Bangalore District Court
State By Yelahanka Tr. P.S vs S.Anil Kumar on 22 May, 2019
IN THE COURT OF THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
TRAFFIC COURT - III, AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS 22ND DAY OF MAY 2019.
PRESENT : Smt. VISMITHA MOORTHY., B.A.L., LL.B.,
M.M.T.C-III, Bengaluru.
CC No.1729/2018
COMPLAINANT: State by Yelahanka Tr. P.S
Bengaluru.
(State by : Learned Sr. APP)
V/s
ACCUSED: S.Anil Kumar,
S/o Siddappa Desai,
Aged about 24 years,
R/at : No.78, 19th Cross,
Kalikanagar,
Peenya 2nd Stage,
Bengaluru.
(Represented by Sri. B.M.T., Adv.)
JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector of Yalahanka Traffic Police Station has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Sec.279, 338 and 304(A) of IPC.
2 CC No.1729/20182. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under: -
That on 10.03.2017 at about 7.50 p.m. accused being the driver of car bearing No.KA.02 MD 4768 was driving the said vehicle within the jurisdiction of Yelahanka Traffic police station near Gantiganahalli lake on Gantiganahalli Main Road from Nagenahalli towards Gantiganahalli at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and hit to grills, which was fixed to edge of the road, as a result passenger of the said car i.e., CW.2 sustained grievous bleeding injuries and also another passenger of the said car i.e., Aneesh Kumar also sustained grievous bleeding injuries and succumbed to the injuries while taking treatment. As such the accused has committed an offence punishable under Sec.279, 338 and 304(A) of IPC.
3. Cognizance was taken by perusing the prosecution papers and materials, the accused on receipt of summons appeared before the court and got himself enlarged on bail. On the said date the prosecution papers 3 CC No.1729/2018 were furnished to the accused as per Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. and substance of accusation in the form of plea was read over and explained to him, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. During the course of trial the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.3. CWs.1, 2 and 4 are the material witnesses, who have turned hostile. Hence, the prayer of learned APP for issuance of process to CWs.3 and 5 to 19 were rejected. Due to non availability of any incriminating circumstances against the accused recording the statement of accused under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. was dispensed with.
5. Heard arguments on both sides and perused the materials available on record.
6. The point that arises for my determination is as under:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 10.03.2017 at 4 CC No.1729/2018 about 7.50 p.m. accused being the driver of car bearing No.KA.02 MD 4768 was driving the said vehicle within the jurisdiction of Yelahanka Traffic police station near Gantiganahalli lake on Gantiganahalli Main Road from Nagenahalli towards Gantiganahalli at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sec. 279 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the same date, time and place accused drove his vehicle at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and hit to grills, which was fixed to edge of the road, as a result passenger of the said car i.e., CW.2 sustained grievous bleeding injuries and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sec.338 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the same date, time and place accused drove his vehicle 5 CC No.1729/2018 at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and hit to grills, which was fixed to edge of the road, as a result passenger of the said car i.e., Aneesh Kumar sustained grievous bleeding injuries and succumbed to the injuries while taking treatment and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sec. 304(A) of IPC?
4. What Order?
7. 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
8. 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.
6 CC No.1729/20189. The prosecution case against the accused is that on 10.03.2017 at about 7.50 p.m. accused being the driver of car bearing No.KA.02 MD 4768 was driving the said vehicle within the jurisdiction of Yelahanka Traffic police station near Gantiganahalli lake on Gantiganahalli Main Road from Nagenahalli towards Gantiganahalli at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and hit to grills, which was fixed to edge of the road, as a result passenger of the said car i.e., CW.2 sustained grievous bleeding injuries and also another passenger of the said car i.e., Aneesh Kumar also sustained grievous bleeding injuries and succumbed to the injuries while taking treatment.
10. In order to bring home the charge against the accused the prosecution has examined 3 witnesses and got marked Ex.P.1 to 3. Among the witnesses examined before the court PW.1 is the complainant, PW.2 is the injured and PW.3 is the eye witness to the incident. Ex.P.1 is the complaint, Ex.P.2 is the statement of PW.2 and PW.3 is the statement of PW.3.
