Bangalore District Court
Ashokanagar Tr Ps vs Mahesh Kumar on 9 March, 2026
KABC0D0119782022
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS
TRAFFIC COURT-I AT MAYOHALL, BENGALURU
Present : Smt. Neelam Nitin Rao
Judicial Magistrate First Class
Traffic Court-I, Bengaluru
DATED 09TH DAY OF MARCH 2026
C.C. No. 11857/2022
Complainant : Ashoknagar PS
Bangalore
(Rep by: State by Sr. APP)
V/s
Accused : Mahesh Kumar
S/o. Yamanappa
Aged about 30 years
R/at No.15, Hunched Village
Navaikai Post, Malata Hobli
Manvi Tq, Raichur-584 129
(Rep by Adv. Sri. TM)
1. Date of commission of offence : 04.01.2022
2. Offence alleged : U/S.279, 338, 304(A) IPC
& U/s. 134(A&B) r/w
Section 187 IMV Act.
3. Date of recording of evidence : 05.08.2024
4. Date of Judgment : 09.03.2026
2
C.C. No. 11857/2022
JUDGMENT
This case arises from the charge sheet filed by the PI of Ashokanagar Traffic PS. In Crime No. 01/2022 against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 279, 338, 304(A) IPC, 134(A &B) read with 187 of the IMV Act 1988.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:
On 04.01.2022 at 06:50 a.m., the accused was the driver of the tipper vehicle no. KA 02AH 6489. He drove his tipper lorry on Commissionerate Road from Central Mall towards the Garuda Mall junction in a rash and negligent manner, without giving any indication, he suddenly turned his vehicle towards Magrath Road Hosmat Junction. He took a sudden left turn and dashed into motorcycle KA 03 JG 3450. The stepney tyre of the vehicle collided with CW1's right hand. CW.1 and pillion rider, Ms Sanjana Priya, aged 21 years, fell along with the motorcycle. At that time, the left back wheel of the tipper lorry ran over the head of the pillion rider, Ms. Sanjana Priya. She succumbed to the occurrence on spot. CW.1 sustained grievous injuries and was admitted to the hospital. After the accident, the accused neither provided medical assistance to the injured nor reported the incident to the police. Thereby, the accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 279, 338, 304(A) IPC, & 134(A&B) r/w 187 IMV Act 1988.
3. After receipt of the complaint, the investigating officer registered the case and visited the spot, conducted a mahazar in the presence of mahazar witnesses. Inquired and obtained statements of witnesses. After completion of the investigation 3 C.C. No. 11857/2022 the IO has filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offences p/u/s. 279, 338, 304(A) IPC, & 134(A&B) r/w 187 IMV Act 1988.
4. After receipt of the Charge Sheet, this court has verified all the prosecution records and considering that there are prima facie materials to proceed further against the accused, cognizance for the alleged offence punishable under section 279, 338, 304(A) IPC, & 134(A&B) r/w 187 IMV Act 1988. was taken, and a criminal case was registered against the accused in a register no. III, and the process was issued against the accused.
5. Pursuant to the summons, the accused appeared through his counsel. He was enlarged on bail. The prosecution papers were supplied to the accused as contemplated under Section 207 CrPC. Heard the prosecution side and the defence side. As there are no grounds to discharge the accused and there are sufficient materials to proceed against them, a substance of accusation was recorded, read over and explained to the accused. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the case was posted for the prosecution's evidence.
6. The prosecution has examined 9 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.9 and marked 17 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.17(a). After completion of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused as required under Section 313 CrPC, were recorded, read over and explained to the accused. He understood the statement and specifically denied all the incriminating circumstances that arose against him in the prosecution 4 C.C. No. 11857/2022 evidence. However, they did not choose to lead the defence evidence.
7. Heard the arguments canvassed by the learned Senior APP and the learned counsel for the accused, and meticulously perused the documents placed on record.
