Bangalore District Court
High Grounds Tr. Ps vs Chandan M B on 27 September, 2024
1
C.C.No.2895/2023
JUDGMENT
KABC070033622023 Presented on : 21-08-2023 Registered on : 21-08-2023 Decided on : 27-09-2024 Duration : 1 years, 1 months, 6 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.2895/2023 DATED THIS THE 27 t h DAY OF SEPTEMBER 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: Chandan.M.B, S/o.Mahadevappa,
Aged about 29 years, R/at.No.70,
Anandappa Layout,
Doddabidarekallu, Nagasandra Post, Bengaluru (Represented by: Sri.R.L.N.M., Adv) 2 C.C.No.2895/2023 JUDGMENT 1 Date of Commission of Offence 23.06.2023. 2 Date of Report of Offence 01.08.2023. 3 Name of the informant Divik.A 4 Date of Commencement of 07.11.2023.
recording of Evidence.
5 Date of Closing of evidence 18.06.2024. 6 Offences complained of U/Sec.279 and 338 of IPC and U/Sec.134(b) r/w 187 of MV Act.
7 Opinion of the Judge As per final order.
JUDGMENT The Police Inspector of High Grounds Traffic Police Station has filed charge sheet against the accused for alleged offences punishable under Section 279 and 338 of IPC and under Section 134(b) r/w 187 MV Act.
2. The case of the prosecution is as under:
That on 22.06.2023 at about 12.30 pm., at Swasthik Junction, near Nagappa Street, the accused drove the Car bearing its registration No.KA.01.MW.1917 in a rash and negligent manner, so as to endanger human life and dashed to 3 C.C.No.2895/2023 JUDGMENT the pedestrian. Due to the impact of accident, the pedestrian by name Kumari.Devika, aged about 21 years fell down and sustained grievous injuries to her right leg. 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 338 of IPC and under Section 134(b) r/w 187 MV Act 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 338 of IPC and under Section 134(b) r/w 187 MV Act was 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 338 of IPC and under Section 134(b) r/w 187 MV Act were explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and stood for trial. This case was thereafter fixed for evidence.
4
C.C.No.2895/2023 JUDGMENT
4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution got examined PW.1 to PW.3 and along with oral evidence, the prosecution has got marked documentary evidence as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9. Despite the issuance of witness summons and witness warrants against CW.2, the prosecution has failed to secure his presence. Hence, CW.2 is dropped from the list of witnesses. 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 22.06.2023 at about 12.30 pm., at Swasthik Junction, near Nagappa Street, the accused drove the Car bearing its registration No.KA.01.MW.1917 in a rash and negligent manner, so as to endanger human life and dashed to the pedestrian and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s.279 of IPC?5
C.C.No.2895/2023 JUDGMENT
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above date, time and place, the pedestrian by name Kumari.Devika, aged about 21 years fell down and sustained grievous injuries to her right leg and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s.338 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above date, time and place, after the accident the accused ran away without informing to the nearest Police Station and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s.187 of M.V. Act?
4. 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 : In Negative.
Point No.4: As per final order for the following: -
REASONS
8. Points No.1 to 3: 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. 6
C.C.No.2895/2023 JUDGMENT
9. It is the specific case of the prosecution is that, on 22.06.2023 at about 12.30 pm., at Swasthik Junction, near Nagappa Street, the accused drove the Car bearing its registration No.KA.01.MW.1917 in a rash and negligent manner, so as to endanger human life and dashed to the pedestrian. Due to the impact of accident, the pedestrian by name Kumari.Devika, aged about 21 years fell down and sustained grievous injuries to her right leg. 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 338 of IPC and under Section 134(b) r/w 187 MV Act 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.3. The PW.1 is the eye witness, PW.2 is the informant and PW.3 is the investigating officer and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to P.9.
11. The prosecution presented PW.1, who is cited as an eyewitness to the incident. He supported the prosecution's case 7 C.C.No.2895/2023 JUDGMENT and testified that on June 22, 2023, while he was standing at Swasthik Junction, he observed the accused driving his car, bearing registration No. KA.01.MW.1913, from Swasthik Junction to Sheshadripuram Police Station at high speed and in a negligent manner. PW.1 stated that the accused collided with a pedestrian who was crossing the road. He noted that the pedestrian sustained an injury to her right leg. PW.1 provided a statement to the police regarding the accident, and during their investigation, he was present when the police inspected the scene and prepared a mahazar, which he identified by his signature. During cross-examination by the defense counsel, PW.1 acknowledged that he arrived at the scene only after the incident had occurred. He admitted that he did not know how the accident happened or who was at fault. Furthermore, he revealed that he signed the mahazar at the direction of the police without understanding its contents.
