the spot, CW.2 and CW.3 have also signed the same. During his cross-examination by counsel for the accused, the witness admits the suggestion that, accident took place on two way road and there is a road divider. He further admits the suggestion that, there is no zebra crossing and accident took place at turning. The witness further admits the suggestion that, if the pedestrians would have crossed the road near signal, the accident would not have taken place.
16. PW.1, one Shashi claiming to be spot mahazar witness, when confronted with spot mahazar deposed that, on 26.07.2018 between 1.30 to 2.30 pm., near Bethel Church, when police were enquiring about an accident, he has signed the same. The spot mahazar identified by the witness was marked as Ex.P.1 and according to this witness, along with him CW.3 and CW.5, being present have signed Ex.P.1. During his cross-examination, the witness admits the suggestion that, police have not issued notice to him to witness spot mahazar. He further admits the suggestion that, accident took place in a two way road and there is a road divider.
17. PW.2. one Dilip claiming to be spot mahazar witness, when confronted with spot mahazar deposed that, on 26.07.2018 between 1.30 to 2.30 pm., near Bethel Church, when police were 10 C.C.No.6639 - 2018 enquiring about an accident, he has signed the same. According to this witness, along with him, CW.2 and CW.5 being present have signed Ex.P.1. During his cross-examination, the witness denies the suggestion that, accident took place in a two way road and there is a road divider.
18. PW.5 - Medical Officer deposed that, on 26.07.2018 at about 10.00 am., he has examined CW.1 on the complaint of road accident and after mentioning the injuries, he had issued wound certificate. The wound certificate identified by the witness was marked as Ex.P.3 and according to his opinion, the injuries mentioned in Ex.P.5 can be caused if a person meets with road accident.
19. PW.6 - Senior Inspector of Motor Vehicle deposed that, on 27.07.2018 at the requisition of Hebbal Traffic Police, he had inspected the Honda City Car bearing its registration No.KA.05.MR.6013 alleged to have involved in the accident and has given his report, the said IMV Report was marked as Ex.P.4. He further deposed that, he has inspected the vehicle in running 11 C.C.No.6639 - 2018 condition and break system of the vehicle was intact and accident did not took place due to mechanical defect of the vehicle.
20. PW.8 - Investigating officer deposed that, on 26.07.2018, on the basis of information given by Baptist Hospital, he went to Baptist hospital and obtained statement of one Kumar. Another injured by name Raju was not in a position to speak, hence he registered a case in Cr.No.93/2018 and forwarded FIR to the court. On the same day, he visited the accident spot and conducted spot mahazar and prepared a sketch in the presence of CW.2 and CW.3 and recorded the statement of CW.4 and CW.5. On 27.07.2018, he sent a requisition to RTO - Yeshwanthpur to conduct vehicle inspection. On the same day, CW.12 has visited the station and conducted vehicle inspection. Thereafter, he issued notice under section 133 of MV Act., to the owner of vehicle and obtained reply. On 05.08.2018, he received information from Victoria Hospital about the death of injured by name Raju, hence handed over the entire case file to CW.18 to conduct further investigation. During his cross- examination, the witness admits the suggestion that, none of the eye witnesses have given statement about witnessing the driver of car at the spot. He further admits the suggestion that, at the accident spot, 12 C.C.No.6639 - 2018 there is no zebra crossing. However, when it has been suggested that, accident would have been avoided, if the pedestrians would have crossed the road at pedestrian crossing, the witness claims that, in most of the cases, people crosses the road at the same spot.
21. PW.9 - another investigation officer deposed that, 05.08.2018 he received entire case file from CW.17 for further investigation. On 06.08.2018, he visited to Victoria Hospital and conducted inquest between 9.00 am to 11.00 am., in the presence of CW.6 to CW.8. Thereafter, he has sent a requisition to the doctors to conduct post mortem, after the post mortem, body of the deceased was handed over to the legal heirs of the deceased. On 08.08.2018, he recorded the re-statement of CW.4 and CW.5. Thereafter, he received the wound certificate of CW.1. After completion of the investigation, he submitted charge sheet before the court. During his cross-examination, when the witness was confronted with a document and it has been suggested that, after accident, deceased Raju was admitted to Baptist Hospital for two days and as per the said report, there was a serum alcohol content of 179% in the body of the deceased, the witness deposes that, there can be, however he claims ignorance. Likewise when he was confronted with another 13 C.C.No.6639 - 2018 document and suggested that, the said document is pertaining to CW.2 and as per the said report, there was 278% of alcohol content at the time of medical examination of the injured, witness again claims ignorance.
