Bangalore District Court
Bellandur Tr Ps vs Ramesh Varma Rider Of Mh12Rw9782 on 30 November, 2024
KABC080051522023
Presented on : 10-10-2023
Registered on : 10-10-2023
Decided on : 30-11-2024
Duration : 1 years, 1 months, 20 days
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS (TRAFFIC COURT-VI), BENGALURU CITY.
DATED THIS 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024.
PRESENT : Smt.AKHILA H.K. B.A., LL.B.,
JMFC (TRAFFIC COURT-VI),
BENGALURU.
CC No.4586/2023
COMPLAINANT: State by Bellanduru Traffic P.S
Bengaluru.
(State by : Learned APP)
V/s
ACCUSED: Ramesh Varma
S/o Javar Verma,
Aged about 33 years,
Bengaluru.
(Represented by Sri.H.S.S. Adv.,)
CC No.4586/2023
2
JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector of Bellanduru Traffic Police Station has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.279 and 304(A) of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under: -
That on 19.07.2023 at 2.00 p.m accused being the rider of two wheeler bearing registration No.MH-12-RW- 9782 rode the same within the jurisdiction of Bellanduru Traffic Police station at Sarjapura from Carmal Ram at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and hit to pedestrian Sri.Veerabhadregowda, when he crossing the Sarjapur road from Uber Verdant apartment, as a result pedestrian Sri.Veerabhadregowda sustained grievous injuries on his head and succumbed to the death. As such the accused has committed an offence punishable U/Sec.279 and 304(A) of IPC.
CC No.4586/2023 3
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. and 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 5 and got marked Ex.P.1 to 14. 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.
5. Heard both sides.
6. The point that arises for my determination is as under:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, on CC No.4586/2023 4 19.07.2023 at 2.00 p.m accused being the rider of two wheeler bearing registration No.MH-12-RW-9782 rode the same within the jurisdiction of Bellanduru Traffic Police station at Sarjapura from Carmal Ram 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 Act?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, on the same date, time and place accused drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and hit to pedestrian Sri.Veerabhadregowda, when he crossing the Sarjapur road from Uber Verdant apartment, as a result pedestrian Sri.Veerabhadregowda sustained grievous injuries on his head and succumbed to the death, thereby CC No.4586/2023 5 accused committed an offence punishable U/Sec.304(A) of IPC ?
3. 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 : As per final order for the following;
REASONS
8. Point No.1 & 2: 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 19.07.2023 at 2.00 p.m accused being the rider of two wheeler bearing registration No.MH-12-RW-9782 rode the same within the jurisdiction of Bellanduru Traffic Police station at Sarjapura from Carmal Ram at a CC No.4586/2023 6 high speed in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and hit to pedestrian Sri.Veerabhadregowda, when he crossing the Sarjapur road from Uber Verdant apartment, as a result pedestrian Sri.Veerabhadregowda sustained grievous injuries on his head and succumbed to the death.
10. In order to bring home the charge against the accused the prosecution has examined 5 witnesses as PWs.1 to 5 and got marked Ex.P.1 to 14. Ex.P.1 is the complaint, Ex.P.2 is the spot mahazar, Ex.P.3 is the rough sketch, Ex.P.4 is the 2 photos, Ex.P.5 is the statement of P.W.4, Ex.P.6 is the FIR, Ex.P.7 is the medical certificate of cause of death, Ex.P.8 is the inquest mahazar, Ex.P.9 is the PM report, Ex.P.10 & 11 are the notice & reply U/Sec.134 of IMV Act, Ex.P.12 is the IMV report, Ex.P.13 is the indemnity bond and Ex.P.14 is the BMMP rough sketch.
11. Before adverting to the appreciation of evidence it is proper to state in brief the evidence deposed by the prosecution witnesses.