12. PW.2, the informant and victim of the incident, testified that she was unconscious during and immediately after the accident and, therefore, was unaware of how the accident 8 C.C.No.2895/2023 JUDGMENT occurred or who was responsible. After obtaining permission from the court, the prosecution has treated this witness as hostile, and the prosecution attempted to cross-examine her based on their case. However, no significant information was elicited from her testimony that would strengthen the prosecution's case.
13. PW.3, the investigating officer, also provided testimony regarding his role in the investigation. During cross- examination, he admitted that there was no zebra crossing or designated pedestrian path available for pedestrians at the accident site.
14. While PW.1 and PW.2 were presented as an eyewitness and a victim, respectively, PW.1's testimony was limited since he did not actually witness the accident; he only arrived at the scene afterward. As a result, his account did not support the prosecution's claims regarding the events leading up to or immediately following the collision. Furthermore, PW.2, as the victim, turned hostile during questioning, further undermining the prosecution's position. Consequently, the 9 C.C.No.2895/2023 JUDGMENT testimonies of both PW.1 and PW.2 failed to provide any substantial evidence to corroborate the prosecution's assertions about the circumstances of the accident.
15. PW.3, as the investigating officer, conducted the investigation based on information gathered from various sources. However, since the PW.3 is not firsthand witness to the events in question, his testimony is based on secondhand information. This lack of direct observational evidence undermines the credibility of their accounts. Moreover, the absence of corroborative evidence or independent witnesses further complicates the situation. It is generally unsafe to rely solely on the testimony of an investigating officer and an informant when their claims lack support from additional independent sources. While the role of the investigating officer is crucial in gathering information, his statements alone may not provide a solid foundation for the court's conclusions without the backing of corroborative evidence. The court must approach the testimony of PW.3 with caution, recognizing the limitations inherent in his account. Without additional evidence to support 10 C.C.No.2895/2023 JUDGMENT their claims, the reliability of their testimonies remains questionable.
16. In this case, a pedestrian was involved in a road traffic accident and tragically injured at the scene while 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 338 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.
17. The accident occurred while the injured 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 the part of the pedestrian to utilize appropriate crossing points and adhere to established traffic safety norms. In many jurisdictions, 11 C.C.No.2895/2023 JUDGMENT pedestrians are expected to use designated crossing areas, such as zebra crossings or pedestrian bridges, especially on busy highways.
18. It is important to note that the prosecution failed to examine CW.2, who was cited as eye witness to the incident. The non-examination of this crucial eyewitness is significant and detrimental to the prosecution's case. Eyewitness testimony is often pivotal in establishing the facts of an incident, as it provides direct observations and details that can corroborate or challenge other evidence presented.
19. The absence of these eyewitness means that the prosecution has not provided a complete account of the incident from all relevant perspectives. His testimony could have offered critical insights into the events leading up to, during, and following the accident. By not presenting the testimony of CW.2, the prosecution has left a substantial gap in the evidence, which undermines the overall strength of their case. In the present case, the omission of key eyewitnesses can be considered a significant flaw, as it may prevent the court from obtaining a 12 C.C.No.2895/2023 JUDGMENT comprehensive and accurate understanding of the events in question. The failure to examine this witness is thus a serious shortcoming that adversely impacts the credibility and persuasiveness of the prosecution's argument.
20. Upon appreciation of the entire material on record, it becomes apparent that there is a lack of sufficient evidence to establish that the driver of the offending vehicle, the accused, acted with rashness or negligence. The prosecution's case relies on proving that the accused's driving was both reckless and negligent. Section 279 and Section 338 of IPC pertains to the punishment for rash driving or riding on a public way, while Section 338 of IPC deals with causing grievous injury 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 and the accident, 13 C.C.No.2895/2023 JUDGMENT the prosecution has failed to meet its burden of proof, thus falling short of proving the specific elements required for the offenses charged under Section 279 and 338 of IPC and under Section 134(b) r/w 187 MV Act. Consequently, the accused cannot be held liable for the offenses. With these observation, this Court answers Points No.1 to 3 in the NEGATIVE.
21. Point No.4 : 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 338 of IPC and under Section 134(b) r/w 187 MV Act.
The bail bond of the accused and their 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 27th day of September 2024) VISHWANATH SAVADI J U D I C I A L MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS (TRAFFIC COURT - V), BENGALURU.14
C.C.No.2895/2023 JUDGMENT ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION:
PW.1 C.K.Murugan. PW.2 Divika. PW.3 Suresh.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 Spot Mahazar. Ex.P.2 Complaint. Ex.P.3 FIR. Ex.P.4 Sketch. Ex.P.5 Notice U/s 133 of IMV Act. Ex.P.6 Reply to notice U/s 133 of IMV Act. Ex.P.7 Indemnity Bond. Ex.P.8 IMV Report. Ex.P.9 Wound Certificate.
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.