8. The following points arise for my consideration; Point No.1: Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 04.01.2022 at 06:50 a.m., the accused was the driver of the tipper vehicle no. KA 02AH 6489. He drove his tipper lorry on Commissionerate Road from Central Mall towards the Garuda Mall junction in a rash and negligent manner, without giving any indication, he suddenly turned his vehicle towards Magrath Road Hosmat Junction. He took a sudden left turn and dashed into motorcycle KA 03 JG 3450. The stepney tyre of the vehicle collided with CW.1's right hand. CW.1 and the pillion rider, Ms. Sanjana Priya, aged 21 years, fell along with the motorcycle. At that time, the left back wheel of the tipper lorry ran over the head of the pillion rider, Ms. Sanjana Priya. She succumbed to the occurrence on spot. CW.1 sustained grievous injuries and was admitted to the hospital. Thereby, the accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 279 IPC?
Point No.2: Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the aforementioned date, 5 C.C. No. 11857/2022 time and place, the accused was the driver of tipper vehicle no. KA 02AH 6489. He drove his tipper lorry on Commissionerate Road from Central Mall towards the Garuda Mall junction in a rash and negligent manner, without giving any indication, he suddenly turned his vehicle towards Magrath Road Hosmat Junction. He took a sudden left turn and dashed into motorcycle KA 03 JG 3450. The stepney tyre of the vehicle collided with CW.1's right hand. CW.1 and the pillion rider, Ms. Sanjana Priya, aged 21 years, fell along with the motorcycle. At that time, the left back wheel of the tipper lorry ran over the head of the pillion rider, Ms. Sanjana Priya. She succumbed to the occurrence on spot. CW.1 sustained grievous injuries and was admitted to the hospital. Thereby, accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 338 IPC?
Point No.3: Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the aforementioned date, time and place, the accused was the driver of tipper vehicle no. KA 02AH 6489. He drove his tipper lorry on Commissionerate Road from Central Mall towards the Garuda Mall junction in a rash and negligent manner, without giving any indication, he suddenly turned his vehicle towards Magrath Road Hosmat Junction. He took a sudden left turn and dashed into motorcycle KA 03 JG 3450. The stepney tyre of the vehicle collided with CW.1's right hand. CW.1 and the pillion rider, Ms. Sanjana Priya, aged 21 years, fell along with the motorcycle. At that time, the left back wheel of the 6 C.C. No. 11857/2022 tipper lorry ran over the head of the pillion rider, Ms. Sanjana Priya. She succumbed to the occurrence on spot. CW.1 sustained grievous injuries and was admitted to the hospital. Thereby, the accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 304(A) IPC?
Point No.4: Whether the prosecution proves beyond a reasonable doubt that on the aforementioned date, time and place, the accused being the driver of driver of tipper vehicle no. KA 02AH 6489. He drove his tipper lorry on Commissionerate Road from Central Mall towards the Garuda Mall junction in a rash and negligent manner, without giving any indication, he suddenly turned his vehicle towards Magrath Road Hosmat Junction. He took a sudden left turn and dashed into motorcycle KA 03 JG 3450. The stepney tyre of the vehicle collided with CW.1's right hand. CW.1 and the pillion rider, Ms. Sanjana Priya, aged 21 years, fell along with the motorcycle. At that time, the left back wheel of the tipper lorry ran over the head of the pillion rider, Ms. Sanjana Priya. She succumbed to the occurrence on spot. CW.1 sustained grievous injuries and was admitted to the hospital. Due to the accident occurred, the injured succumbed to the occurrence. The accused neither provided any medical assistance to the injured nor reported the incident to the nearest Police Station. Thereby, the accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 134 (A&B) r/w Section 187 of IMV Act?
7C.C. No. 11857/2022 Point No.5: What order?
9. My findings on the above points are as follows:
Point No.1 : In the affirmative
Point No.2 : In the affirmative
Point No.3 : In the affirmative
Point No.4 : In the affirmative
Point No.5 : As per the foregoing
for the following reasons
REASONS
10. Point No.1 to 4: Since these points are
interconnected, they are discussed together to avoid repetition and for brevity. The facts of the case have already been narrated above and are therefore not reproduced again.
