Bangalore District Court
Highgrounds Tr.P.S vs Bharaht K @ Bharath.K on 16 November, 2024
1
C.C.No.1244/2017
JUDGMENT
KABC070012642017 Presented on : 15-02-2017 Registered on : 15-02-2017 Decided on : 16-11-2024 Duration : 7 years, 9 months, 1 days IN THE COURT OF THE J U D I C I A L MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS (TRAFFIC COURT - V), BENGALURU Present : VISHWANATH SAVADI B.A., LL.B.,(Hon's) J.M.F.C (TRAFFIC COURT - V) , BENGALURU C.C.No.1244/2017 DATED THIS THE 16 t h DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 COMPLAINANT: State by H i g h g r o u n d s Traffic Police Station, Bengaluru.
(Represented by: APP) V/S ACCUSED: Bharath.K, S/o.Kumaraswamy, Aged about 27 years, R/at. NK Bengaluru.
(Represented by: Sri.V.C., Adv) 1 Date of Commission of Offence 20.09.2016. 2 Date of Report of Offence 24.05.2017.
2
C.C.No.1244/2017 JUDGMENT 3 Name of the informant Ravikumar.M. 4 Date of Commencement of 18.11.2017.
recording of Evidence.
5 Date of Closing of evidence 30.09.2024.
6 Offences complained of U/Sec.279 - 304(A) of IPC.
7 Opinion of the Judge As per final order.
JUDGMENT The Police Inspector of H i g h g r o u n d s Traffic Police Station has filed charge sheet against the accused for alleged offences punishable under Section 279 and 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The case of the prosecution is as under:
That on 20.09.2016 at about 2.10 pm., at T.Chowdaiah Road, near Windsor Manner Hotel, the accused drove the Motorcycle bearing its registration No.KA.04.HF.2543 in a rash and negligent manner, so as to endanger human life and dashed to the Police Inspector by name Jayaramaiah, aged about 54 years, one who was on duty. Due to the impact of accident, the said Police Inspector fell down and sustained serious injuries to 3 C.C.No.1244/2017 JUDGMENT his head and he succumbed to the injuries at Manipal Hospital. Based on the information given by the informant, the police have registered the case against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code and after the investigation the I.O. has filed charge sheet against the accused for the above said offences.
3. On receipt of the charge-sheet, cognizance of the offences under Section 279 and 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code were taken. Summons was issued to the accused, who entered appearance and enlarged on bail. Charge sheet copies were furnished to him in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C. Thereafter on finding sufficient materials particulars of offences under Section 279 and 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code were explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and stood for trial. This case was thereafter fixed for evidence.
4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution got examined PW.1 to PW.10 and along with oral evidence, the prosecution has got marked documentary evidence as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.13. CW.4, 5, 7, 10, 13, 15 to 17 were given up by 4 C.C.No.1244/2017 JUDGMENT the prosecution. Despite issuance of summons and witness warrant against CW.11 and 12, the prosecution has not secured them before this Court. Hence, the CW.11 and 12 were dropped. After completion of prosecution evidence, statement of the accused U/s.313 of Cr.P.C was recorded. He denied all the incriminating evidence against him and has not chosen to lead any defense evidence.
5. I have heard both sides arguments. Perused the materials on record.
6. The points that arise for consideration of this Court are as under:
:: POINTS ::
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that on 20.09.2016 at about 2.10 pm., at T.Chowdaiah Road, near Windsor Manner Hotel, the accused drove the Motorcycle bearing its registration No.KA.04.HF.2543 in a rash and negligent manner, so as to endanger human life and dashed to the Police Inspector by name Jayaramaiah, aged about 54 years, one who was on duty and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s.279 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above date, time 5 C.C.No.1244/2017 JUDGMENT and place, the said Police Inspector fell down and sustained serious injuries to his head and he succumbed to the injuries at Manipal Hospital and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s.304-A of IPC?
3. What Order?
7. The findings of this Court on above points are as under:-
Point No.1 : In Negative.
Point No.2 : In Negative.
