Bangalore District Court
Ks Layout Trps vs Suresh I Naragunda on 5 February, 2024
IN THE COURT OF THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
TRAFFIC COURT - IV, BANGALORE
PRESENT: SRI GAGAN M.R. B.A.L LLB
Metropolitan Magistrate
Traffic Court - IV, BANGALORE
DATED : THIS THE 5th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024
C.C. No.6583/2022
COMPLAINANT: State by K.S. Layout Traffic Police Station,
Bangalore
(Represented by: APP)
VS.
ACCUSED: 1) Sri Suresh I naragunda
S/o. Irappa,
Age: 30 years,
R/at No.20, 1st cross,
SLV Layout, Anjanapura,
Bengaluru
(Represented by: H.S.S. Adv.)
1. Date of commission of offence : 29-08-222
2. Offences alleged against accused : U/s.279 of IPC
3. Date of recording of evidence : 17-02-2023
4. Date of closing evidence : 17-02-2023
5. Date of judgment : 05-02-2024
***
JUDGEMENT
16 C.C.No.6583/2022 The Sub-Inspector of Kumarswamy Layout Traffic Police Station has filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/s.279 of IPC.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 29-08-2022 at about 9.20 a.m. the accused being the driver of Fire Engine vehicle bearing registration No.KA- 42/G-0014 drove the same on Kanakapura main road, from Talghattapura towards Konanankunte cross in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life, in a reverse direction and dashed to Bolero Jeep bearing registration No.KA-42/M-4923 which was proceeding in the said road. Due to the impact the Bolero jeep got damaged. Thereby the accused is alleged to have committed the offences punishable U/s.279 of IPC.
3. Upon taking cognizance, case came to be registered against accused for the offences punishable U/s.279 of IPC. The accused 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 of IPC for which accused pleaded not guilty claimed to be tried.
16C.C.No.6583/2022
5. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined P.W.1 to 5 and got exhibited 8 documents as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8. On completion of prosecution side evidence, the statement of accused U/s.313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded and the accused denied all the incriminating evidence appearing against him 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 29-08-2022 at about 9.20 a.m. the accused being the driver of Fire engine vehicle bearing registration No.KA-42/G-0014 drove the same on Kanakapura main road, from Talghattapura towards Konanankunte cross in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life, in a reverse direction and dashed to Bolero Jeep bearing registration No.KA-42/M-4923 which was proceeding in the said road.
Due to the impact the Bolero jeep got damaged, thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable U/s.279 of IPC?
2. What order?
8. My answer to the above points are as under:
1. POINT No.1: IN THE NEGATIVE
2. POINT No.2: AS PER THE FINAL ORDER For the following;16
C.C.No.6583/2022 REASONS
9. POINT No.1: It is the case of the prosecution that on 29-08-2022 at about 9.20 a.m. the accused being the driver of Fire engine vehicle bearing registration No.KA-42/G-0014 drove the same on Kanakapura main road, from Talghattapura towards Konanankunte cross in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life, in a reverse direction and dashed to Bolero Jeep bearing registration No.KA-42/M-4923 which was proceeding in the said road. Due to the impact the Bolero jeep got damaged. Thereby the accused is alleged to have committed the offences punishable U/s.279 of IPC.
10. In order to prove its case the prosecution examined the complainant as P.W.1, P.W.2 and 3 are eye witnesses, Investigating officer was examined as P.W.4 and motor vehicle inspector was examined as P.W.5. The learned APP appearing for the prosecution has submitted that in the instant case the complainant along with eye witness has supported the version of the prosecution and investigating officer has deposed about the after acts of the incident. Upon over all perusal of the prosecution evidence the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused.
16C.C.No.6583/2022
11. To counter the same the learned counsel for the accused submitted that complainant being the driver of an emergency vehicle was on duty the jeep owner himself has not provided the way and due to his negligent act the incident has taken place. The prosecution has not established that the incident has taken place due to the negligent act of the accused. The place of incident is a busy road and rash driving is not possible in any sense. On these grounds he prays to acquit the accused.
12. In order to prove the contents of complaint the prosecution examined 5 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.5 and marked 8 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8.
13. Upon perusal of the evidence of the prosecution C.W.1/ Shivanna is examined as P.W.1 who is the complainant of this case. He deposed that on 29-08-2022 fat about 9.20 a.m. he has taken his department jeep to prestige apartment to bring his officer at that time in front of his vehicle one fire extinguishing vehicle was proceeding all of a sudden it came in reverse direction and dashed to his vehicle. In this regard he has lodged complaint and he has identified his signature.