11. The prosecution bears the burden of proving the case against the accused and must establish the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution shall establish that, the accused was the driver of the offending vehicle on the day of the occurrence, that the accused drove in a rash or negligent manner on a public road, endangering human safety and causing the accident. The prosecution should also demonstrate that the accused failed to exercise reasonable care while driving, thereby causing the fatal accident.
12. Learned senior APP argued that the accused has driven his vehicle at Garudamall junction in a rash and negligent manner. The CW.1 along with deceased Ms. Sanjana Priya were 8 C.C. No. 11857/2022 riding a motorcycle straight. The accused suddenly took a left turn, and the steering wheel turned sharply to the right, resulting in the fatal accident. The presence of the accused at the scene, and evidence that he was driving in a rash and negligent manner on the day of the accident, is proven by the oral and documentary evidence of the prosecution. Even the CCTV footage also reflects that the accused was driving his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. The witness identified him. Nothing contrary was established; hence, the court prays to convict the accused with the maximum sentence.
13. Learned defence counsel argued that, the prosecution witnesses made contradictory statements. There is no corroboration available. The PW.1 stated that, he fell unconscious after the accident. The PW.2 and 3 came to know about the accused through the police. The presence of the accused on the spot and that he drove his vehicle in rash or negligent manner was not proved. The ingredients of the alleged offences remained unestablished. Hence, prayed to acquit the accused.
14. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made from both sides. Let me evaluate the oral and documentary evidence presented by the prosecution to prove the accused's guilt. The prosecution examined 9 witnesses as PW.1 to 9 and marked 17 documents as Ex.P.1 to 17(a).
15. The prosecution has examined CW.1, Sri. Vinay, as PW.1. He stated that the deceased, Sanjana, was his relative and that he knew CW.2 and CW.3. On 04.01.2022 at 6:30 a.m., he 9 C.C. No. 11857/2022 was travelling with his sister, Sanjana Priya, and CW.2 and CW.3 were following on another motorcycle. They were riding from Ramaswami Palya near Ashok Nagara Police Station. As they moved towards the left, a tipper lorry approached at high speed and suddenly took a left turn. The stepney wheel of the lorry touched the right- side of the CW.1. He fell on the left side; Sanjana fell on the right side and was unconscious. He was taken to the hospital, where Sanjana was declared dead at the scene. He learned that the lorry's rear wheel had run over Sanjana. His statement was recorded by the police and marked as Ex.P.1, with his thumb impression due to his injuries. He sustained injuries to his right arm and leg. His bike's registration number is KA 03 JJ 6926, but he did not remember the offending lorry's vehicle number. Although, he did not see the accused at the scene, he identified him and the photos of the incident location. He testified that the accident resulted from the lorry's high speed and sudden left turn without a signal, indicating negligence on the part of the accused. He provided his statement to the police.
16. Treating this witness as partly hostile, the Learned Senior APP cross-examined him and suggested that his bike number is KA 03 JG 3450 and the accident occurred at 06:50 a.m. He admits these suggestions. During cross-examination, he stated he had a driving licence; he had produced it before the Investigating Officer. The incident took place at a junction where four roads cross, with a signal in place that was functioning at the time. He admits that vehicles slow down and turn left at the signal. He also admits this. Before he lost consciousness, he did not see the lorry. He denied the suggestion that, he was not 10 C.C. No. 11857/2022 wearing the helmet on the day of the incident. He did not know who had admitted him to the hospital. The police called him to the station on 11.01.2022, where they showed him the accused. He identified the accused and denied other suggestions.
17. A careful review of PW.1's evidence shows that, while he claims ignorance about identifying the accused, which is understandable, given that he fell, was traumatised, injured, and stated he lost consciousness. Whether he saw the accused or not at that moment is not crucial. However, he specifically testified as a victim that, the accused suddenly approached without warning, was making a high-speed left turn, and the stepney tyre collided with his handle, causing the fatal accident. Regarding the accused's rash and negligent driving, PW.1 supported the prosecution's case.