Point No.3: As per final order for the following: -
REASONS
8. Points No.1 and 2: These points are connected each other and in order to avoid the repetition of the facts and evidence, they are taken up together for discussion.
9. It is the specific case of the prosecution is that, on 20.09.2016 at about 2.10 pm., at T.Chowdaiah Road, near Windsor Manner Hotel, the accused drove the Motorcycle bearing its registration No.KA.04.HF.2543 in a rash and negligent manner, so as to endanger human life and dashed to the Police Inspector by name Jayaramaiah, aged about 54 years, 6 C.C.No.1244/2017 JUDGMENT one who was on duty. Due to the impact of accident, the said Police Inspector fell down and sustained serious injuries to his head and he succumbed to the injuries at Manipal Hospital. Based on the information given by the informant, the police have registered the case against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code and after the investigation the I.O. has filed charge sheet against the accused for the above said offences.
10. The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, it got examined PW.1 to PW.10. The PW.1 is the complainant, PW.2, 3 and 4 are the eye witnesses, PW.5 and 8 are the medical officers, PW.6 is the RTO Inspector, PW.7 is the mahazar witness, PW.9 and 10 are the investigating officers and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to P.13.
11. The prosecution presented PW.1, the complainant and an eyewitness to the incident. PW.1 testified that he is an auto rickshaw driver, and most often operates near Windsor Manor. On 20.09.2016, at around 2:00 p.m., he had parked his 7 C.C.No.1244/2017 JUDGMENT auto near Windsor Manor. While he was parked, a traffic policeman was crossing the road at the Windsor Manor Circle. At that moment, the rider of a two-wheeler with registration number KA.04.HF.2543, coming from the direction of Cauvery Theatre, drove his vehicle at high speed and collided with the traffic policeman, who was crossing the road. As a result of the accident, the traffic policeman sustained a severe head injury. After the incident, PW.1 and CW.2 took the injured policeman to Vikram Hospital. Subsequently, PW.1 lodged a complaint with the police. On the same day, between 4:30 to 5:30 p.m., the police visited the accident site, conducted a spot panchanama, and prepared a rough hand-drawn sketch of the location. PW.1 confirmed his signature on both the complaint and the spot mahazar. He also identified the accused, who was the driver of the offending vehicle.
12. During cross-examination by the defense counsel, PW.1 admitted certain facts that were crucial to the case. He clarified that vehicles coming from the direction of Cauvery Theatre and passing Windsor Manor would either turn right or 8 C.C.No.1244/2017 JUDGMENT continue straight, and there were no signals regulating traffic for vehicles going straight at the accident spot. He also confirmed that there was no zebra crossing at the location of the accident for pedestrians to use.
13. PW.2 and PW.3, both traffic police officers on duty nearby, were also cited as eyewitnesses to the incident. Both witnesses testified that the rider of the two-wheeler, with registration number KA.04.HF.2543, was coming from the BDA Junction toward Windsor Manor. They stated that the rider was driving at high speed and struck the traffic policeman who was on duty. As a result of the collision, the policeman suffered a serious head injury, and the witnesses assisted in taking the injured officer to the hospital. During cross-examination, both PW.2 and PW.3 confirmed that there was no zebra crossing at the site of the accident, further aligning with PW.1's statement regarding the absence of pedestrian crossings at the location.
14. Upon appreciation of the testimonies of PW.1 to PW.3, it is evident that the driver of the offending vehicle was driving at high speed and collided with the traffic policeman, 9 C.C.No.1244/2017 JUDGMENT who was crossing the road. However, there are key issues that need to be addressed regarding the allegation of rash and negligent driving: Lack of Specific Evidence on Rash and Negligent Driving: While the witnesses testified that the driver was speeding, they did not specifically state that the driver's conduct was "rash and negligent." PW.1, PW.2, and PW.3 referred to the driver's high speed but did not explain whether his driving showed a disregard for public safety or other circumstances indicating recklessness.
