Bangalore District Court
Kr Puram Tr.Ps vs Shashwath Gupta on 21 April, 2026
KABC0D0027582016
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS
TRAFFIC COURT-I AT MAYOHALL, BENGALURU
Present : Smt. Neelam Nitin Rao
Judicial Magistrate First Class
Traffic Court-I, Bengaluru
DATED 21ST DAY OF APRIL 2026
C.C. No. 2231/2016
Complainant : K.R. Puram Tr PS
Bangalore
(Rep by: State by Sr. APP)
V/s
Accused : Shashwath Gupta
S/o. Sathyendra Prasad Gupta
Aged about 29 years
R/at: No. 301, 3rd Floor, S.V.
Mansion, No. 485, Near Varthur
Police Station, VSR Layout,
Varthur, Bengaluru - 560 067
Permanent address:
Indiranagara, Lucknow
Uttar Pradesh
(Rep by Adv. Sri. NK)
1. Date of commission of offence : 01.12.2015
2. Offence alleged : U/s.279, 338 IPC
146 r/w 196 IMV Act.
3. Date of recording of evidence : 13.11.2019
4. Date of Judgment : 21.04.2026
2
C.C. No. 2231/2016
JUDGMENT
The PSI of K. R. Puram Traffic Police has filed a charge sheet against the accused in Crime No. 190/2050 for the offence punishable under Section 279, 338 IPC, 146 r/w 196 Indian Motor Vehicles Act.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution's case are as follows:
On 01.12.2015 at 09.30 p.m., the accused was the rider of motorcycle no. KA03HV7016. He drove his motorcycle on the Mahadevapura Ring Road near the Mahadevapura Bridge, in a rash and negligent manner, from K. R. Puram Railway station towards Marathahalli, and dashed to Sri. Lokesh, who was crossing the road from Nagarjun Apartment. The pedestrian sustained grievous injuries. At the time of the accident, the offending vehicle was not insured. Thereby, the accused has committed an offence punishable under Sections 279, 338, and 146 r/w 196 IMV Act.
3. After receipt of the complaint, the investigating officer registered the case and visited the spot, conducted a mahazar in the presence of mahazar witnesses. Inquired and obtained statements of witnesses. After completion of the investigation, the IO has filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 338, and 146 r/w 196 of the IMV Act.
4. After receipt of the Charge Sheet, this court has verified all the prosecution records and considering that there are prima facie materials to proceed further against the accused, cognizance for the alleged offence punishable under 3 C.C. No. 2231/2016 section 279, 338 IPC & 146 r/w 196 IMV Act was taken, and a criminal case was registered against the accused in a register no. III, and the process was issued against the accused.
5. The accused appeared through his counsel and availed bail. Prosecution papers were supplied to the accused as contemplated under Section 207 CrPC. As there are no grounds to discharge the accused. The substance of the accusation was recorded, read over and explained to the accused, in the language best known to him. The accused pleads not guilty and claims to be tried. Hence, the case was posted for prosecution evidence.
6. The prosecution has examined 5 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.5 and marked 9 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9(a). After the completion of the prosecution's evidence, the statement of the accused under Section 313 CrPC is recorded, read over and explained to the accused. The accused specifically denied possession of all incriminating circumstances that appeared against him in the prosecution's evidence. However, he did not choose to lead the defence evidence. Hence, the case was posted for arguments.
7. Heard arguments canvassed by learned Sr APP and learned counsel for the accused. Meticulously perused the documents placed on record.
8. The following points arise for my consideration; Point No.1: Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 01.12.2015 at 09.30 p.m., the accused was the rider of motorcycle no.
4C.C. No. 2231/2016 KA03HV7016. He drove his motorcycle on the Mahadevapura Ring Road near the Mahadevapura Bridge, in a rash and negligent manner, from K. R. Puram Railway station towards Marathahalli, and dashed to Sri. Lokesh, who was crossing the road from Nagarjun Apartment. The pedestrian sustained grievous injuries. Thereby, has the accused committed an offence punishable under Section 279 of the IPC?
Point No.2: Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the aforementioned date, time and place, the accused was the rider of motorcycle no. KA03HV7016. He drove his motorcycle on the Mahadevapura Ring Road near the Mahadevapura Bridge, in a rash and negligent manner, from K. R. Puram Railway station towards Marathahalli, and dashed to Sri. Lokesh, who was crossing the road from Nagarjun Apartment. The pedestrian sustained grievous injuries. illusion, CW.2 fell and sustained grievous blood injuries. Thereby, has the accused committed an offence punishable under Section 338 of the IPC?