CC No.4586/2023 7
12. C.W.1 examined as P.W.1 is the complainant of this case. He deposed that, deceased Veerabhadregowda is his son in law. On 19.07.2023 at 2.00 p.m he was standing at Uber Apartment gate at that time his brother was crossing the road from Uber Apartment to drink coffee meanwhile one bike bearing No.MH-12-RW-9782 came in high speed and hit to him, as a result his brother sustained injuries on his head and while shifting injured to Balenos hospital he succumbed to death. With this regard he has lodged a complaint/Ex.P.1. Further he deposed that, he has shown the accident spot to the police and on the accident day between 3.30 to 4.30 p.m. and police conducted spot mahazar/Ex.P.2 and also prepared rough sketch/Ex.P.3 at accident spot and obtained his signature on it and along with him C.W.4 and 5 also signed on it. Further he deposed that, accident has occurred due to the fault of the driver of the offending vehicle. In his cross examination he has stated that, accident occurred at 2.00 p.m. and he was standing at the gate of Uber Apartment. He has witnessed the accident from 5 feet distance. He has stated that, the bike came at a high CC No.4586/2023 8 speed of 100 K.M. per hour and hit his brother. He has stated that, even the accused was injured and he admitted accused also to the injured. He has admitted that, there was another vehicle in front of the vehicle of the accused. He has stated that, he works as electrification in Uber apartment and his working hours from 9.00 a.m. till completion of his work. He admitted that, by the time he went to the spot of the accident public had gathered at the spot. He has admitted that, he went to the spot of the accident after 20 to 25 minutes after the accident. He has admitted that, he has not seen the bike before the accident.
13. C.W.5 examined as P.W.2 is the mahazar witness of this case. He deposed that, one year back police obtained his signature on Ex.P.2 and 3 at Uber Verdant apartment at 3.00 p.m. and at that time he was working as security guard at Uber Verdant apartment. In his cross examination he has admitted that, he does not know the reason for the police to obtain his signature to Ex.P.2.
CC No.4586/2023 9
14. C.W.4 examined as P.W.3 is also the mahazar witness of this case. He deposed that, 8 months back police obtained his signature on Ex.P.2 and 3 at Uber Verdant apartment at 3.00 p.m. In his cross examination he has admitted that, he does not know the reason for the police to obtain his signature to Ex.P.2.
15. C.W.2 examined as P.W.4 is the eye witness to the incident. She completely turned hostile and not supported to the case of the prosecution.
16. C.W.16 examined as P.W.5 is the Investigating Officer and he has deposed about the investigation conducted by him. In the cross examination nothing worthful elicited from him to disbelieve his evidence.
17. With the above evidence, this court has to ascertain whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. In order CC No.4586/2023 10 to prove offence U/Sec.279 of IPC the prosecution has to prove;
(i) Rash and negligent driving on public way
(ii) The act must be such as to endanger human life or likely to cause hurt or injury to any person.
18. To prove an offence U/sec.304(A) of IPC the prosecution has to prove;
i) death of a person.
ii) the death occurred due to the rash or negligent act of the accused person.
iii) there must be an absence of an intention to cause death
iv) there must be a direct link between the rash and negligent act and death of the victim.
19. After marshalling all the oral and documentary evidence it is crystal clear that, in this case there is no dispute regarding the accused riding the offending vehicle bearing registration No.MH-12-RW-9782 on the date of the accident. There is no dispute about the death of Sri.Veerabhadregowda who was the pedestrian.
CC No.4586/2023 11 As per P.M. report/Ex.P.9 the injuries are ante-mortem and death occurred due to skull fracture and intracranial haemorrhage as a result of head injury sustained. Hence, there is no dispute that the injuries were sustained by the deceased as a result of accident. There is no dispute regarding IMV report as per Ex.P.12, which states that there is no mechanical defects in the offending vehicle. Hence, the accident did not occur due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle involved in the accident. Since, the death of Sri.Veerabhadregowda is not disputed and it is not denied that the accused was driving the offending vehicle. The Court only needs to consider if there was any negligence or rashness on the part of the accused due to which the accident occurred.
20. In order to prove rashness or negligence of the accused the prosecution has examined P.W.1 & 2. P.W.1 is the brother of the deceased and he is the defacto complainant. In his cross examination he has admitted that, he went to the spot of the accident 20 to 25 minutes after the accident. This admission of P.W.1 proves that, he is not an eye witness. P.W.2 who is CC No.4586/2023 12 suppose to be an eye witness has not supported the prosecution and she has turned hostile. In spite of cross examination by learned APP nothing is elicited from her to disbelieve her examination in chief. Therefore, none of the eye witnesses have supported the prosecution.