18. The prosecution examined CW.2, Sri. Pavan Prathyush as PW.2. In his main testimony, he stated that the deceased Sanjana was his sister. He knows CW.1 and CW.3. On 04.01.2022 at 06:30 a.m., they were travelling from Ramaswami Palya towards Jaya Nagara. He was riding a motorcycle while CW.1 and Sanjana were on another. They were heading straight and slowly towards Garuda Mall. At that moment, a tipper lorry suddenly came from behind at high speed from the right side and made a left turn without any warning. As it was turning left abruptly, it collided with CW.1. He fell on the left side, and Sanjana fell on the right side. The Tipper lorry then ran over her. The driver did not stop the vehicle. The injured were taken to the hospital, but Sanjana succumbed to her injuries. CW.1 sustained injuries to his right hand and left leg. The police arrived at the 11 C.C. No. 11857/2022 scene and took his statement. Later, they summoned him again to the scene and showed him the spot, which he identified. The police conducted an inspection, and the scene was marked as Ex.P.2, with his signature as Ex.P.2(a). He signed Ex.P.2 at the police station. The police took photographs. He identified the accused and confirmed that he had given a statement to the police. Considering this witness as partly hostile, the learned Senior APP cross-examined him, during which it was suggested that, the police drew a mahazar in his presence at the scene and obtained his signature. He admitted this suggestion.
19. During cross-examination, he admits that the incident spot is 5 to 6 kilometres away from R S Palya. If there was heavy traffic, it took a lot of time. The incident spot is the junction. He admits that, vehicles move slowly in the junction. Similarly, vehicles moving on the right side also move slowly. He was following his friend's vehicle. He did not observe the tipper lorry before the accident. After the accident, the tipper lorry driver ran away from the spot. He denied other suggestions. The evidence of PW.2 would indicate that, the accused veered his vehicle suddenly to the left side without any indication and collided with CW.1's motorcycle, resulting in the fatal accident. He identified the accused.
20. The prosecution examined CW.3, Sri. Abhilash, as PW.3. In his main testimony, he stated that he knows the deceased Sanjana, CW.1, and CW.2. On 04-01-2022 at around 6:30 am, he and CW.2 were travelling from Ramswamypalya towards Jayanagar. CW.1 and Sanjana were also going in the same direction on another motorcycle. They used Google Maps 12 C.C. No. 11857/2022 near Mayohall junction and were heading towards Hosmath Hospital, making a left turn. At that moment, a tipper lorry approached straight and suddenly turned left. The lorry collided, causing CW.1 to fall on the left and Sanjana on the right. He shouted for help, but the lorry wheel ran over Sanjana, leaving her unconscious. Vinay was injured as well. The accused, after stopping the vehicle, fled the scene when others started shouting. The Ashoknagar police arrived, and CW.1 was admitted to the hospital. The accused's abrupt left turn without signalling led to the accident. He identified the accused.
21. Treating this witness as partly hostile, learned Senior APP partly cross-examined him and suggested that on that date he was going towards Richmond, was standing at the Garuda Mall junction, and that the tipper lorry was yellow in colour. He admits the suggestion. During cross-examination, PW.3 deposed that he resides in Basveshwar Nagar. On that day, he left Basveshwar Nagar for RS Palya at 06.00 a.m. The incidental spot is 5 kilometres from RS Palya. In the morning, if there is traffic, it would take 1 hour to reach the spot. The witness volunteers that on that day, there was no traffic, and hence, it may take only 20 minutes. The incident spot is a major junction; four roads meet there. They were going from the left side to the left side. At that time, a signal was at the junction. He admits that vehicles moving on the left side take a left-side turn, and those moving on the right side take a right-side turn. The CW.1's vehicle was ahead of him. He denied the suggestion that, before the accident, he had not seen the tipper lorry. The lorry was at the junction. The accused fled the scene. The witness deposed that, from the signal itself, the accused came at high speed. In the 13 C.C. No. 11857/2022 accident, he sustained a simple injury. He has given a statement to the police. He didn't remember on which day the incident occurred. Other suggestions he denied.