7 CC No.1729/201811. CW.1 is the complainant and examined as PW.1 and deposed that on 10.03.2017 at about 7.30 p.m. he along with CWs.2, 4, accused and deceased were proceeding in car to attend the college function and when they proceeding near Nitte Meenakshi College suddenly one dog came infront of their car and to avoid the same car hit to fencing, as a result CW.2 sustained simple injuries and driver of the said car sustained grievous injuries, then they were shifted to Navachethana Hospital and there from Aneesh Kumar shifted to Colombia Asia Hospital for further treatment and he came to know that on the same day midnight at about 2.00 a.m. said Aneesh succumbed and in this regard he has not lodged any complaint before the police. He further deposed that police came to the Navachethana Hospital and taken complaint from him and obtained his signature and accused present before the court was brother of his friend and on the date of accident deceased Aneesh was driving the said car. PW.1 partly turned hostile to the prosecution case. The learned APP has cross-examined him and suggested his statement and he has denied the same and nothing was elicited by him to support the case of prosecution.
8 CC No.1729/201812. CW.2 is the injured and examined as PW.2 and deposed that on 10.03.2017 at about 7.30 p.m. he along with CWs.1, 4, accused and deceased were proceeding in car to attend the college function and when they proceeding near Nitte Meenakshi College suddenly one dog came infront of their car and to avoid the same car hit to fencing, as a result he sustained simple injuries and Aneesh sustained grievous injuries, then they were shifted to Navachethana Hospital and there from Aneesh Kumar shifted to Colombia Asia Hospital for further treatment and he came to know that said Aneesh succumbed while taking treatment. He further deposed that accused present before the court was his friend and on the date of accident deceased Aneesh was driving the said car and he does not know due to whose fault accident has been occurred. PW.2 partly turned hostile to the prosecution case. The learned APP has cross-examined him and suggested his statement and he has denied the same and nothing was elicited by him to support the case of prosecution.
13. CW.4 is an eye witness and examined as PW.3 and deposed that on 10.03.2017 at about 7.30 p.m. he 9 CC No.1729/2018 along with CWs.1, 2, accused and deceased were proceeding in car to attend the college function and when they proceeding near Nitte Meenakshi College suddenly one dog came infront of their car and to avoid the same car hit to road divider, as a result CW.2 sustained simple injuries and Aneesh sustained grievous injuries on head, then they were shifted to Navachethana Hospital and there from Aneesh Kumar shifted to Colombia Asia Hospital for further treatment and he came to know that said Aneesh succumbed while taking treatment. He further deposed that accused present before the court was his friend and on the date of accident deceased Aneesh was driving the said car and due to fault of Aneesh Kumar accident has been occurred. PW.3 partly turned hostile to the prosecution case. The learned APP has cross-examined him and suggested his statement and he has denied the same and nothing was elicited by him to support the case of prosecution.
14. It is a case of prosecution that, due to the rash and negligent riding of the accused accident was occurred, as a result passenger of the said car i.e., CW.2 sustained 10 CC No.1729/2018 grievous injuries and Aneesh Kumar also sustained grievous injuries and succumbed. On perusal of oral and documentary evidence it is crystal clear that at the time of accident accused was not the driver of the offending vehicle and the said vehicle was drove by the deceased himself and according to PW.3 accident was occurred due to the fault of deceased and PW.1 deposed that he has not given any complaint with regard to the said accident. CW.2 being injured he also deposed that at the time of accident the offending vehicle was drove by the deceased and accused was driving the vehicle at the time of incident and he also deposed he does not know due to whose fault accident was occurred. Hence, there is no cogent evidence to prove that, the accused was driving his vehicle in rash and negligent manner. In the present case, the complainant, injured and eye witness turned hostile to the prosecution case. None of the witnesses have deposed anything about the involvement of the accused in the incident. Though, PWs.1 to 3 have deposed about the accident, but there is no material in their evidence to prove that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the accused. There is no material to prove the 11 CC No.1729/2018 guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused is entitled for the benefit of doubt. Though, the prosecution has examined only three witnesses and produced three documents, that failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, Point Nos.1 to 3 are answered in the negative.
15. POINT No.4: In view of the findings on points Nos.1 to 3, this court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C. accused is hereby acquitted for accusation of commission of the offence punishable under Sec.279, 338 and 304(A) of IPC.
His bail bond and surety bond stands cancelled after the lapse of appeal period.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript computerized by her, revised corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 22nd day of May, 2019.) (VISMITHA MOORTHY) MMTC-III, BENGALURU.12 CC No.1729/2018
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION:
PW.1 Jairam PW.2 Kiran PW.3 Ajay
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION Ex.P.1 Complaint Ex.P.2 Statement of PW.2 LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR ACCUSED Nil LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR ACCUSED:
Nil MMTC-III, BENGALURU. 13 CC No.1729/2018