21. Apart from the eye witnesses the prosecution is relying on documentary evidence. In this regard the prosecution is relying on mahazar and rough sketch marked as Ex.P.2 and 3. In order to prove the spot of accident police have conducted mahazar as per Ex.P.2 and P.W.1, 4 and 5 are the witnesses to the mahazar. All the mahazar witnesses have deposed that they do not know the contents of Ex.P.2. As per rough sketch Ex.P.3 spot of accident is shown to be in the right side of the road. The said Uber Apartment is not shown the rough sketch. Therefore, Ex.P.2 and 3 are not reliable. Further the prosecution is relying on IMV report as per Ex.P.12, wherein it is stated that, there are some damages to the offending vehicle and there is no mechanical defect but the IMV report by itself cannot aid in proving the guilt of the accused. Prosecution is CC No.4586/2023 13 relying on PM report and the same does not indicate that the injuries occurred due to the negligence of accused. Therefore, even the documentary evidence submitted by the prosecution does not prove the case of the prosecution. Hence, this Court cannot proceed to convict the accused with the evidence available on record.
22. Even if the evidence of P.W.1 is accepted he has only deposed that the accused drove his vehicle in high speed and negligent manner. He has not described either the speed of the offending vehicle or the nature of negligence committed by the accused. Further it is decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravi Kapoor V/s State of Rajastan reported in (2012) 9 SCC 284 that, "Rash and negligent driving has to be examined in light of the facts and circumstances of a given case. It is a fact incapable of being construed or seen in isolation. It must be examined in light of the attendant circumstances. A person who drives a vehicle on the road is liable to be held CC No.4586/2023 14 responsible for the act as well as for the result. It may not be always possible to determine with reference to the speed of a vehicle whether a person was driving rashly and negligently. Both these acts presuppose an abnormal conduct.
Even when one is driving a vehicle at a slow speed but recklessly and negligently, it would amount to 'rash and negligent driving' within the meaning of the language of Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
That is why the legislature in its wisdom has used the words 'manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life'. The preliminary conditions, thus, are that (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 CC No.4586/2023 15 endanger human life. Once these ingredients are satisfied, the penalty contemplated under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code is attracted".
23. In this case the permissible speed limit in the said road is not on record. Hence, under the circumstances the benefit of doubt has to be extended to the accused. By ascertaining all these oral and documentary evidence it is clear that, there is no substantive, cogent and corroborative evidence to prove the guilt of the 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. Hence, point Nos.1 and 2 are answered in the Negative.
24. Point No.3: In view of the findings on point Nos.1 & 2, this court proceeds to pass the following;
CC No.4586/2023
16
ORDER
Acting under Sec.255(1) of
Cr.P.C. accused is hereby acquitted for accusation of commission of the offence punishable U/Sec.279 and 304(A) of IPC.
His bail bond and surety
bond stands cancelled after the
lapse of appeal period.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 30th day of November, 2024) (Akhila H.K.) JMFC (Traffic Court-VI), Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION:
PW.1 Darshan
PW.2 Suraj
PW.3 Umaram
PW.4 Geetha
PW.5 Mallikarjun S
CC No.4586/2023
17
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 Complaint Ex.P.2 Spot mahazar Ex.P.3 Rough sketch Ex.P.4 2 Photos Ex.P.5 Statement P.W.4 Ex.P.6 FIR Ex.P.7 Medical certificate of cause of death Ex.P.8 Inquest mahazar Ex.P.9 PM report
Ex.P.10 & 11 Notice & Reply U/Sec.133 of IMV Act Ex.P.12 IMV report Ex.P.13 Indemnity bond Ex.P.14 BBMP rough sketch LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR ACCUSED:
-Nil-
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR ACCUSED:
-Nil-
(Akhila H.K.) JMFC (Traffic Court-VI), Bengaluru.