Bangalore District Court
Basavanagudi Trps vs Thejas Pathi on 30 August, 2024
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS
(TRAFFIC COURT - IV) AT BENGALURU
PRESENT: SRI GAGAN M.R. B.A.L LLB
JMFC (Traffic Court - IV),
BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30th DAY OF AUGUST 2024
CC No.193/2021
COMPLAINANT: State by Basavanagudi Traffic P.S
Bengaluru.
(State by : Learned APP)
V/s
ACCUSED NO.1: Tejaspathi,
S/o. Vishwanath Mahesh,
Aged about 30 years,
R/at No.18,
S-2, 2nd floor,
Durgarathna Apartments,
7th main road, 2nd Block,
Jayanagara,
Bengaluru - 560 011
(Represented by Sri H.S.S. Adv.,)
ACCUSED NO.2 P.S. Vishwanath,
S/o. Late Shankarnarayana,
Bengaluru
(Accused No.2 : Pleaded Guilty)
2
C.C. No.193/2021
1 Date of commission of : 24-12-2020
offence
2 Offences alleged against : U/Sec.279 and 338 of IPC,
accused Sec.134(a and b) R/w.187,
Sec.146 R/w Sec.196 of IMV
Act,
3 Date of recording of : 03-11-2023
evidence
4 Date of closing evidence : 23-05-2024
5 Date of judgment : 30-08-2024
JUDGMENT
The Police Sub-Inspector of Basavanagudi Traffic Police Station has filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Sec.279 & 338 of IPC, Sec.134(a and b) R/w.187 of M.V.Act, against accused No.2 for the offences punishable U/Sec.146 R/w Sec.196 of IMV Act.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under: -
That on 24-12-2020 at about 1.24 p.m. accused No.1 being the driver of Honda City Car bearing registration No.KA-51-Z-5090 drove the same on Ashok Nagar, 3rd cross road in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life he dashed to the pedestrian Master Puneeth, aged about 5 years, in front of H.No.706. Due to the impact Master Punith sustained grievous injuries. Further the accused No.1 did not provide medical aid to the injured nor 3 C.C. No.193/2021 he intimated the police about the accident. Further it is alleged that the accused No.2 being the owner of the offending vehicle was not having valid insurance policy to the offending vehicle at the time of accident. Thereby the accused No.1 has committed an offences punishable under Sec.279 & 338 of IPC, Sec.134a (a and b) R/w.187 of IMV Act, and accused No.2 has committed offences punishable under Sec.146 R/w.196 of IMV Act.
3. Upon taking cognizance, case came to be registered against accused No.1 for the offences punishable U/s.279 & 338 of IPC, Sec.134(a and b) R/w.187 of M.V.Act. The accused No.1 appeared before the court through his counsel & got enlarged on bail. Charge sheet copies furnished to the accused 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 & 338 of IPC, Sec.134(a and b) R/w.187 of M.V.Act for which accused pleaded not guilty claimed to be tried and accused No.2 pleaded guilty.
5. During the course of trial the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 6 and got marked Ex.P.1 to 9. The statement of accused as per Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded the accused No.1 denied the incriminating evidences recorded 4 C.C. No.193/2021 against him and submitted he will not lead any defence evidence.
6. Heard arguments on both sides and perused the materials available on record.
7. The point that arises for my determination is as under:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 24-12-2020 at about 1.24 p.m. accused No.1 being the driver of Honda Citi Car bearing registration No.KA-51-
Z-5090 drove the same on Ashok Nagar, 3 rd cross road in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life, thereby accused No.1 committed an offence punishable under Sec.279 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place the accused being the driver of the said vehicle. While so driving his vehicle he dashed to the pedestrian Master Punith, aged about 5 years, in front of H.No.706. Due to the impact Master Puneeth sustained grievous injuries, thereby the accused No.1 has committed an offence punishable U/s.338 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution further proves that on the said date, time and place the 1 st accused did not provide medical aid nor he intimated the police about the accident, thereby the 1st accused committed an offence punishable U/s.134 (a and b) R/w. 187 of I.M.V.Act?
4. What Order?
5C.C. No.193/2021
8. 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
9. 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.
10. The prosecution case against the accused No.1 is that on 24-12-2020 at about 1.24 p.m. accused No.1 being the driver of Honda Citi Car bearing registration No.KA-51-Z- 5090 drove the same on Ashok Nagar, 3 rd cross road in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life he dashed to the pedestrian Master Puneeth, aged about 5 years, in front of H.No.706. Due to the impact Master Puneeth sustained grievous injuries. Further the accused No.1 did not provide medical aid to the injured nor he intimated the police about the accident. Thereby the accused No.1 has committed an offences punishable under Sec.279 & 338 of IPC, Sec.134a (a and b) R/w.187 of IMV Act.
11. In order to prove its case the prosecution examined 6 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.6 and marked 9 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9.
