Bangalore District Court
State By Byatarayanapura Traffic ... vs Lathesh. D.P. S/O Puttasiddaiah on 8 February, 2021
IN THE COURT OF THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
TRAFFIC COURT- II BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021
Present: Smt. Rekha. H.C.
B.A.LLB
Metropolitan Magistrate,
Traffic Court-II, Bengaluru.
CC No. 657/2014
Complainant: State by Byatarayanapura Traffic Police Station,
Bengaluru.
Represented by: Sr. APP
V/s
Accused:- Lathesh. D.P. S/o Puttasiddaiah, 27 Yrs, Token No.
11123/DC 37th Depot.
R/at No. 59, Dasavara Village, Kanva Post, Malluru
Hobli, Channapatna Taluk, Ramanagar District.
Driver of BMTC bus bearing Reg. No. KA 01 FA 1385
Represented by Sri. DES Adv.
1. Date of commission of offence: 3.3.2014
2. Offences alleged against accused : U/sec. 279 of IPC.
3. Date of recording of evidence: 8.12.2014
4. Date of Judgment: 8.2.2021
JUDGMENT
The Sub-Inspector of Byatarayanapura Traffic P.S. has filed charge sheet against the Accused for the offences punishable U/sec. 279 of IPC.
2. The brief case of the prosecution is that;
2 CC No. 657/2014On 3.3.2014 at about 5.50 a.m., the accused being the driver of BMTC bus bearing Reg. no. KA 01 FA 1385 drove the same from City towards BHEL in high speed, rash and negligent manner so as to endanger the human life and dashed against Car bearing Reg. no. KA 51 MA 4674 of CW-1 from rear side which was standing near signal of KSRTC junction. The said driver of car lost his control and dashed against Honda Activa bearing Reg. no. KA 02 EE 8656 of CW-3. Due to the impact of accident, both vehicles were damaged. Based on the first information statement registered by complainant, the case came to be registered against the accused in Cr. No. 41/2014. The I.O. took up the investigation, visited the spot, drawn the spot mahazar and recorded the statement of witnesses. The I.O. after obtaining the IMV reports and on completion of investigation has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/sec. 279 of IPC.
3. Upon taking cognizance, case came to be registered against accused for the offences punishable U/sec. 279 of IPC. The accused appeared before court engaged counsel and enlarged on bail. Charge sheet copies furnished to the accused and thereby provision U/sec. 207 duly complied with.
4. Plea came to be framed for the offence punishable U/sec. 279 of IPC for which accused pleaded not guilty claimed to be tried.
3 CC No. 657/20145. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PWs-1 to 7 and got exhibited documents as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9. On completion of prosecution side evidence, the statement of accused U/sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded and the accused denied all the incriminating evidence appearing against him. No defence evidence led.
6. Heard on both sides.
7. The points that arise for my consideration are as follows:
1. Whether prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 3.3.2014 at about 5.50 a.m., the accused being the driver of BMTC bus bearing Reg. no. KA 01 FA 1385 drove the same from City towards BHEL in high speed, rash and negligent manner so as to endanger the human life and dashed against Car bearing Reg. no. KA 51 MA 4674 of CW-1 from rear side which was standing near signal of KSRTC junction. The said driver of car lost his control and dashed against Honda Activa bearing Reg.
no. KA 02 EE 8656 of CW-3 and both vehicles were damaged and thereby the accused person has committed the offences punishable U/sec. 279 of IPC?
2. What Order?
4 CC No. 657/20149. Now, my findings to above points are as follows:
Point No.1: In the Affirmative Point No.2: As per order, for the following:
REASONS
10. Point No.1 :- It is the specific case of the prosecution that on 3.3.2014 at about 5.50 a.m., the accused being the driver of BMTC bus bearing Reg. no. KA 01 FA 1385 drove the same from City towards BHEL in high speed, rash and negligent manner so as to endanger the human life and dashed against Car bearing Reg. no. KA 51 MA 4674 of CW-1 from rear side which was standing near signal of KSRTC junction. The said driver of car lost his control and dashed against Honda Activa bearing Reg. no. KA 02 EE 8656 of CW-3. Due to the impact, both vehicles were damaged.
To prove its case, the prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 7 and marked Exs.P.1 to 9 with sub marking.
