Bangalore District Court
State By Peenya Tr. P.S vs Sathish.C.T on 22 June, 2020
IN THE COURT OF THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
TRAFFIC COURT - III, AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS 22ND DAY OF JUNE 2020.
PRESENT : Smt. VISMITHA MOORTHY., B.A.L., LL.B.,
M.M.T.C-III, Bengaluru.
CC No.392/2017
COMPLAINANT: State by Peenya Tr. P.S
Bengaluru.
(State by : Learned Sr. APP)
V/s
ACCUSED: Sathish.C.T.,
S/o Thammannagowda,
Aged about 34 years,
Token No.23164, 16th Depo,
Deepanjalinagara,
Bengaluru.
(Represented by Sri. P.M.N., Adv.)
JUDGMENT
The Police Sub Inspector of Peenya Traffic Police Station has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Sec.279, 337 of IPC and Sec.134(b) r/w 187 of IMV Act.
2 CC No.392/20172. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under : -
That on 29.08.2016 at about 08.15 a.m. accused being the driver of BMTC Bus bearing No.KA.01 F 9305 was driving the said vehicle within the jurisdiction of Peenya Traffic police station at TVS Cross Junction on 100 feet Road from Jalahalli Cross towards Peenya 2nd Stage Bus Stop at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and hit to CW.1, who was crossing the road from west to east at TVS Cross Junction, as a result CW.1 sustained simple injuries and after the accident accused failed to inform the same to nearest police station. As such the accused has committed an offence punishable under Sec.279, 337 of IPC and Sec.134(b) r/w 187 of IMV Act.
3. Cognizance was taken by perusing the prosecution papers and materials, the accused on receipt of summons appeared before the court and got himself enlarged on bail. On the said date the prosecution papers were furnished to the accused as per Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.
3 CC No.392/2017and substance of accusation in the form of plea was read over and explained to him, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. During the course of trial the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 6 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.10. In this case CWs.3 and 6 to 8 are given up by the prosecution. The statement of accused as per Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded the accused had no explanation and he denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he has not chosen to lead the defence evidence.
5. Heard arguments on both sides and perused the materials available on record.
6. The point that arises for my determination is as under:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 29.08.2016 at about 08.15 a.m. accused being the driver 4 CC No.392/2017 of BMTC Bus bearing No.KA.01 F 9305 was driving the said vehicle within the jurisdiction of Peenya Traffic police station at TVS Cross Junction on 100 feet Road from Jalahalli Cross towards Peenya 2nd Stage Bus Stop at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sec. 279 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the same date, time and place accused drove his vehicle at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and hit to CW.1, who was crossing the road from west to east at TVS Cross Junction, as a result CW.1 sustained simple injuries and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sec. 337 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that after the accident accused failed to inform the same to nearest police station and thereby committed an 5 CC No.392/2017 offence punishable under Sec.134 (b) r/w 187 of IMV Act?
4. What Order?
7. My answer to 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
8. POINT Nos.1 TO 3 : For the sake of convenience and to avoid repetition of facts, these points are taken up for common discussions to have brevity.
9. The prosecution case against the accused is that on 29.08.2016 at about 08.15 a.m. accused being the driver of BMTC Bus bearing No.KA.01 F 9305 was driving the said vehicle within the jurisdiction of Peenya Traffic 6 CC No.392/2017 police station at TVS Cross Junction on 100 feet Road from Jalahalli Cross towards Peenya 2nd Stage Bus Stop at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and hit to CW.1, who was crossing the road from west to east at TVS Cross Junction, as a result CW.1 sustained simple injuries and after the accident accused failed to inform the same to nearest police station.
