Bangalore District Court
Wilson Garden Traffic P.S vs Habeebulla Khan S/O Mohammed Khan on 10 April, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
TRAFFIC COURT - IV, BANGALORE
PRESENT: M. RASHMI, B.A. LLB., LLM.,
MMTC - IV, BANGALORE
DATED : THIS THE 3rd DAY OF JANUARY 2012
C.C. No.2949-09
COMPLAINANT: Wilson Garden Traffic P.S.
VS.
ACCUSED: Habeebulla Khan S/o Mohammed Khan
Age: 44 years,
No.22, 2nd cross, New Gurappana Palya,
Near IMB, B.G. Road, Bangalore -29.
***
JUDGEMENT
The Sub-Inspector of Wilson Garden Traffic Police Station has filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable U/s.279, 338 of IPC, Sec.134(b) R/w. 187, Sec.146 R/w. 196, Sec.56(1) R/w. 192 of M.V.Act.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 13- 08-2009 at 4.00 p.m. the accused being the driver of AIR Cab No.KA-05/8925 drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner as to endanger human life on Kengal Hanumanthaiah road, in front of BPL 2 shop, from south to north. While so driving he dashed against the auto rickshaw bearing No.KA- 05/D-681 and motor cycle bearing No.KA-01/W- 1535 due to which C.W.1 sustained grievous injuries. ****** thereby the accused has committed offence punishable U/s.279, 338 of IPC, Sec.134(b) R/w. 187, Sec.146 R/w. 196, Sec.56(1) R/w. 192 of M.V.Act.
3. After appearance of the accused, he was enlarged on bail and relevant documents were furnished to him. After hearing the accused, the court framed the plea against him for the offence punishable U/s.279, 338 of IPC, Sec.134(b) R/w. 187, Sec.146 R/w. 196, Sec.56(1) R/w. 192 of M.V.Act. The same was read over and explained to him and he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. In order to prove the guilt of the accused the prosecution has examined four witnesses as P.W.1 to 3 and got marked Ex.P.1 to 8 as documents on their behalf.
5. After the evidence of the prosecution, the statement of the accused was recorded U/s.313 of Cr.P.C. and he was examined with incriminating circumstances that have been appeared against him in the evidence of the prosecution. But, the accused has denied all 3 the allegations made against him and chose not to any evidence on their behalf.
6. Heard both the sides.
7. The points that arise for my determination are as under:
1. ***Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 11-12-205 at 8.15 p.m. the accused being the driver of KSRTC Bus bearing No.KA-19/F-1729 drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner as to endanger human life on Kanakapura Main Road, from South to North thereby the accused committed an offence punishable U/s.279 of IPC.?
2. Whether the prosecution further proves that on the said date, time and place the accused being the driver of KSRTC Bus, while so driving dashed against a pedestrian Smt. Muniyallama who was crossing the road due to which pedestrian sustained grievous injuries and died, thereby the accused committed an offence punishable U/s.304(a) of IPC.?
3. What order?
8. My findings on the above said points are as under:
1. POINT NO.1: IN NEGATIVE
2. POINT NO.2: IN NEGATIVE
3. POINT NO.3: AS PER FINAL ORDER For the following 4 REASONS
9. POINT No.1 & 2: These points are inter related, hence they are taken together for common discussion
10. It is the case of the prosecution that on 11- 12-205 at 8.15 p.m. the accused being the driver of KSRTC Bus bearing No.KA-19/F-1729 drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner as to endanger human life on Kanakapura Main Road, from South to North. While so driving he dashed against a pedestrian Smt. Muniyallama who was crossing the road from east to west, due to which pedestrian sustained grievous injuries and died, thereby the accused has committed offence punishable U/s.279, 304(a) of IPC.
11. The learned APP submitted that the prosecution has placed sufficient material before the court to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. On the other hand the counsel for the accused has submitted the prosecution has not placed convincing material before the court to prove the guilt of the accused.
12. P.W.1 Prakash, H.C. has deposed that on 11-12- 2005 he was on duty in front of O.P. at 8.15 p.m. a 5 KSRTC bus bearing No.KA-19-F-1729 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed a woman aged 60 years who was crossing the road and the bus ran over her left leg. On enquiry he came to know that the name of the driver of bus as Narayana. In this regard he has lodged the complaint as per Ex.P.1. He came to know that the injured died on 05-01-2006. He has signed the spot mahazar (Ex.P.2) at the place of the accident. In his cross-examination he has admitted that little further from the place of accident there is a traffic signal and the signal was red. Because of the red signal the vehicular movement towards north had stopped. It is further elicited that at the time of accident he was facing North direction. He has admitted that there is zebra crossing at the place of accident.
13. P.W.2 Mahantesh, conductor of the bus has deposed that on the date accident the accused was the driver of bus. But he has supported the prosecution case regarding the occurrence of the accident. Hence this witness has been treated hostile.
14. P.W.3 Neeligowda, PSI has deposed about the receiving of complaint and registering the case against the accused. He has conducted the spot 6 mahazar and prepared the rough sketch. He has subjected the vehicle for IMV inspection and received the IMV report. After the death of the injured, he handed over the file to the P.S. for further investigation. In his cross-examination he admitted a little further from the place of accident there is a Zebra crossing and he has not shown it in his rough sketch.
15. P.W.4 Venkatesh, PI has deposed about the completion of investigation and filing of charge sheet against the accused.
16. On considering the evidence placed before the court it is clear that there was red signal at a distance from the place of accident and there was a zebra crossing to enter the pedestrian to cross the road. But from the evidence of P.W.1 and from the rough sketch it can be observed that pedestrian was not crossing the road at the zebra crossing and at the point of accident there was no signal for the vehicles to stop. As such it can be safely said there was negligence on the part of the pedestrian. Hence I am of the considered view that prosecution has failed to prove that accused was rash and negligent and death of the pedestrian had occurred due to the said rash and 7 negligence on the part of the accused. Hence I proceed to answer Point No.1 & 2 in Negative.
17. POINT No.3: In view of the above discussions and findings I proceed to pass the following ORDER Accused is acquitted U/s.255(1) of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable U/s.279, 304(a) of IPC.
His bail bonds and surety bonds shall stand cancelled.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her corrected, revised and signed then pronounced by me in the open court this the 2nd day of January 2012).
(M. RASHMI) MMTC - IV, BANGALORE.
ANNEXURE
1) LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
P.W.1: Prakash V. Math P.W.2: Mahentesh H. P.W.3: M.N. Neeligowda P.W.4: T. Venkatesh
2) LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1: Complaint Ex.P.2: Spot mahazar Ex.P.3: Statement of P.W.2 8 Ex.P.4: Inquest Ex.P.5: 133 notice Ex.P.6: Reply Ex.P.7: Log sheet Ex.P.8: Way bill Ex.P.9: Accident report Ex.P.10: P.M. Report Ex.P.11: IMV Report Ex.P.12: FIR Ex.P.13: Statement of P.W.3 Ex.P.14: Rough Sketch Ex.P.15: Death memo
3) LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE ACCUSED:
NIL
4) LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE ACCUSED:
NIL (M. RASHMI) MMTC - IV, BANGALORE.