16C.C.No.6583/2022 During his cross-examination by accused accused counsel he admits that in the said road several vehicles were passing in the said road and he admits that they have to maintain distance from fire engine and also admits about putting of siren in fire extinguishing vehicle. He admits that the fire engine vehicle was in working mode and it was attending an emergency. He denied the suggestions of the accused counsel.
14. C.W.2/ Jagadish is examined as P.W.3 who is the eye witness and mahazar witness of this case. HE deposed that on 29-08-2022 at about 10.00 a.m. while he was standing near A2B junction near Talghattpura at that time one Bolero vehicle was standing by his side at the same time the fire extinguishing vehicle came in reverse direction and dashed to Bolero due to the accident the front side portion of the Bolero vehicle got damaged. He has seen the driver of the fire engine and identified him before the court. Next day police conducted mahazar at accident and he identified his signature over the same. The learned APP treated the witness as partly hostile and cross-examined him with the permission of the court. During his cross-examination by APP he admits the suggestions with regard to vehicle numbers.
16C.C.No.6583/2022 During his cross-examination by accused counsel he deposed that his house is situated at a distance of 3 km from accident spot and he does not have any specific timings of work. He further deposed that he has seen the accident from a distance of 15ft. He deposed that on the said day fire engine does not put any siren. He admits about the existence of signal and junction at accident spot. He admits that vehicles were stopped in traffic signal. He denied the suggestions of the accused counsel.
15. C.W.3/ Hemarathnakar Yadav is examined as P.W.3 who is the eye witness and mahazar witness of this case. He deposed that on 29-08-2022 at about 9.20 a.m. while he was standing near A2B junction of Konanakunte cross at that time one fire extinguishing vehicle came in reverse direction and dashed to Bolero vehicle. He deposed that he has not seen the driver of the fire engine and next day police conducted spot mahazar in his presence. The learned APP treated the witness as partly hostile and cross-examined him with the permission of the court. During his cross- examination by APP he admits the suggestions with regard to vehicle numbers and denies the suggestions with regard to identification of accused.
16C.C.No.6583/2022 During his cross-examination by accused counsel he deposed that he has seen the accident from a distance of 200 mtrs and further deposed that accident has taken place before he visited the accident spot and he visited the accident spot after 10 minutes of the accident. He admits that he came to know about accident after hearing the sound and denied the suggestions of the accused counsel.
16. C.W.5/ Chetan Nayak is examined as P.W.4 who is the Investigating Officer of this case. He deposed that on the basis of information given by C.W.1 on 29-08-2022 he received the written complaint and registered the case in Crime No.184/22 against the accused. Next day he visited the accident spot and conducted spot mahazar and prepared rough sketch in the presence of C.W.2 and 3. He has issued 133 notice to the owner of the vehicle and received reply to the same. He has arrested the accused and released him on bail. He has given request letter to the concerned vehicle inspector, after conducting vehicle inspection he released the vehicle obtaining indemnity bond. He received the motor vehicle inspection report, wound certificate. After completion of investigation he has filed the charge sheet against the accused.
16C.C.No.6583/2022 During his cross-examination by the accused counsel he admits that he received the complaint at 9.20 a.m. and visit the spot at 10.00 a.m. He admits that there is no mention about accused and his identification in complaint. He admits fire engine vehicle will put siren. He denied the suggestions of the accused counsel.
17. C.W.4 /Smt. Lakshmi is examined as P.W.5 who is IMV inspector. He has deposed that on 30- 08-2022 she received the requisition of K.S. Layout traffic police station and she has conducted the inspection of Tata HGV vehicle bearing registration No.KA-42/G-0014 and Mahindra Bolero vehicle bearing registration No.KA-42-G-0014. In this regard she has stated the Bolero front Radiator grill was damaged and she has stated that the break system of the vehicle was in order and in her opinion the accident was not caused due to the mechanical defect of the vehicle and gave the report. During her cross-examination she admitted that if Bolero vehicle dashed the fire engine then also the noted damages will happen.
18. Out of the documents marked for prosecution Ex.P.1 is the complaint, Ex.P.2 is the Spot mahazar, Ex.P.3 is the FIR, Ex.P.4 is the Rough sketch, 16 C.C.No.6583/2022 Ex.P.5 is the 133 notice, Ex.P.6 is the reply, Ex.P.7 is the IMV Report and Ex.P.8 is the Indemnity bond.
19. In order to bring out the guilt of the accused the prosecution has to satisfy the ingredients of 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 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.