15. The mere fact of high-speed driving, without additional context that proves a conscious disregard for safety, does not automatically establish "rash and negligent driving." In the absence of such specific testimony, the prosecution may struggle to prove the required mental state of the accused (i.e., that the driver acted recklessly or negligently in a manner that directly caused the injury). It is also worth noting that PW.1 and PW.2 both mentioned the absence of a zebra crossing, which could suggest that the traffic policeman was crossing the road without a designated pedestrian path. This might raise 10 C.C.No.1244/2017 JUDGMENT questions about whether the policeman was in a safe position at the time of crossing, especially considering the lack of a formal pedestrian crossing and traffic signals.
16. PW.4, another eyewitness, testified that approximately 1½ years ago, while he was parking his auto near the ITC Gate, he witnessed the driver of the two-wheeler (KA.04.HF.2543) driving at high speed and negligently striking the traffic policeman who was controlling traffic. As a result, the policeman fell and sustained a serious injury, after which he and another officer took the injured policeman to the hospital. PW.4 also identified the accused in court.
17. During cross-examination, PW.4 made certain admissions: He acknowledged that he was parked about 50 feet ahead of the accident site when the collision occurred, meaning he was not in the immediate vicinity at the time of the incident. He further admitted that he learned of the accident only after it had occurred, undermining his credibility as a direct witness to the event. He also confirmed that cameras were installed at the 11 C.C.No.1244/2017 JUDGMENT Windsor Manor Circle and that there was a zebra crossing at the location, which he had previously overlooked.
18. Given PW.4's admission that the accident occurred behind him and he did not witness the collision firsthand, his testimony regarding the events leading to the accident is highly questionable. As he did not observe the accident directly but only learned of it after the fact, his account cannot be considered reliable or firsthand. Furthermore, his failure to mention the existence of traffic cameras and the zebra crossing
--key elements of the incident--diminishes the value of his testimony.
19. PW.5 and 8 are the Medical Officers deposed that, they have examined the deceased Jayaram on the complaint of road accident and after mentioning the injuries, they had issued wound certificate and post mortem report.
20. PW.6 is the motorcycle vehicle inspector, he deposed that, he had inspected the vehicle on the requisition of police and submitted a report. He deposed that, he drove the vehicle 12 C.C.No.1244/2017 JUDGMENT on the road and did not find technical defects in the vehicle. He states that in his opinion, the accident was not caused by any technical defects. During his cross-examination, he admits that, during the inspection, the vehicle was in good condition.
21. PW.7 is the mahazar witness. He deposed that, on 20.09.2016 in his presence police have conducted a spot inspection and draw a mahazar and accordingly he signed the mahazar at the spot. During his cross-examination nothing worth is elicited to disbelieve his version by the defense counsel.
22. PW.9 and 10 the investigating officers, provided testimony about their role in the investigation of the accident. They firmly denied the defense counsel's suggestion that the investigation was conducted inadequately or that they had provided false evidence in court. Their statements aimed to reinforce the credibility of the investigation process and the integrity of the evidence collected.
23. In this case, a pedestrian/traffic police was involved in a road traffic accident and tragically died at the scene while 13 C.C.No.1244/2017 JUDGMENT crossing the road, at a location where there was neither a zebra crossing nor a designated pedestrian path. To determine the driver's guilt for the offenses punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code, several critical factors must be carefully considered. First, the prosecution bears the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the driver acted either rashly or negligently at the time of the incident.
24. Exhibit P.11 is the sketch of the crime scene, prepared by the investigating officer. This sketch is a material document in the case. According to the sketch and testimony, the road at the accident location runs from south to north, and the accused was driving the vehicle from north to south. It is acknowledged that there was no pedestrain path at the precise location of the accident.
25. The accident occurred while the deceased was crossing the road in an area where no designated pedestrian path was available. This raises significant considerations regarding pedestrian behavior and safety. Walking in a location not intended for pedestrian use suggests a potential failure on 14 C.C.No.1244/2017 JUDGMENT the part of the pedestrian to utilize appropriate crossing points and adhere to established traffic safety norms. In many jurisdictions, pedestrians are expected to use designated crossing areas, such as zebra crossings or pedestrian bridges, especially on busy highways.