6C.C. No.193/2021
12. C.W.1/ Shivaraj is examined as P.W.1 who is the complainant of this case. He deposed that on 24-12-2020 between 1.15 to 1.30 p.m. while he was in H.No.701, 3 rd cross road, Ashokanagar, Hanumanthnagar, his son went out of the house, at that time one car came and dashed him and left without stopping, people screamed. He came outside and upon enquiry he came to know that one car dashed to his son's leg and he sustained bleeding injuries. Immediately the neighbour printing press people came and told him the number of the car. He has taken his son to the Indiragandhi hospital for treatment, but there doctor told him shift the injured to another hospital. After that he shifted his son to BGS hospital for further treatment. On 26-12-2020 he went to police station and filed a complaint against the car number KA-51-Z-5090 which caused accident. Witness identifies signature over the complaint.
During his cross-examination by the accused counsel he deposed that the printing press is next to his house. He admits that before he came out the car was not there in the road. He denied the suggestions of the accused counsel.
13. C.W.2/ Kethan Kumar is examined as P.W.2 who is the eye witness of this case. He deposed that on 24-12- 2020 in the afternoon while he was talking with customer in front of their shop, he heard a sound in front of H.No.506, he 7 C.C. No.193/2021 turned and saw one Car bearing registration No.KA-51-Z- 5090 came in a high speed. He requested them to stop the vehicle, but he did not stop, it was a Honda city car. Later he came towards where he heard the sound, he saw that one child had met with an accident and sustained injuries on his left leg. He shifted the child to hospital. Later on the same day evening police came to the spot and enquired about the accident. After 3 days police called him to the station, where police asked him to identify the car which caused the accident. He identified the car which parked there. He identified the car driver in the police station. He do not know his name. The learned APP treated the witness as partly hostile and cross-examined him with the permission of the court. During his cross-examination by the learned APP eh admits that he works in car care center in Ashok Nagar. He denied the suggestion that he has seen the accident. He admits the suggestion with regard to conducting mahazar and summoning him to police station and identifying the accused.
During his cross-examination by the accused counsel he deposed that the complainant is known to him the alleged spot is a narrow road. He admits that it is not possible to drive the vehicle in high speed. He admits that he has not seen the car and driver at the time of accident. He admits he signed the mahazar in police station.
8C.C. No.193/2021
14. C.W.4/ Dr. Sunil is examined as P.W.4 who is the doctor of this case. He deposed that on 24-12-2020 at about 6.20 p.m. while he was in hospital, one Shivaraj took his son Puneeth to hospital with an history of road accident. Upon enquiry he came to know that at around 1.30 p.m. he sustained injuries in the accident and first admitted to Sanjaygandhi hospital for first aid. Later they came to their hospital. Upon examining the injured he found that saturated wound present over left ankle posterior aspect, extending from medial malleolus posteriorly upto lateral malleolus and then extending over the left foot dorsum. When the said part was subjected to X-ray examination, it was found that there was fracture on left leg and left foot. The orthopedic doctor of their hospital examined the injured and treated him. The injured was admitted and treated as an inpatient in their hospital from 24th to 31st December. The said injury is a grievous injuries in nature. In this regard he has given wound certificate to Basavanagudi traffic police station.
During his cross-examination by the accused counsel he admits the suggestion that if a child fell down while playing will also sustained similar injuries.
15. C.W.3/ Veeran is examined as P.W.4 who is the mahazar witness of this case. He deposed that on 24-12- 9 C.C. No.193/2021 2020 at about 1.20 p.m. one car came and dashed to one child at Ashokanagar 3rd cross. In this regard police conducted mahazar at around 5.00 p.m. and obtained his signature on the mahazar. The learned APP treated the witness as partly hostile and cross-examined him with the permission of the court. During his cross-examination by the learned APP he admits the time of the mahazar and conducted mahazar at accident spot.
During his cross-examination by the accused counsel he admits that he signed the mahazar in police station. He admits he does not know how accident has taken place.
16. C.W.9/ Rajendra Prasad is examined as P.W.5 who is the 2nd Investigating Officer of this case. He deposed that on 26-12-2020 he received the case file from C.W.8 and conducted further investigation. On 28-12-2020 he issued notice to the staff to trace the owner of the vehicle and bring the vehicle to police station which involved in the accident. He issued Sec.133 notice to the owner of the vehicle and received reply to the said notice. He sent a requisition letter to concerned motor vehicle inspector. His staff produced the accused before him who was driving the said vehicle on that day. He arrested the accused and released him on station bail. The said vehicle was not in a possession of valid insurance policy, in this regard he has issued notice. He has 10 C.C. No.193/2021 seized the said vehicle by drawing seizure mahazar. He recorded the further statement of C.W.2 with regard to identification of accused. On the next day he collected the motor vehicle inspection report. He collected the wound certificate. After completion of investigation he has submitted the charge sheet against the accused. During his cross- examination he denied the suggestions of the accused counsel.
