Bangalore District Court
State By R.T. Nagar Traffic P.S vs No.1: Praveen Kumar on 13 February, 2023
KABC080092892019
IN THE COURT OF THE METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE TRAFFIC COURT - VI, AT BENGALURU
PRESENT: SRI GAGAN M.R. B.A.L LLB
C/c of Metropolitan Magistrate
Traffic Court - VI, BANGALORE
DATED : THIS THE 13 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023
C.C. No.9052/2019
COMPLAINANT : State by R.T. Nagar Traffic P.S
Bengaluru.
(State by Learned APP)
V/s
ACCUSED NO.1: Praveen Kumar
S/o Ramesh V
Aged about 27 years,
#74, 5th Main, 5th Cross,
Giddappa Block,
Ganga Nagar,
Bengaluru - 560 032.
ACCUSED NO.2: Pradeep,
S/o Ramesh V
Aged about 29 years,
2
CC No.9052/2019
#74, 5th Main, 5th Cross,
Giddappa Block,
Ganga Nagar,
Bengaluru - 560 032.
(A-1 & 2: Rep. by Sri.S.M.L, Adv.)
Date of commission of offence : 03.10.2017
Offences alleged against U/Sec.279of IPC & Sec.146
accused No.1 & 2 : R/w 196 of IMV
Date of recording of evidence : 13.01.2020
Date of closing evidence : 15.11.2021
Date of Judgment : 13.02.2023
J UD GEM EN T
The PSI of R.T. Nagar Traffic Police Station has filed
charge sheet against the accused No.1 and 2 for the offences
punishable U/Sec.279 of IPC & Sec.146 R/w Sec.196 of IMV
Act.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as
under: -
That on 03.10.2017 at 11.00 p.m. accused No.1 being
the rider of motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-04-HF-
4317 rode the same within the jurisdiction of R.T. Nagar
Traffic police station on Dinnuru Main Road from
Sulthanapalya towards RT Nagar at a high speed in a
negligent manner and at Kotak Mahindra bank due to
3
CC No.9052/2019
imbalance he himself fell down on road and sustained
grievous injuries. Further accused No.2 being the owner of
the offending vehicle in spite of knowledge that the alleged
vehicle does not have any valid insurance permitted accused
No.1 to use the same vehicle by the time accident. Thereby it
is alleged that the accused No.1 has committed an offence
punishable U/Sec.279 of IPC and accused No.2 has
committed an offence punishable U/Sec.146 R/w Sec.196 of
IMV Act.
3. Upon taking cognizance, case came to be registered
against accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable
U/s.279 of IPC and Sec.146 R/w.196 of I.M.V.Act. The
accused persons appeared before the court through their
counsel & got enlarged on bail. Charge sheet copies furnished
to the accused persons and thereby provision U/s.207 of
Cr.P.C. duly complied with.
4. Plea came to be framed for the offences U/s.279 of
IPC and Sec.146 R/w.196 of I.M.V.Act for which accused
persons pleaded not guilty claimed to be tried.
5. During the course of trial, the prosecution has
examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and got exhibited documents as per
4
CC No.9052/2019
Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12. On completion of prosecution side evidence,
the statement of accused U/s.313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded and
the accused persons denied all the incriminating evidence
appearing against them and did not choose to lead any
defence evidence.
6. Heard arguments on both sides.
7. The points that arise for my consideration are as
follows:
1.Whether the prosecution proves beyond
all reasonable doubt that on 03.10.2017
at 11.00 p.m. accused No.1 being the
rider of motor cycle bearing registration
No.KA-04-HF-4317 rode the same within
the jurisdiction of R.T. Nagar Traffic
police station on Dinnuru Main Road
from Sulthanapalya towards RT Nagar
in a rash and negligent manner so as to
endanger human life and near Kotak
Mahindra Bank he himself fell on road
and sustained grievous injuries, thereby
the accused No.1 has committed an
offence punishable U/s.279 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond
reasonable doubt that accused No.2
being the owner of the offending vehicle
in spite of knowledge that the alleged
vehicle does not have any valid
insurance permitted the accused No.1 to
5
CC No.9052/2019
use the same vehicle at the time of
incident and thereby accused No.2
committed an offence punishable under
Sec.146 R/w Sec.196 of IMV Act?
3. What Order?
8. My answer to the above points are as under:
1. POINT No.1: IN THE NEGATIVE
2. POINT No.2: IN THE AFFIRMATIVE
3. POINT No.3: AS PER THE FINAL ORDER
For the following
R EAS O N S
9. POINT NO.1: It is the case of the
prosecution that on 03.10.2017 at 11.00 p.m. accused No.1
being the rider of motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-04-
HF-4317 rode the same within the jurisdiction of R.T. Nagar
Traffic police station on Dinnuru Main Road from
Sulthanapalya towards RT Nagar at a high speed in a
negligent manner and near Kotak Mahindra bank due to
imbalance he himself fell down on road and sustained
grievous injuries.