Point No.3: Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the aforementioned date, time and place, the accused was the rider of motorcycle no. KA03HV7016. He drove his motorcycle on the Mahadevapura Ring Road near the Mahadevapura Bridge, in a rash and negligent manner, from K. R. Puram Railway station towards Marathahalli, and dashed to Sri. Lokesh, who was crossing the road from 5 C.C. No. 2231/2016 Nagarjun Apartment. The pedestrian sustained grievous injuries. At the time of the accident, the offending vehicle was not insured. Thereby, has the accused committed an offence punishable under Section 146 r/w Section 196 IMV Act?
Point No.4: What order?
9. My findings on the above points are as follows:
Point No.1 : In the negative
Point No.2 : In the negative
Point No.3 : In the affirmative
Point No.4 : As per the foregoing
for the following reasons
REASONS
10. Points No.1 & 2: As these points are interlinked with each other and to avoid repetition of facts and for brevity, they are taken together for a common discussion. The facts of the instant case are already narrated supra. Hence, without repeating, I proceeded to appreciate the evidence on record.
11. In the instant case, the prosecution bears the burden of proof. The prosecution shall establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. It shall establish that the accused was the rider of the motorcycle no. KA03HV7016, on the day of the occurrence. He drove his vehicle in a rash and reckless manner, or negligently, to endanger human life and safety, and dashed to Sri. Lokesh, who was crossing the road from Nagarjun 6 C.C. No. 2231/2016 Apartment. The pedestrian sustained grievous injuries. The accused's negligence caused the alleged incident.
12. To bring home the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, the prosecution has examined 5 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.5 and has marked 9 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9(a). CW.1, Sri. Suresh Kumar was examined as PW.1. In his chief evidence, he deposed that CW.3 is his younger brother. He is not accused. On 01.12.2015 at 09.30 p.m., he, along with CW.3, was going from B Narayanapura towards Mahadevapura. At that time, near the Mahadevapura Bridge, motorcycle KA03HV7061 was heading from Marathahalli towards Marathahalli. In high speed and dashed to CW.3. He sustained injuries to his right leg and left eye. He was unconscious. The motorcycle rider also sustained injuries. Thereafter, the injured person was admitted to Super Speciality Hospital in an ambulance. Thereafter, he was taken to the Nimhans Hospital and then to the Sanjay Gandhi Hospital for further treatment. On 03.12.2015, he filed a complaint against the occurrence. It was marked as Ex.P.1 and his signature as Ex.P.1(a). As CW.3 was admitted to the hospital, the complaint was delayed. He identified the accused. The mahazar was marked as Ex.P.2, and his signature also appears on Ex.P.2. The accused's negligence caused the accident.
13. Treating this witness as partly hostile, learned Senior APP suggested that the vehicle number was KA03HV7016, that the accused drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, and that the police drew a mahazar on 03.12.2015 between 10.45 and 11.45. He admits all suggestions put to him.
7C.C. No. 2231/2016
14. During cross-examination by the defence, he stated that on 03.12.2015, he was working at a home. He didn't know the homeowner's name. CW.3 is also working with him. The accident was caused when the CW.3 was crossing the road. There was no zebra crossing. There was a divider. The accident occurred on the Mahadevapura ring road. The accident occurred just as he was trying to board the bridge. He has not taken the accused to the hospital. When he took CW.3 to the hospital, he had not signed any documents. He denied the suggestion that the police had taken the accused and CW.3 to the hospital in an ambulance. He denied that the filing of the complaint was an afterthought. He denied that other suggestions could take him.
15. On careful perusal of the oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses, it could be seen that, though he identified the accused and stated that the accused's negligence caused the accident, the accident was not caused by the accused's negligence. However, in chief, he has not stated that any rash or negligence on the part of the accused was the cause of the accident. It is only during cross-examination by the prosecution that he admits the suggestion. Moreover, during the defence aside, he has stated that there was no zebra crossing on the road and in a ring road, the CW.3 was trying to board the divider and cross the road.
16. The prosecution examined CW.3, Sri Lokesh as PW.2. In his chief evidence, he deposed that CW.1 is his brother. He is not accused. On 01.12.2015 between 09.30 and 10.00 p.m., when he and CW.1 were returning after their work, from B. Narayanapura towards Mahadevapura. At that time, near 8 C.C. No. 2231/2016 Mahadevapura Bridge, a motorcycle with the number KA 03 HV7061 came from K R Puram towards Marathanalli at high speed and dashed towards him. He sustained injuries to his head and eye, hand and leg. The accused also sustained injuries from the occurrence. The CW.1 has taken him to the KR Puram Speciality Hospital. Thereafter, he was taken to the Nimhans Hospital and then to the Sanjay Gandhi Hospital. He identified the accused. He has given a statement to the police. The accused's negligence caused the accident. Treating this witness as partly hostile, Learned Senior APP suggested that the accident was caused by the motorcycle no. KA03 HV 7016. He admits the suggestion.