10. In order to bring home the charge against the accused the prosecution has examined 6 witnesses as PWs.1 to 6 and got marked Ex.P.1 to 10. Among the witnesses examined before the court PW.1 is the complainant/injured, PW.2 is the eye witness/ spot mahazar witness, PWs.3 and 4 are the eye witnesses, PWs.5 and 6 are the investigating officers. Ex.P.1 is the complaint, Ex.P.2 is the spot mahazar, Ex.P.3 is the IMV report, Ex.P.4 is the statement of PW.3, Ex.P.5 is the FIR, Ex.P.6 is the sketch, Ex.P.7 is the Notice U/s 133 of IMV act, Ex.P.8 is the reply to the said notice, Ex.P.9 is the indemnity bond and Ex.P.10 is the wound certificate.
7 CC No.392/201711. Before adverting to the appreciation of evidence it is proper to state in brief the evidence deposed by the prosecution witnesses.
12. CW.1 examined as PW.1 and deposed that about one year back when he was crossing the road from TVS Cross towards Kanteerava Studio at that time one BMTC bus driver came at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and hit him, as a result he felt down and sustained grievous injuries on right portion of his body, then he was shifted to Hospital by the said bus driver and conductor and then they went away and thereafter police came to the Hospital and obtained his oral complaint as per Ex.P.1. He further deposed that he has not seen the bus driver on the date of accident and said accident was occurred due to fault of bus driver, though he had a red signal he violated the traffic rules. Learned advocate for accused cross-examined him and in the cross-examination he admits that in the incident place there was a zebra crossing, but he was not crossing the road on zebra crossing. Further, he also admits that after the incident at 10.00 a.m. he was taken to Srirama Hospital.
8 CC No.392/201713. CW.2 examined as PW.2 and deposed that about 3 years back at about 07.15 a.m. to 08.15 a.m. he along with CWs.1 and 3 after alighting from the bus at TVS Cross and were crossing the road at that time driver of the BMTC bus bearing Reg.No. KA.01 - 9305 came at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and hit to CW.1, as a result he felt down and sustained injuries on hands, legs and waist then shifted him to Hospital at Sunkadakatte in the said BMTC bus. He further deposed that at about 10.15 a.m. police came the accident spot and conducted spot mahazar in his presence as per Ex.P.2. Learned advocate for accused cross-examined him and in the cross- examination he admits that in the incident place there is a signal and in the said road there was a zebra crossing for pedestrians to cross the road and he further admits that he and PW.1 were not crossing the road on zebra crossing. He further admits that by the time when they were crossing he was moving behind PW.1. He further admits that he had not lodged the complaint as he had not seen the incident.
9 CC No.392/201714. CW.5 examined as PW.3 and deposed that on 29.08.2016 at about 08.00 a.m. to 09.00 a.m. their BMTC bus bearing Reg.No. KA.02 F 9305 proceeding from Jalahalli Cross towards City Market and when their bus was standing near TVS Cross Signal at that time one person requested them to shift the one person to Hospital and said person sustained simple injuries and they shifted him to Government Hospital at Hegganahalli. He further deposed that on the said day accused present before the court was driver to the said BMTC bus and in this regard he has not given any statement before the police. The learned APP treated this witness as hostile and cross-examined him and he denied all the suggestions put by the learned APP and he has not supported to the case of prosecution.
15. CW.4 examined as PW.4 and deposed that about two years back at about 08.00 a.m. to 08.15 a.m. when he was proceeding in his two wheeler on 100 feet road at Jalahalli Cross at that time one BMTC bus bearing Reg.No. KA.01- 9305 came from opposite side at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and jumped the signal and 10 CC No.392/2017 while taking right turn hit to one pedestrian, as a result he sustained injuries on waist and hands and then driver and conductor of the said bus shifted him to the Hospital in the said bus. Learned advocate for accused cross-examined him and in the cross-examination he admits that PW.1 is known person to him. Further, he admits that in the incident spot 5 - 6 persons were crossing the road and in that PW.1 was moving in the last. Further, he also admits that on the date of incident at 06.00 p.m. he had given information to the police about the accident.
16. CWs.9 and 10 being the investigating officers examined as PWs.5 and 6, who deposed about the investigation conducted by them. Learned advocate for accused cross-examined them and in the cross-examination PW.6 admits that in Ex.P.5 no reasons have been stated as to why Ex.P.1 was lodged in delay. He also admits that on the date of incident they have not received any information about the incident. But further he had stated that on the date of incident PW.1 had lodged Ex.P.1 in the police station.