22. When reconsidered all the evidences available on record, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined PW.7, PW.3 and PW.4 as eye witnesses. According to PW.7, he and deceased Raju have crossed 75% of the road at the time of accident. However, according to PW.3, after crossing the road, when pedestrians were standing at the left side of the service road, accident took place. Further, according to PW.7, it is the accused, who took them to Baptist Hospital and police came to hospital to record his statement, whereas according to PW.3 and PW.4, after accident, police came to the spot, recorded statement of witnesses and sent the injured to Baptist Hospital in the ambulance. According to PW.8, he received information about the accident from hospital. Hence there is contradiction among the testimony of injured, PW.3, PW.4 and PW.8. Further, during the cross-examination of PW.3 and PW.4, both admits the suggestion that, if the pedestrians would have crossed the road at pedestrian crossing, accident would have been avoided. Further, all 14 C.C.No.6639 - 2018 three witnesses have admitted that, accident took place on high way road and at the accident spot, there was no zebra crossing. In a criminal trial burden of proving everything essential to the establishment of charge against an accused always rests on the prosecution and there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused until the contrary is proved. Criminality is not to be presumed, subject of course to some statutory exceptions. In view of above observation, when there is no corroboration, among the testimony of witnesses, it cannot be concluded that, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
23. Further, during the cross-examination of PW.9, counsel for accused confronted two documents and suggested that, as per the document, at the time of accident, both the injured and the deceased were under the influence of alcohol. Though, the investigating officer claims ignorance about those documents, he fails to denied the contents. However, no doctor has been examined by the accused to prove the contents of the documents, even otherwise, if the Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2 are not looked into, then also criminal negligence is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to 15 C.C.No.6639 - 2018 exercise that reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard against injury either to the public generally or to an individual in particular, which having regard to all the circumstances out of which the charge has arisen, it was imperative duty of the accused to have adopted. When pedestrians without adopting proper care and caution, tries to cross road at high way in a spot where there is no zebra crossing, it cannot be held that, accused failed to exercise that reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard against injury either to the public generally or to an individual in particular. In view of above observation, the evidence of prosecution is not substantial, cogent and convincing to attach the guilt of the accused to the alleged offences. Hence, Point No.1 to 3 are answered in the NEGATIVE.
24. Point No.4: For forgoing discussion and findings on point No.1 to 3, following order is passed:
ORDER Acting u/Sec.255(1) of the Cr.P.C., the accused is hereby acquitted for the offences punishable u/Ss.279, 337 and 304(A) of the IPC.
The bail bond of the accused shall stand cancelled.16 C.C.No.6639 - 2018
(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 22nd day of October 2020) (POOJA SHETTI) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, TRAFFIC COURT- V, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION:
P.W.1 Shashi.
P.W.2 Dilip.
P.W.3 Punith.R.
P.W.4 Rakesh.
P.W.5 P.N.Prakash.
P.W.6 H.Rajanna.
P.W.7 Kumar.
P.W.8 K.Krishnappa.
P.W.9 T.L.Praveen Kumar.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION
Ex.P.1 Spot Mahazar.
Ex.P.2 Photos.
Ex.P.3 Wound Certificate.
Ex.P.4 IMV Report.
Ex.P.5 Statement of CW.1.
Ex.P.6 FIR.
Ex.P.7 Sketch.
Ex.P.8 & 9 Notice & Reply u/Sec. 133 of M.V.Act.
17 C.C.No.6639 - 2018
Ex.P.10 Death Memo.
Ex.P.11 Inquest.
Ex.P.12 Post Mortem Report.
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR ACCUSED:
NIL (POOJA SHETTI) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, TRAFFIC COURT- V, BENGALURU.