17. During cross-examination by the defence, he stated that on 03.12.2015, he stated that on 03.12.2015 he was returning from his work. He went to work beside the B Narayanapuru showroom. When the accident occurred, he was crossing the road. He stated that the road on the side was straight. There was no zebra crossing or divider in the road. The accident occurred near the bridge. He fell. He was unconscious. When he was admitted to the hospital, he had not regained consciousness. When they were admitting him to the hospital, he was unable to open his eyes. The public has taken the accused and him to Mahadevapura and to the hospital in an ambulance. He has given a statement. He denied that his negligence caused the accident. He denied other suggestions.
18. On careful perusal of the oral testimony of PW.2, who is the injured in this case, has stated that it is the negligence of the accused that resulted in the accident. He has also identified 9 C.C. No. 2231/2016 the accused, stating that the accident occurred when he was crossing the road. Whether there was any signal, and how he came to know about the accused, are not forthcoming. The PW.1 and PW.2 both have made a contrary statement. The PW.1 has stated that he admitted the CW.3 to the hospital. However, the PW.2 stated that the public and the Mahadevapura Police had admitted him to the police station.
19. The prosecution examined CW.8, Sri. Bhathyappa as PW.3. In his chief evidence, he deposed that the procedure he followed during the investigation of this case. During cross- examination, he stated that the accident occurred on 01.12.2015 at 09.30 p.m. and he received a complaint on 03.12.2015. After receipt of the complaint, he went to the incident spot. The accident occurred after the flyover bridge. There was no zebra crossing, and it is a ring road. The speed limit on that road is 40 km/h. He denied other suggestions. Thereafter, the prosecution has examined CW.9, Sri. M. Nagaraj as PW.4. He further investigated the case and filed a charge sheet against the accused. He denied the suggestions put to him.
20. The prosecution examined CW.7 as PW.5. He has given an IMV report in this case by examining the offending vehicle. It was marked as Ex.P.7 and his signature as Ex.P.7(b). He stated that the front headlight, indicator, wheel mudguard, and crash guard were damaged, and that a scratch mark was present on the right side. Whether these are fresh or new damages is not forthcoming from the evidence of this witness.
10C.C. No. 2231/2016
21. On careful perusal of the oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses, it could be seen that CW.1, who was examined as PW.1, stated that he was along with CW.3 when the accident occurred. However, he has not satisfactorily explained the delay, and it is not his case that none of the family members is present at the CW.3. The very presence of CW.1 on the spot is not forthcoming. The CW.3 though stated about the accident. He stated that soon after the accident, he was unconscious. How come he came to know about the accused is not forthcoming. They both admitted there was no zebra crossing on the road and that it was a ring road. Whether there was any signal to cross the road or not is forthcoming. Except for these two witnesses, the prosecution has not examined any other eyewitnesses to establish the rash of negligent driving by the accused.
22. At this juncture, it is pertinent to refer to sections 279 and 338 of the IPC Act.
Section 279 of IPC-Rash driving or riding on a public way.
Whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on any public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with a fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
Section 338 of IPC: Causing grievous hurt by an act endangering the life or personal safety of others.
Whoever causes grievous hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
23. The core elements of these provisions are rash or negligent driving on a public road to endanger human safety.
11C.C. No. 2231/2016 The rash or negligent driving on the part of the accused is not forthcoming. Whether it was the negligence of the accused or the pedestrian, CW.3 remains unestablished by the prosecution, even though there was no zebra crossing or pedestrian way, and even though the pedestrian was crossing the road. The vehicle had knowledge that the person was crossing the road. Despite that, he failed to apply the brakes or slow down, and he rushed towards the pedestrian, causing an accident. Then it amounts to the driver's negligence. However, if the pedestrian knows there is vehicle movement and, without any caution, suddenly approaches a moving vehicle, leaving the driver no opportunity to apply the brakes. It is the pedestrian's negligence, not the driver's. These essentials remain unestablished by the prosecution's evidence.