11 CC No.392/201717. With the above evidence, this court has to ascertain whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts.
18. On perusal of oral and documentary evidence it is clear that incident was occurred on 29.08.2016, but Ex.P.1 was obtained by the police on 30.08.2016. PW.6 during his cross-examination one's admits that on the date of incident he had not received any information about the incident and at the same time he also deposed that on the date of incident PW.1 himself came to police station and lodged Ex.P.1. On perusal of Ex.P.1 it is clear that it has been obtained by the police in the Hospital when PW.1 was admitted in the Hospital. Further, PW.4 had also admitted that on the date of incident itself he had given information to the police about the incident. Further, no other documents have been placed before the court to show that they have received complaint about the incident on the date of occurrence of incident. Here it is to be noted that there is a delay of one day in lodging complaint. But, no reasons have been stated for the said delay. Further, PW.1 being complainant and injured 12 CC No.392/2017 though deposed about the incident admits he had not seen the driver of the offending vehicle on the date of incident, further though he had admitted the suggestions put by the learned APP that accused is the driver of the offending vehicle he had not admitted nor learned APP has suggested that he had seen the driver of the offending vehicle on the date of incident itself by the time when accident was occurred. Further, according to prosecution accident was occurred at 08.15 a.m. and PW.1 admits after the incident he was taken to Srirama Hospital by 10.00 a.m. but in Ex.P.1 it is stated that after the incident immediately he was taken to Government Hospital in Hegganahalli, later to Srirama Hospital. PW.2 deposed that PW.1 was taken to Hospital in Sunkadakatte. Here no medical certificates have been placed before the court to show PW.1 was taken to government Hospital and further on perusal of Ex.P.10 it shows PW.1 was taken to Srirama Hospital at 05.00 p.m. Further, according to PWs.1 and 2 in the incident spot there was a zebra crossing and they have also admitted that they were not crossing the road on zebra crossing. It clearly shows the negligence on the part of PW.1 and more over, according to PW.2 he 13 CC No.392/2017 was behind PW.1 while crossing the road and according to PW.4, before the incident 5 - 6 persons were crossing the road along with PW.1 and by that time PW.1 was proceeding in last. There are contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses.
19. By ascertaining all these oral and documentary evidence it is clear that there is no cogent, corroborative and substantive evidence to prove the guilt of accused. Therefore, by considering the overall facts and circumstances of this case, this court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and the benefit of doubt shall go to the accused. Hence, point Nos.1 and 2 are answered in the negative.
20. Similarly, when the identity of the accused is not proved the question of proving the offence covered by point No.3 does not arise. Hence, point No.3 is answered in the negative.
14 CC No.392/201721. POINT No.4: In view of the findings on points Nos.1 to 3, this court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C. accused is hereby acquitted for accusation of commission of the offence punishable under Sec.279, 337 of IPC and Sec.134(b) r/w 187 of IMV Act.
His bail bond and surety
bond stands cancelled after the
lapse of appeal period.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript computerized by her, revised corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 22nd day of June, 2020.) (VISMITHA MOORTHY) MMTC-III, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION:
PW.1 Siddamallappa
PW.2 Ganga Guddaiah
15 CC No.392/2017
PW.3 Yuvaraja
PW.4 Suresh
PW.5 Basavaraju
PW.6 Gurappa G.Ganiger
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 Complaint Ex.P.2 Spot mahazar Ex.P.3 IMV report Ex.P.4 Statement of PW.3 Ex.P.5 FIR Ex.P.6 Sketch Ex.P.7 Notice U/s 133 of IMV Act Ex.P.8 Reply to the said notice Ex.P.9 Indemnity bond Ex.P.10 Wound certificate
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR ACCUSED:
Nil LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR ACCUSED:
Nil MMTC-III, BENGALURU. 16 CC No.392/2017