Bangalore District Court
State By Kamakshipalya Traffic Police ... vs Gowthamchand Prajapat S/O Ratnaram ... on 19 May, 2021
IN THE COURT OF THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE TRAFFIC
COURT- II, BENGALURU.
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MAY 2021
Present: Smt. Rekha. H.C.
B.A.LLB
Metropolitan Magistrate,
Traffic Court-II, Bengaluru.
CC No. 1554/2016
2
Complainant: State by Kamakshipalya Traffic Police Station,
Bangalore.
(Represented by: Sr. APP)
V/s
Accused:- Gowthamchand Prajapat S/o Ratnaram Prajapat,
30 Yrs, R/at No. 88/1, 2nd Main, Govindarajnagar,
Vijayanagar, Bengaluru.
Driver of Force LGV Tempo bearing Reg. no. KA 51 A
6861
(Represented by Sri. M.M. Adv.)
1. Date of commission of offence: 22.11.2015
2. Offences alleged against accused U/sec. 279, 304-A of
IPC, 134 (a & b) r/w 187
and 3 (1) r/w 181 of IMV
Act
3. Date of recording of evidence: 6.2.2019
4. Date of Judgment: 19.5.2021
JUDGMENT
The Inspector of Police, Kamakshipalya Traffic P.S. has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/sec. 279, 304-A of IPC, 134 (a &
b) r/w 187 and 3 (1) r/w 181 of IMV Act.
2. The brief case of the prosecution is that;
2 CC 1554/2016On 22.11.2015 at about 9.15 a.m., within the jurisdiction of Kamakshipalya Traffic police station, the accused being the driver of Force LGV Tempo bearing Reg. no. KA 51 A 6861 drove the same on Kottigepalya towards Nagarabhavi Fly over in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger the human life and dashed against pedestrian/Baby Bhagya aged about 4 yrs. Due to the impact, said child fell down and right rear wheel of the vehicle ran over on her head and sustained severe injuries to her head and was shifted to Penesia hospital for treatment where she did not respond to the same and succumbed. After the accident the accused neither gave first aid to the injured nor informed the same to nearest police station and the accused did not having driving license to drove his vehicle. Based on the first information statement given by CW-1, the case came to be registered against the accused in Cr.No.132/2015. The I.O. took up the investigation, visited the spot, drawn the spot mahazar and recorded the statement of witnesses. The I.O. after obtaining the postmortem report and other documents and on completion of investigation has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/sec. 279, 304-A of IPC, 134 (a &
b) r/w 187 and 3 (1) r/w 181 of IMV Act.
3. Upon taking cognizance, case came to be registered against accused for the offences punishable U/sec. 279, 304-A of IPC, 134 (a & b) r/w 187 and 3 (1) r/w 181 of IMV Act. The accused appeared before court engaged counsel and enlarged on bail. Charge sheet 3 CC 1554/2016 copies furnished to the accused and thereby provision U/sec. 207 duly complied with.
4. Plea came to be framed for the offence punishable U/sec. 279, 304-A of IPC, 134 (a & b) r/w 187 and 3 (1) r/w 181 of IMV Act for which accused pleaded not guilty claimed to be tried.
5. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PWs-1 to 4 and got exhibited documents as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11. On completion of prosecution side evidence, the statement of accused U/sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded and the accused denied all the incriminating evidence appearing against him. No defence evidence led.
6. Heard arguments on both sides.
7. The points that arise for my consideration are as follows:
1. Whether prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 22.11.2015 at about 9.15 a.m., the accused being the driver of Force LGV Tempo bearing Reg.
no. KA 51 A 6861 drove the same on Kottigepalya towards Nagarabhavi Fly over in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger the human life. Thereby the accused has committed the offences punishable U/sec. 279 of IPC ?
4 CC 1554/20162. Whether prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above date, time, and place, the accused being the driver of Force LGV Tempo bearing Reg.
no. KA 51 A 6861dashed against pedestrian/Baby Bhagya aged about 4 yrs, the said child fell down and right rear wheel of the vehicle ran over on her head and sustained severe injuries to her head and was shifted to Penesia hospital for treatment where she did not respond to the same and succumbed. Thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable U/sec. 304-A of IPC?
3. Whether prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that after the accident the accused neither gave first aid to the injured nor informed the same to nearest police station and the accused did not having driving license to drove his vehicle. Thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable U/sec.134 (a & b) r/w 187 and 3 (1) r/w 181 of IMV Act?
4. What Order?
8. Now, my findings to the above points are as follows:
Point Nos.1 to 3 : In the Negative Point No. 4: As per order, for the following:5 CC 1554/2016
REASONS
9. Point Nos. 1 to 3 :- All points taken together for common discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts and for appreciation of evidence It is the specific case of the prosecution that on 22.11.2015 at about 9.15 a.m., within the jurisdiction of Kamakshipalya Traffic police station, the accused being the driver of Force LGV Tempo bearing Reg. no. KA 51 A 6861 drove the same on Kottigepalya towards Nagarabhavi Fly over in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger the human life and dashed against pedestrian/Baby Bhagya aged about 4 yrs. Due to the impact, said child fell down and right rear wheel of the vehicle ran over on her head and sustained severe injuries to her head and was shifted to Penesia hospital for treatment where she did not respond to the same and succumbed. After the accident the accused neither gave first aid to the injured nor informed the same to nearest police station and the accused did not having driving license to drove his vehicle.
10. To prove its case, the prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 4 and marked Exs.P.1 to 11 with sub marking.