11. CW-1 examined as PW-1 who is first informant states that on 3.3.2014 at about 5-45 to 5.50 p.m., he was proceeding on his Car bearing Reg. no. KA 51 MA 4674 from his office to home through Mysore road.CW-2 was the driver of said car and he stopped the car near Satellite bus stop due to red signal and CW-2 was applied hand break. At that time the driver of BMTC bus bearing Reg. no. KA 01 FA 1385 came in high speed and negligent manner and dashed against his car from rear side. Due to the impact, said car dashed against Active 5 CC No. 657/2014 Honda and pillion rider of said Active Honda fell down and sustained injuries. In the accident rear side of his car completely damaged and front side glass and front bumper of the car damaged. The accident was happened due to the fault of bus driver and he lodged the complaint before the police as per Ex.P.1. On the next day, the police have conducted spot mahazar as per Ex.P.2 with the presence of said witness.
12. In the cross-examination, PW-1 specifically admitted that he was sitting in back seat of said car. He do not saw who the driver of offending bus and he did not saw the act of the said bus.
13. CW-2 examined as PW-2 who is eye witness of this case. He deposed that from last one year back he was working under CW-1 as driver. The registration number of car is KA 51 MA 4674. On 3.3.2014 at about 5.50 p.m. he was going by car bearing Reg. no. KA 51 MA 4674 along with CW-1 to drop him from office through Mysore road. Near Satellite bus stand due to red signal he stopped the car and he applied hand break. At that time the driver of BMTC bus bearing Reg. no. 1385 came from rear side and dashed against their car from rear side. Due to the impact, their car proceeded further and dashed against Active Honda and pillion rider of Active Honda fell down and sustained injuries. Rear side of their car completely damaged and front bumper of bus also 6 CC No. 657/2014 damaged. The accident was happened due to the fault of bus driver. The injured was shifted to hospital.
14. On the basis of complaint, next day of the accident, the police have conducted spot mahazar as per Ex.P.2 in presence of said witness.
In the cross-examination of PW-2, he also stated that he did not observed the bus which came from his rear side.
15. CW-3 examined as PW-3 who is an eye witness deposed that on 3.3.3014 at about 6.00 p.m. he along with his wife proceeding on Honda Activa bearing Reg. no. KA 02 EEE 8656 from Market towards Nayandanahalli via., Mysore road, near Mysore road Satellite bus stand there was red signal they stopped their vehicle. At that time one car was also stopped behind their vehicle and the driver of bus bearing Reg. no. KA 01 FA 1385 came from Market towards Mysore road dashed against said car and said car proceeded further and dashed against their vehicle from rear side. Due to the impact his wife fell down and rear side of his vehicle completely damaged and accident was happened due to the fault of bus driver.
16. In the examination-in-chief of this witness he stated that he do not saw the driver of offending bus. Further he did not identified the driver of said bus. After 7 CC No. 657/2014 the accident he came to know about the incident. More over, he did not gave any complaint against the accused.
17. CW-6 examined as PW-4 is the IMV inspector deposed that on 4.3.2014 as per the requisition of I.O. of Byatarayanapura Police station, he inspected the BMTC bearing Reg. no. KA 01 FA 1385, Motor cycle bearing Reg. no. KA 02 EE 8656 and Car bearing Reg. no. KA 51 MA 4674. With regard to the damages sustained to the said vehicles he issued IMV report by opining that the alleged accident is not due to any mechanical defect.
18. CW-5 Hanumanthaiah examined as PW-5 states that Byatarayanapura police have issued him notice u/sec. 133 of IMV Act with regard to the accident occurred on 3.3.2014 by bus bearing Reg. no. KA 01 FA 1385. On the alleged date, Lathesh, token no. 11123 was the driver of bus and Madhusudhan, token no. 14261 was the conductor of the bus. He furnished trip sheet and log sheet of the offending bus to the police.
19. PW-6 is injured of this case who turned hostile to the case of prosecution. Having turned hostile to the case of the prosecution, the learned Sr. APP cross examined PW-6 in detail, but nothing worth is elicited from the mouth of PW-6 to support the case of the prosecution.