26. In a criminal case, the burden of proof always rests with the prosecution. This means that it is the prosecution's responsibility to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. Importantly, this burden does not shift to the accused; the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. In this specific case, the prosecution had the obligation to prove that the accused was driving the vehicle involved in the accident on a public road at the relevant time. Additionally, they needed to demonstrate that the accused was operating the vehicle in a rash or negligent manner, which directly caused the accident.
27. In this case, the prosecution contends that the accused is responsible for a road traffic accident that resulted in the death of a Police Inspector, who was on duty at the time of 15 C.C.No.1244/2017 JUDGMENT the incident. However, the testimonies of the eyewitnesses, PW.1 to PW.3, raise significant concerns regarding the credibility, consistency, and reliability of the evidence presented, ultimately weakening the prosecution's case.
28. PW.1 to PW.3 were cited as eyewitnesses to the accident, and each provided testimony that the accused was driving at high speed. However, none of them explicitly testified that the driver was driving rashly or negligently, which is a critical element to establish the charge of rash and negligent driving. While they described the high speed of the vehicle, they did not provide sufficient detail about the manner in which the vehicle was being driven, nor did they assert that the driver had shown a disregard for safety or had acted recklessly.
29. Additionally, these witnesses testified that the accident occurred while the deceased was crossing the road, but importantly, they also acknowledged that there was no zebra crossing or designated pedestrian path at the site where the accident took place. This raises an important issue: the absence 16 C.C.No.1244/2017 JUDGMENT of a pedestrian crossing could imply that the victim was crossing the road without any formal traffic control, which complicates the determination of fault. The lack of a zebra crossing or any marked pedestrian pathway means the deceased may not have been in a protected zone, which could have contributed to the accident. This fact casts doubt on the reliability of the eyewitnesses' statements, as it suggests that the deceased was crossing the road in an area that did not provide proper pedestrian facilities, thereby making it difficult to place full responsibility on the driver of the offending vehicle.
30. Given these facts, the testimonies of PW.1 to PW.3 fail to establish that the driver was acting in a rash or negligent manner at the time of the incident. Their accounts, while providing some details about the accident, do not adequately support the prosecution's claim that the driver's actions directly caused the fatality through reckless or unsafe driving.
31. PW.4, another eyewitness, initially supported the prosecution's case during his chief examination, claiming that 17 C.C.No.1244/2017 JUDGMENT the accident occurred due to the high speed and negligent driving of the accused. However, during cross-examination, PW.4 made several key admissions that significantly undermine his credibility and the reliability of his testimony: PW.4 admitted that he was parked 50 feet ahead of the accident site when the collision occurred. This distance suggests that he was not in the immediate vicinity of the accident and therefore could not have observed the details of the incident as it unfolded. PW.4 also stated that he learned of the accident only after it had already occurred. This admission directly contradicts his earlier claim that he had witnessed the accident. If he did not see the accident happen and only learned of it afterward, his testimony about the events leading up to the crash lacks the necessary firsthand knowledge. These inconsistencies--where PW.4 initially claimed to be a direct eyewitness but later admitted to not witnessing the accident--undermine his reliability as a witness. His earlier assertion that he saw the accident firsthand is directly contradicted by his cross-examination testimony, which raises serious doubts about the accuracy of his account. Given that PW.4 was not an eyewitness to the incident, his 18 C.C.No.1244/2017 JUDGMENT testimony cannot be relied upon to establish the cause of the accident or the behavior of the accused.