24. Regarding the documentary evidence, Ex.P.1 is the complaint. As per the complaint, the accident occurred on 01.12.2015, and it was lodged on 03.12.2015. The delay in lodging the complaint is not satisfactorily explained by either the IO or the CW. 1. Ex.P.2 is the mahazar. There is a specific mention that there is no pedestrian way, and it is a two-way traffic road. Ex.P.4 is the hand-drawn map. It shows that the incident spot is a two-way road with service roads on both sides. There is a middle divider as well. The accident occurred 27 feet on the west-to-east side of the road, in the middle of the road. As observed supra, whether there was any signal or not is not forthcoming, and there was no opportunity for the pedestrian to cross the road. There was no zebra crossing, no signal, and no opening of the divider or any side road so that the pedestrian could cross the road.
12C.C. No. 2231/2016
25. Merely driving the vehicle at high speed is not sufficient to attract the provisions under Sections 279 and 338 IPC. The prosecution should establish that the driving was rash or negligent. The relevant ingredients remained unestablished. In the criminal case, a preponderance of probabilities is not sufficient. The proof required is beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution has miserably failed to establish the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In the dearth of evidence, I answer points no. 1 and 2 in the negative.
26. Point no. 3: The prosecution has alleged that at the time of the accident, the offending vehicle, number KA03HV7016, was uninsured. To prove this, the prosecution has placed on record the Section 133 notice issued to the accused, who is the owner of the offending vehicle. It was marked as Ex.P.5. The accused has replied to this notice as per Ex.P.6. He signed Ex.P.6 and stated that the relevant documents were enclosed. However, the insurance copy is not placed on record. Whether the offending vehicle was insured or not is within the personal knowledge of the accused. When the prosecution alleges that the offending vehicle was uninsured, the burden shifts to the accused to prove that the vehicle was insured at the time of the accident. The accused remained silent throughout the trial. Even during the recording of the Section 313 CrPC Statement, he did not state anything. He did not attempt to place the insurance copy on record. The Motor Vehicles Act imposes strict liability on vehicle users to prove and comply with all traffic rules. All vehicle owners should follow these rules without fail. Vehicles should be insured properly. As the accused failed to rebut the case that his vehicle was not insured under 13 C.C. No. 2231/2016 such circumstances, he is liable under Section 146 r/w. 196 IMV Act. This Court has no reason to disbelieve the contents of Ex.P.5 and Ex.P.6. Therefore, I answer point no. 3 in the affirmative.
27. Point No.4: For myriad reasons discussed supra, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The accused is not found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of the IPC.
Acting U/sec 255(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the accused is hereby acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code.
The accused is found guilty of the offences punishable under Section 146 r/w Section 196 of the IMV Act.
Accused under Section 255(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the accused is hereby convicted for the offences punishable under Section 146 r/w 196 of the IMV Act.
The accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 146 r/w 196 of the IMV Act. In default, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days.
Bail bond and surety bonds of the accused and that of his surety shall continue till the expiry of the appeal period.
Supply a free copy of the judgment to the accused forthwith.
(Dictated to stenographer, transcribed and typed by her on the computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this, the 21st April 2026).
NEELAM Digitally by NEELAM signed NITIN NITIN RAO Date: 2026.04.29 RAO (Neelam Nitin Rao) 15:44:52 +0530 JMFC, Traffic Court - 1 Bangalore 14 C.C. No. 2231/2016 ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON PROSECUTION SIDE:
1. PW.1 : Sri. Suresh Kumar
2. PW.2 : Sri. Lokesh
3. PW.3 : Sri. Bhatyappa
4. PW.4 : Sri. M. Nagaraj
5. PW.5 : Sri. Prabhu LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON PROSECUTION SIDE:
Ex.P.1 : Complaint
Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of PW.1
Ex.P.1(b) : Signature of PW.3
Ex.P.2 : Spot Mahazar
Ex.P.2(a) : Signature of PW.1
Ex.P.2(b) : Signature of PW.3
Ex.P.3 : FIR
Ex.P.3(a) : Signatures of PW.3
Ex.P.4 : Sketch
Ex.P.4(a) : Signature of PW.3
Ex.P.5 : 133 Notice
Ex.P.5(a) : Signature of PW.3
Ex.P.6 : 133 Reply
Ex.P.6(a) : Signature of PW.3
Ex.P.7 : IMV report
Ex.P.7(a) : Signature of PW.4
Ex.P.7(b) : Signature of PW.5
Ex.P.8 & 9 : Wound Certificates
Ex.P.8(a) & 9(a) : Signature of PW.4
15
C.C. No. 2231/2016
LIST OF WITNESS EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS MARKED ON DEFENCE SIDE:
NIL (Dictated to stenographer, transcribed and typed by her on the computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this, the 21st April 2026).Digitally signed by
NEELAM NEELAM NITIN RAO
NITIN RAO Date: 2026.04.29
15:44:47 +0530
(Neelam Nitin Rao)
JMFC, Traffic Court - 1
Bangalore