20. CW-7 Bettegowda examined as PW-7 is the Investigating Officer deposed that on 3.3.2014, he 8 CC No. 657/2014 received the first information statement from CW-1 and on its basis he registered the case in Cr. No. 41/2014 and dispatched FIR to the court. On 4.3.2014, he visited the spot and conducted spot mahazar and prepared rough sketch and he gave requisition to IMV inspector to inspect the vehicle and also obtained trip sheet and log sheet. He issued IMV notice and obtained reply and on obtaining IMV reports and on conclusion of investigation he filed the charge sheet against the accused.
21. Out of the exhibits marked for prosecution Ex.P.1 is the First information statement, Ex.P.2 is spot mahazar, Ex.P.3 is IMV report, Ex.P.4 is copy of 133 notice, Ex.P.5 is reply, Ex.P.6 is FIR , Ex.P.7 is rough sketch, Ex.P.8 is trip sheet and Ex.P.9 is log sheet.
22. In the light of the above material available on record, the learned Sr. APP argued that there is sufficient material on record to convict the accused.
23. The learned counsel for the accused argued that there is no evidence to show rash or negligent riding on the part of the accused. Further, he argued that the material and evidence available on record is not sufficient to believe the case of prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, he prayed to acquit the accused.
24. I have carefully gone through the evidence of PWs. 1 to 7, CW-1 is complainant he admitted in his cross-examination before the accident he do not know 9 CC No. 657/2014 who is driver of offending vehicle. Further, before occurring the accident, he do not know vehicle which was coming from his back side. Further, PWs-2 & 3 admitted in their cross-examination they did not observed the bus which came from their rear side. The injured/PW-6 turned hostile to the case of prosecution.
25. Sec. 279 of IPC deals with rash and negligent driving any vehicle or riding on a public way in rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life or likely to cause hurt or injury to any person. In order to constitute an offence U/sec. 279 of IPC, it must be established that the accused was driving the vehicle on a public way in a rash and negligent manner to endanger human life or to likely cause hurt or injury to any other person. For the purpose of section 279 of IPC, rash and negligent may be described as criminal rashness or criminal negligence. It must be more than mere carelessness of error of judgment. The essential ingredients of Sec. 279 of IPC are; i) Rash and negligent driving or riding on public way. (ii) The act must be such as to endanger human life or likely to cause hurt or injury to any person.
26. I have carefully gone through the charge sheet materials and also evidence made available in the file. The witnesses have not stated regarding the number of vehicle involved in the alleged accident. Further, the witnesses have not stated rash and negligent act on the 10 CC No. 657/2014 part of the accused on the date of alleged incident. Therefore, in this circumstances of the case, the case of prosecution regarding rash and negligent act and also regarding involvement of the vehicle of accused could not be made out beyond reasonable doubt.
27. The material witnesses to the case of prosecution have not supported the case. Therefore, looking to the evidence available on record and the materials placed by way of oral and exhibits, the case of prosecution appears to be doubtful. There is a doubt as to whether the accused was driver of offending vehicle. So also there is a doubt as to whether the accused had driven the said vehicle in a rash or negligent manner. Therefore, in the circumstances of the case, the prosecution has failed to prove the alleged offence against the accused. Accordingly, the points under consideration are answered in the Negative.
28. Point No.3: In view of 'Negative' findings on the above points, the accused is entitled for acquittal on the ground of doubt benefit. Therefore, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER Acting U/sec. 255(1) of Cr. P.C., the Accused is hereby acquitted for the offence punishable U/sec. 279 of IPC.11 CC No. 657/2014
Bail bonds of accused and surety bond shall stand cancelled after completion of appeal period.
The interim custody of BMTC bus bearing Reg. no. KA 01 FA 1385 is hereby made absolute.
(Dictated to the stenographer, directly on computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 8th day of February 2021).
(Rekha. H.C.) M.M.T.C-II, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for Prosecution:-
PW-1 C.K. Dharaneshwara PW-2 Chandrashekar PW-3 Jayaram PW-4 Pranuthesh. C.S PW-5 Hanumanthaiah PW-6 Smt. Divya Dhanalakshmi PW-7 Bettegowda
List of documents marked for Prosecution:
Ex.P.1: First information statement Ex.P.2 Spot mahazar Ex.P.3 IMV report Ex.P.4 Copy of 133 notice Ex.P.5 Reply Ex.P.6 FIR Ex.P.7 Rough sketch Ex.P.8 Trip sheet Ex.P.9 Log sheet M.M.T.C-II, Bengaluru.12 CC No. 657/2014