17. C.W.8/ Hemasundar is examined as P.W.6 who is the 1st Investigating Officer of this case. He deposed that on 26-12-2020 C.W.1 came to station and filed written complaint, he received the said complaint, on the basis of complaint he registered the case in Crime No.75/2020 against the accused and forwarded the same to court and senior officers. On the same day he visited the accident spot and conducted spot mahazar in the presence of C.W.2 and 3 between 5.00 to 6.00 p.m. and prepared one rough sketch. He recorded the statement of C.W.2. Later he handed over the case file to C.W.9 for further investigation. During his cross- examination by the accused counsel he denied the suggestions of the accused counsel.
18. Out of the documents marked for prosecution Ex.P.1 is the Complaint, Ex.P.2 is the is the spot mahazar, Ex.P.3 is the wound certificate, Ex.P.4 is the 133 notice, 11 C.C. No.193/2021 Ex.P.5 is the reply for the notice, Ex.P.6 is the vehicle seizure mahazar, Ex.P.7 is the motor vehicle inspection report, Ex.P.8 is the FIR and Ex.P.9 is the rough sketch.
19. In the instant case the prosecution is alleging that the accused being the driver of the car drove his car in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to child who was playing in front of H.No.706, due to the impact the child sustained grievous injuries. The prosecution has alleged that accused has committed the offences punishable under section 279 and 338 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 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.
12C.C. No.193/2021
20. To prove the said aspect the prosecution has examined the complaint as P.W.1, eye witness as P.W.2, doctor as P.W.3, mahazar witness P.W.4 and investigating officers are P.W.5 and 6.
21. In the instant case the complainant is a hearsay witness who visited spot after accident and he got information from the printing press people who saw the accident. He clearly admits he has neither seen the car nor the car driver. The prosecution in the instant case has examined only one eye witness i.e., P.W.2 the said witness in his chief examination clearly deposed after hearing the sound he came to know about the accident and he seen the car. Though he was subjected to cross-examination by APP he denied the suggestions of the APP with regard to seeing the accident live. During his cross-examination by accused c ounsel he admitted that it is not possible to drive car in high speed in the alleged road since it is a narrow road and he admits that he has not seen the driver of the car prior to accident or after accident. With regard to mahazar he deposed he has signed the mahazar in police station. Apart from him the examined witnesses are maahzar witness who deposed about conducting mahazar, doctor who given wound certificate and the investigating officers.
13C.C. No.193/2021
22. The burden is upon the prosecution to prove that accused being the driver of the car drove the same in rash and negligent manner and thereby caused accident due to which the child sustained grievous injuries. The complaint admits he has not seen the car or the driver and based on the information given by the printing press people he came to know about the details of the car. In the case on hand the prosecution has not listed out any printing press personal has witness and not examined them. The other eye witness i.e., P.W.2 though speaks about seeing the car he clearly admits in cross-examination he has not seen the accident and he has not seen the driver of the car prior to accident or after accident. According to him he has seen the driver in police station when police shown him. When he has not seen the number and driver only identifying the car on the basis of the model and colour is not tenable because same model cars are several in the city. The investigating officers did not depose how they certified accused is the driver of the car. They simply contended that based on the car number they issued sec.133 notice and based on the details they arrested the accused. Here the prosecution has the burden to establish that the accused facing trial is the person who was the driver on the alleged day. The counsel for the accused contended that accused is not the driver and police implicated him falsely and he has not committed any accident. The 14 C.C. No.193/2021 prosecution apart from P.W.1 and 2 did not examine any other eye witness to show that accused is the driver of the car and the said car is involved in accident. PW..2 depose about identification, but in his cross-examination he has admitted the suggestions which is adverse to the case of the prosecution. Hence P.W.2 does not inspire confidence. The other witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution are not helpful to the prosecution to prove the aspect of rash and negligent act on the part of the accused. The prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. But in the case on hand the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredient required for attracting the offences punishable U/s.279, when the same is failed the court cannot rely on further allegations.
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 15 C.C. No.193/2021 points under consideration are answered point No.1 to 3 IN THE NEGATIVE.
24. POINT No.4: In view of the findings on Point Nos.1 and 2, this court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER Acting U/sec. 255(1) of Criminal procedure code, the accused is hereby acquitted of the offences alleged against him punishable U/sec. 279 and 338 of IPC, Sec.134(a and b) R/w.187 of M.V.Act.
The bail bonds of accused 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 30th day of August 2024) (GAGAN M.R.) JMFC (Traffic Court - IV), BENGALURU ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION:
PW.1 Shivaraj
PW.2 Kethan Kumar
PW.3 Dr. Sunil
PW.4 Veeran
PW.5 Rajendra Prasad
PW.6 Hemasundar
16
C.C. No.193/2021
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 Complaint Ex.P.2 Spot mahazar Ex.P.3 Wound certificate Ex.P.4 133 Notice Ex.P.5 Reply Ex.P.6 Vehicle Seizure mahazar Ex.P.7 IMV Report Ex.P.8 FIR Ex.P.9 Rough Sketch
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR ACCUSED:
Nil LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR ACCUSED:
Nil (GAGAN M.R.) JMFC (Traffic Court - IV), BENGALURU