32. The conflicting and inconsistent testimonies of PW.1 to PW.4 present significant issues for the prosecution's case. Each of these witnesses, while providing some details of the incident, failed to offer consistent, reliable, and corroborated evidence to prove that the accused was driving in a rash or negligent manner. Specifically: The lack of explicit testimony regarding reckless driving is a major gap, as none of the eyewitnesses clearly established that the driver was engaging in behavior that demonstrated disregard for safety. The absence of pedestrian facilities, such as a zebra crossing, where the accident occurred, raises questions about the responsibility of the deceased in the incident, as he may have been crossing the road in a non-designated area. The inconsistencies in PW.4's testimony, particularly regarding his proximity to the accident and his lack of direct knowledge of the incident, further weaken the reliability of the evidence provided. 19
C.C.No.1244/2017 JUDGMENT
33. Without clear, consistent, and corroborated evidence of the accused's rash or negligent driving, the prosecution's case is severely weakened. The contradictions and omissions in the testimonies of the eyewitnesses render their statements unreliable and fail to establish the necessary legal elements of reckless driving required to prove the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. As such, the prosecution's attempt to prove that the accident occurred due to the accused's fault is significantly undermined.
34. Additionally, PW.9 and 10 are the investigating officers, provided insights into the investigation, but it is important to note that they did not witness the actual incident. Their observations were limited to the aftermath of the accident, including evidence collected from the scene and statements from other individuals. While PW.9 and 10 could testify about the physical evidence at the scene, such as the location of the vehicles, the condition of the road, and any witness statements, they cannot provide firsthand knowledge of the events leading up to or during the collision itself. This limitation means that 20 C.C.No.1244/2017 JUDGMENT their testimony is not as impactful in establishing the cause of the accident, as they did not observe the accident firsthand. In conclusion, the prosecution's case is significantly undermined by the inconsistent and contradictory statements from the key eyewitnesses, PW.1 to PW.4, as well as the lack of direct evidence from PW.9 and 10 regarding the actual incident. Without reliable, consistent testimony and clear evidence of the accused's rash and negligent driving behavior, the prosecution has failed to meet its burden of proof in establishing Accused's responsibility for the accident.
35. Section 279 IPC pertains to the punishment for rash driving or riding on a public way, while Section 304(A) IPC deals with causing death by negligence. To secure a conviction under these sections, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's actions were not only a significant contributing factor but also that they demonstrated a disregard for safety that amounts to criminal negligence. Given the gaps in the evidence regarding the nature of the accused's driving and the lack of a definitive link between the accused's conduct 21 C.C.No.1244/2017 JUDGMENT and the accident, the prosecution has failed to meet its burden of proof. As a result, the accused cannot be held criminally liable for the offenses under Section 279 and 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code. With these observations, this Court answers Point No.1 and 2 in the NEGATIVE.
36. Point No.3 : In view of discussion held on above points, this Court proceed to pass the following:
:: ORDER ::
Acting under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused is hereby acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 279 and 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code.
The bail bond of the accused and his surety stand cancelled after completion of appeal period.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, typed by him, corrected by me and then pronounced in the Open Court on this 16th day of November 2024) VISHWANATH SAVADI J U D I C I A L MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS (TRAFFIC COURT - V), BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE 22 C.C.No.1244/2017 JUDGMENT LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION:
PW.1 Ravikumar. PW.2 B.Boraiah. PW.3 R.Gopalappa. PW.4 Ayub. PW.5 Dr.AVS.Srikanth. PW.6 Phillips C. Miranda. PW.7 Ravikumar. PW.8 Dr.Suresh.V. PW.9 Kantharaju.L. PW.10 Suresh.M.R.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 Complaint. Ex.P.2 Spot Mahazar. Ex.P.3 Notice U/s 133 of IMV Act. Ex.P.4 Reply to notice U/s 133 of IMV Act. Ex.P.5 Inquest. Ex.P.6 Wound Certificate. Ex.P.7 IMV Report. Ex.P.8 Photos. Ex.P.9 Post Mortem Report. Ex.P.10 FIR. 23 C.C.No.1244/2017 JUDGMENT Ex.P.11 Sketch. Ex.P.12 Statement. Ex.P.13 Death Intimation.
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR ACCUSED:
NIL LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR ACCUSED:
NIL VISHWANATH SAVADI J U D I C I A L MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS (TRAFFIC COURT - V), BENGALURU.