10. In order to prove its case the prosecution has
examined 8 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.8 and marked
documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12.
6
CC No.9052/2019
11. C.W.4 Somashekar examined as P.W.1 who is the
eye witness of this case and deposed that on 03.10.2017 at
1.00 p.m. at 11.00 p.m. he was proceeding in his milk tanker
lorry from Yalahanka towards RT Nagar by that time near
Mahindra bank one two wheeler bearing No.KA-04-HF-4317
and said vehicle rider and pillion rider lying on the road and
both have sustained grievous injuries and he shifted injured
persons to the Bowring hospital. With this regard he has
given his statement before the police. Further he deposed that
he does not know for which reason above said two wheeler has
fell down. The said witness has treated as partly hostile and
he was subjected to cross examination by the learned APP.
During his cross-examination he deposed that he has
given his statement at accident spot, he has not given his
statement in police station. He has seen the accident from
a distance of around 100 meters. He denied that he
dashed his vehicle to the two wheeler from back side.
12. C.W.5 Rudresh is examined as P.W.2 who is eye
witness and deposed that on 03.10.2017at 11.00 p.m. he was
proceeding in a C.W.4's lorry from Yalahanka towards R.T.
Nagar by that time near Mahindra bank one two wheeler
7
CC No.9052/2019
bearing No.KA-04-HF-4317 was lying on the road and said
vehicle rider sustained grievous injuries and he & C.W.4
shifted injured persons to the Bowring hospital. With this
regard he has given his statement before the police. Further
he deposed that he does not know for which reason above
said two wheeler and rider lyes on the road.
During his cross examination he deposed that he has
not seen the first and second accused falling from their
scooter, they seen the accused from a distance of 50 feet
and further deposed that after accident they came to know
that in police station a complaint was registered against
them and hence, they provided all the documents relating
to their vehicle and police seized their vehicle. He denied
that the lorry dashed to two wheeler from back side.
13. C.W.1 Venkateshmoorthy examined as P.W.3 who
is Investigating Officer of this case. He deposed that on the
basis of information given by the injured/accused he
registered the case in Crime No.520/2017 against the accused
and on the same day he visited the spot and in the presence of
C.W.2 and 3 conducted spot mahazar and prepared rough
sketch. He has issued 133 notice and received reply for
8
CC No.9052/2019
notice. He has received IMV report and on 31.03.2018 he
handed over case file to C.W.9 for further investigation.
During his cross examination he admits that he has
registered the first information on the complaint stating
that the lorry has hit the two wheeler from rear side and
accident has taken place.
14. C.W.4 Narayanappa T examined as P.W.4 who is
2nd Investigating Officer of this case. He deposed that on
26.09.2018 he received wound certificate of the accused. After
completion of investigation he has filed a Charge Sheet against
the accused persons.
15. C.W.6 H. Rajanna examined as P.W.5 who is IMV
inspector on this case. He deposed that on 04.10.2017 on
requisition of R.T. Nagar Traffic police station he has
conducted the inspection of vehicles of KA-07-6827 and KA-
04-HF-4317 and he gave the report. In this regard he has
stated that the break system of the vehicles was in order and
in his opinion the accident was not caused due to the
mechanical defect of the vehicles.
9
CC No.9052/2019
16. C.W.8 Rajanna P is examined as P.W.8 who is the
investigating officer and he deposed that on 07.06.2018
accused No.1 and 2 came to station and he issued U/Sec.133
of IMV Act notice to accused No.2 and received reply and also
took voluntary statement of him and on the same day he
arrested the accused persons and released them on bail.
Further he handed over case file to C.W.9 for further
investigation.
17. C.W.3 Nayaz Pasha examined as P.W.7 who is eye
witness of this case, he turned hostile and not supported to
the case of the prosecution. The learned APP treated him as
hostile and with the permission of the Court cross examined
the said witness wherein he has admitted that he has put his
signature on Ex.P.3 at accident spot.
18. C.W.7 Dr. Keshavamoorthy is examined as P.W.8
who has given treatment to injured/accused No.1. He
deposed that on 04.10.2017 at 1.00 a.m. with the history of
road accident one person by name Lakshmi took Praveen R to
his hospital and he has given treatment to him and he has
given Ex.P.10.
10
CC No.9052/2019
19. Out of the documents marked for prosecution
Ex.P.1 is the complaint, Ex.P.2 is the FIR, Ex.P.3 is the spot
mahazar, Ex.P.4 is the rough sketch, Ex.P.5 is the police
intimation, Ex.P.6 is the IMV report, Ex.P.7 is the notice
U/Sec.91 of Cr.PC, Ex.P.8 is the MLC report, Ex.P.9 is the
requisition of police, Ex.P.10 is the wound certificate and
Ex.P.11 & 12 are the notice and reply U/Sec.133 of M.V. Act.