20. In the instant case prosecution is alleging that the accused being the driver of the fire extinguishing vehicle drove his vehicle in rash and negligent manner and caused accident. Admittedly the 16 C.C.No.6583/2022 accused vehicle is a emergency service vehicle. Whenever an emergency vehicle was passing on the road to attend duty it is the duty of the citizens to give way for emergency vehicles it may be ambulance or fire extinguishing vehicle or other vehicle which is on the way to attend the call. Non complying the same amounts to an punishable offence as per the provisions of Indian motor vehicles act. In the case on hand there is no clarity from prosecution side whether the accused was attending a emergency call and whether he has put siren alerting the vehicles on the road. After seeing the flashing emergency lights the vehicle owner has to move his vehicle towards other side and give way for such vehicles. In the case on hand the emergency vehicle was coming in reverse direction and the complainant though noticed did not made any attempt to move out of the lane and provide option for free movement of emergency vehicle.
21. In the case on hand prosecution is alleging accused drove his vehicle in a negligent manner. Negligence is "the habitual failure to do the required thing; careless in manner or appearance; neglectful indifference." The legal definition of negligence is described as; "Failure to use a reasonable amount of care, when such failure results in injury to another."
16C.C.No.6583/2022
22. Now, we will take the legal definition of negligence, break it down further and define it. To the emergency vehicle operator, "failure to use" could encompass vehicle and traffic laws, SOPs, policies or actions that should have been used, since they are attending an emergency call certain relaxation is provided to emergency vehicle and other vehicle drivers are obligated to provide way for the vehicle.
23. In the case on hand the complainant contended that he was proceeding at that time fire extinguisher came and dashed to his vehicle. Whereas P.W.2 and 3 deposed that the Bolero was standing in the road when fire extinguishing vehicle came in reverse direction, there is no clarity whether complainant was moving his vehicle or stopped his vehicle. upon perusal of the hand sketch map as per Ex.P.4 the accident has taken place near 'T' junction. The complainant after seeing a vehicle he has the option to move his vehicle towards right side or other side. He himself admits about ringing of siren from the accused vehicle. When the siren is ringing it is deemed that the other vehicles should provide way for the emergency vehicle. In the case on hand the complainant did not provided way. It is clearly noticeable from evidence on record. with 16 C.C.No.6583/2022 regard to identification of accused the complainant as well as P.W.3 did not identify the accused. The prosecution has the burden to prove the negligence of accused driver beyond reasonable doubt. In the case on hand as per the existing laws the blame is reflecting on complainant himself since in spite of having knowledge about emergency vehicle he did not made attempt to provide way. In order to avoid his liability he has lodged complaint against the accused. The prosecution failed to prove that the accused committed an act punishable U/s.279 of IPC.
24. 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 has driven the offending vehicle in a negligent manner. The prosecution did not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and in such circumstances as per the rules of criminal justice the benefit of doubt should be given in favour of accused. Therefore, in the circumstances of the case, the court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the alleged offence against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the point is answered IN THE NEGATIVE.
16C.C.No.6583/2022
25. POINT No.2: In view of the above discussions and findings I proceed 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/s.279 of IPC.
Bail bonds of accused and surety bonds shall stand cancelled after completion of appeal period.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court this the 5 th day of February 2024).
(GAGAN M.R.) MMTC - IV, BANGALORE.
ANNEXURE
1. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
P.W.1: Shivanna P.W.2: Jagadish P.W.3: Hemarathnakar Yadav P.W.4: Chetan Nayak P.W.5: Lakshmi
2. LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION :
Ex.P.1: Complaint Ex.P.2: Spot mahazar Ex.P.3: FIR Ex.P.4: Rough Sketch 16 C.C.No.6583/2022 Ex.P.5: 133 notice Ex.P.6: Reply Ex.P.7: IMV Report Ex.P.8: Indemnity bond
3. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE ACCUSED:
NIL
4. LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE ACCUSED:
NIL (GAGAN M.R.) MMTC - IV, BANGALORE.16
C.C.No.6583/2022 An example of an emergency vehicle operator not driving "with reasonable care," would be speeding through a red light and striking another vehicle while responding to a call. One might argue that the emergency vehicle operator could not have foreseen the danger. However, we know statistically that the vast majority of major apparatus accidents occur at intersections. You must come to a complete stop at red-lighted intersections. You must wait until the privilege of the right of way is granted to you. Make no mistake about it, being granted permission by the motoring public to cross a red-lighted intersection is a privilege, and a privilege we can ill afford to lose, due to our recklessness or negligence.