CW-1 Sugappa is examined as PW-1 who is complainant of this case. He deposed that about 4 yrs back, at about 9.30 a.m. his daughter was playing on Malagala Main road, at that time TATA Ace Goods vehicle dashed against his daughter. He deposed that he did not saw the accident and on hearing of sound he went out 6 CC 1554/2016 side of the house and saw the accident already occurred and said injured was shifted to hospital on the way his daughter succumbed and he put his thump impression to Ex.P.1.
Having turned hostile to the case of the prosecution, the learned Sr. APP cross examined PW-1 in detail, but nothing worth is elicited from the mouth of PW-1 to support the case of the prosecution.
12. CW-2 Nanjunada swamy is examined as PW-2 who is eye witness cum spot mahazar witness of this case. He deposed that on 22.11.2015 at about 9.00 a.m. he was near BDA complex, at that time there was accident so he went to the spot and he saw one goods vehicle was stopped in spot, but he don't saw the accident. Further, he put his signature one document at police station and the said document has been marked as Ex.P.2 as spot mahazar. But he don't know the contents of Ex.P.2.
Having turned hostile to the case of the prosecution, the learned Sr. APP cross examined PW-2 in detail, but nothing worth is elicited from the mouth of PW-2 to support the case of the prosecution.
13. CW-11 Mohan. J. is examined as PW-3 who is Investigating Officer of this case. He deposed that on 22.11.2015 at about 12.30 pm. he recorded the complaint of CW-1 and on its basis he registered the case in Cr. No.132/2015 and dispatched FIR to the court. On the same day, he visited the spot and conducted spot 7 CC 1554/2016 mahazar and prepared rough sketch and he conducted inquest mahazar at Victoria hospital and arrested the accused and produced before court. He got issued 133 notice and obtained reply and on obtaining IMV report and postmortem report and on conclusion of investigation he filed the charge sheet against the accused.
14. CW-3 H. Srinivas is examined as PW-4 who is spot mahazar of this case. He deposed that on 22.11.2015 at about 4.30 p.m. to 5.00 p.m. the police have conducted spot mahazar as per Ex.P.2 with respect to accident.
15. Out of the exhibits marked for prosecution Ex.P.1 is the complaint, Ex.P.2 is spot mahazar, Ex.P.3 is statement of PW-2, Ex.P.4 is FIR, Ex.P.5 is rough sketch, Ex.P.6 is inquest mahazar, Ex.P.7 is copy of 133 notice, Ex.P.8 is reply, Ex.P.9 is IMV report, Ex.P.10 is Indemnity bond and Ex.P.11 is postmortem report.
16. In the light of the above material available on record, the learned Sr. APP argued that there is sufficient material on record to convict the accused.
17. The learned counsel for the accused argued that there is no evidence to show rash or negligent riding on the part of the accused. Further, he argued that the material and evidence available on record is not sufficient to believe the case of prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, he prayed to acquit the accused.
8 CC 1554/201618. I have carefully gone through the evidence of PWs. 1 to 4. On perusal of evidence of PWs. 1 & 2 who were examined as material and eye witness of this case. PWs. 1 & 2 were totally turned hostile to the prosecution case. The learned Sr. APP cross examined these witnesses, but nothing has been elicited from the mouth of these witnesses to prove the guilt of accused. Except, official witnesses other witnesses have not supported to the prosecution to prove guilt against the accused and the prosecution not examined any eye witness of to prove the guilt of accused which is fatal to the case of prosecution.
19. Sec. 279 of IPC deals with rash and negligent driving any vehicle or riding on a public way in 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/sec. 279 of IPC, it must be established that the accused was driving the vehicle on a public way in a rash and negligent manner to endanger human life or to likely cause hurt or injury to any other person. For the purpose of section 279 of IPC, 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 Sec. 279 of IPC are; i) Rash and negligent driving or riding on public way. (ii) The act must be such as to endanger human life or likely to cause hurt or injury to any person.
20. I have carefully gone through the charge sheet materials and also evidence made available in the file. The witnesses have not stated regarding the number of vehicle involved in the alleged accident. Further, the witnesses have 9 CC 1554/2016 not stated rash and negligent act on the part of the accused on the date of alleged incident. Therefore, in this circumstances of the case, the case of prosecution regarding rash and negligent act and also regarding involvement of the vehicle of accused could not be made out beyond reasonable doubt.
21. The material witnesses to the case of prosecution have not supported the case. 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 a doubt as to whether the accused was rider of offending vehicle. So also there is a doubt as to whether the accused had driven the said vehicle in a rash or negligent manner. Therefore, in the circumstances of the case, the prosecution has failed to prove the alleged offence against the accused. Accordingly, the points under consideration are answered in the Negative.
22. Point No.3: In view of 'Negative' findings on the above points, the accused is entitled for acquittal on the ground of doubt benefit. Therefore, 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/sec. 279, 304-A of IPC, 134 (a & b) r/w 187 and 3 (1) r/w 181 of IMV Act.
Bail bonds of accused and surety bonds shall stand cancelled.
(Dictated to the stenographer, directly on the computer, typed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 19th day of May 2021).
[ (Rekha. H.C.) M.M.T.C-II, Bengaluru.10 CC 1554/2016
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for Prosecution:-
PW-1 Sugappa PW-2 Nanjundaswamy PW-3 Mohan. J PW-4 H. Srinivas
List of documents marked for Prosecution:
Ex.P.1: Complaint
Ex.P.2 Spot mahazar
Ex.P.3 Statement of PW-2
Ex.P.4 FIR
Ex.P. 5 Rough sketch
Ex.P. 6 Inquest mahazar
Ex.P.7 Copy of 133 notice
Ex.P.8 Reply
Ex.P.9 IMV report
Ex.P.10 Indemnity bond
Ex.P.11 Postmortem report
M.M.T.C-II, Bengaluru.