20. In the instant case the FIR was registered by the
police on the complaint given by accused No.1 alleging that
one driver of the milk canter bearing Reg.No.KA-07-6827 hit
his two wheeler from rear side and due to which he and pillion
rider sustained injuries. Based on the complaint
Cr.No.520/2017 was registered against the driver of the milk
canter. Later during investigation the Investigation Officer
found that the alleged lorry did not caused the accident it is
the complainant himself who has driven his vehicle in a rash
and negligent manner and caused self accident. Accordingly
the final report is submitted to the Court. The prosecution is
alleging that the accused has committed the offence
punishable U/Sec.279 of IPC. Section 279 IPC deals with
rash and negligent driving of any vehicle or riding on a public
way in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human
life or likely to cause hurt or injury to any person. In order to
11
CC No.9052/2019
constitute an offence U/s.279 of IPC, it must be established
that the accused was driving the vehicle on a public way in
rash and negligent manner to endanger human life or to likely
cause to hurt or injury to any other person. For the purpose of
section 279 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
section 279 are: (1) rash and negligent driving or riding on a
public way, (ii) The act must be such as to endanger human
life or likely to cause hurt or injury to any person.
21. The prosecution in the instant case in order to
prove the guilt of the accused No.1 has relied on the evidence
of P.Ws.1, 2 and 7. The prosecution claims that they are the
eye witnesses. PWs.1 and 2 are the driver and the cleaner of
the milk canter which was proceeding in the said road when
accident was taken place. P.W.7 is narrated as eye witness
and mahazar witness. Both PWs 1 and 2 in their deposition
did not speak anything about the rash and negligent act of the
accused No.1. Both of them deposed that they have not seen
the accident. They reached the accident spot after felling
down of the riders of the two wheeler. In the instant case it is
established that the accident has taken place on a public
road but whether the said accident has taken place due to the
12
CC No.9052/2019
negligent act of the accused has to be established by the
prosecution but the said fact was not established and none of
the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution did not
depose anything about the negligence of the accused.
22. The witnesses have not stated rash and negligent
act on the part of the accused on the date of alleged incident.
Further eye witnesses have not stated the rash and negligent
act of the accused to show his involvement. Therefore, in this
circumstance of the case, the case of prosecution regarding
rash and negligent act could not be made out beyond
reasonable doubt.
23. 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 doubt
as to whether the accused had driven the said vehicle in a
rash and negligent manner, so as to endanger the human life
and personal safety of others. Therefore, in the circumstances
of the case, as per the rules of criminal justice if any doubt
arise about the commission of the act then such doubt shall
be in favour of accused. The prosecution has failed to prove
the alleged offence against the accused. Accordingly, the
13
CC No.9052/2019
points under consideration are answered point No.1 IN THE
NEGATIVE.
24. POINT NO.2: In the instant case it is alleged that
the two wheeler which is involved in the accident does not
possess valid insurance policy on the date of accident and the
accused No.2 is arraigned as accused since he being the
owner knowing fully well about this aspect permitted to use
the vehicle in public road. The said vehicle was used by
accused No.1 and caused untoward incident. When the plea
was read over to accused he denied the allegations. The I.O.
in his deposition has stated that the vehicle which is involved
in accident does not possess valid insurance policy and to
nullify the said aspect no document has been placed before
the court by the accused No.2 and nothing is questioned to
investigating officer to raise doubt about that aspect. Since
accused No.2 has not established that on the alleged date of
accident the vehicle which is owned by him is having valid
insurance policy. In view of the above findings this Court
answer point No.2 IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
25. POINT No.3: In view of the findings on Point
Nos.1 and 2, this court proceeds to pass the following:
14
CC No.9052/2019
ORDER
Acting under Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C. accused No.1 is hereby acquitted of the offence alleged against him punishable U/Sec.279 of IPC.
Acting under Sec.255(2) of Cr.P.C. accused No.2 is hereby convicted of the offence alleged against him punishable U/Sec.146 R/w.196 of IMV Act. Accused No.2 is hereby directed to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offences punishable U/s.146 R/w.196 of IMV Act. In total the accused No.2 shall pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default shall undergo SI for 3 months.
The bail bonds of accused persons and surety bonds shall stands cancelled after the appeal period.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 13th day of February 2023) (GAGAN M.R.) C/c. MMTC - VI, BANGALORE.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION:
PW.1 Somashekar
PW.2 Rudresh
PW.3 Venkateshmoorthy
PW.4 Narayanappa T
PW.5 H. Rajanna
15
CC No.9052/2019
PW.6 Rajanna P
PW.7 Nayaz Pasha
PW.8 Dr. Keshavamoorthy
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 Complaint Ex.P.2 FIR Ex.P.3 Spot mahazar Ex.P.4 Rough sketch Ex.P.5 Police intimation Ex.P.6 IMV report Ex.P.7 Notice U/Sec.91 of Cr.PC Ex.P.8 MLC report Ex.P.9 Requisition Ex.P.10 Wound certificate
Ex.P.11-12 Notice & reply U/Sec.133 of MV Act LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR ACCUSED Nil LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR ACCUSED:
Nil (GAGAN M.R.) C/c. MMTC - VI, BANGALORE.