22. On careful perusal of the evidence of PW.3, it could be seen that he was present on the spot at the time of the accident. The accident was caused by the accused's negligent driving, in which he suddenly took a left turn. Hence, the fatal accident occurred. Nothing contrary was elicited by the defence as he withstood to his case.
23. The prosecution examined CW.7, Sri. Harish. A.S, as PW.4. In his chief evidence, he deposed on 04.01.2022 at 10.45 a.m. The police have summoned him near Garuda Mall Junction for mahazar. There was an accident involving his friend's daughter by a tipper lorry. In his presence, the mahazar was drawn. The deceased Sanjana Priya was going with her friend for lunch. The tipper lorry dashed to the bike. He identified his signature on Ex.P.2 mahazar, which was marked as Ex.P.2(b).
24. During cross-examination, he deposed that, he knew Kannada a little. The police have not given him any notice. The deceased Sanjana is his friend's daughter. Along with him, CW.6 was also present on the spot at the time of Ex.P.2. It was typed on the laptop, and a printout was taken. It was read over to him, and then he signed it. He didn't know whether the hand-drawn map was prepared in the police station. Other suggestions he denied.
25. Further, the prosecution examined CW.6, Sri. Mahesh as PW.5. In his chief evidence, he deposed on 04.01.2022 from 14 C.C. No. 11857/2022 11 a.m. to 12 a.m. The police summoned him near Garuda Mall Junction. There was an accident involving his friend's sister's daughter. The police inspected the incident scene and drew a mahazar and a hand-drawn map. A collision between the lorry and the two-wheeler caused the accident. During cross- examination, he deposed that, the deceased Sanjana is his friend's sister's daughter. CW.1 is his friend. On that day, he came with CW.1. He came to court himself. CW.1 has not brought him to the court. He has not seen the accident. The CW.1 informed him about the accident. The police have not given him any notice. However, he denied having seen the hand-drawn map. He didn't know who had written Ex.P.2. Other suggestions he denied. There is no suggestion that he was not present on the spot during the mahazar, nor that the mahazar was not prepared as per his instructions. Nothing contrary is stated during cross-examination by the defence side.
26. The prosecution examined CW.22, Sri. Prabhu as PW.6. He is the Senior Motor Vehicle Inspector who inspected the vehicles involved in the accident. He deposed that on Lorry number KA02 AH 6489, he observed scratches on the left side of the rear wheel. On the other hand, the motorcycle number KA 03 JG 3450; the headlight cover was scratched on the right side, the rear sheet handle, and the left side of the helmet. It was damaged on the right side. The right side silencer was scratched. The right side footrest was damaged. The right-side crash guard and the right-side rear view mirror were damaged. During his chief evidence, the IMV report was marked as Ex.P.5, and his signature was marked as Ex.P.5(a). During cross- examination, PW.6 admits that even though the lorry struck the 15 C.C. No. 11857/2022 stone, such damage may occur. If the motorcycle skids and falls, such damage may also occur. Apart from this, nothing contrary is stated during his evidence. The Ex.P.5 IMV report supports the prosecution's version that the lorry's rear stepney wheel struck the motorcycle. It indicates the scratches on the left side of the rear tyre and damage on the right side of the bike.
27. The prosecution has examined CW.11, Sri. Mustafa as PW.7. In his chief evidence, he has worked as a traffic management project manager from 2016 to 2024. On 04.01.2022, He received one requisition from the Ashok Nagar Police Station. There was an accident near Garuda Mall. He obtained permission from ACP traffic planning to give footage. He received a requisition for CCTV footage of 06.45 a.m. to 07.45 a.m. He downloaded the footage from the storage in a pen drive and handed it over to the Investigating Officer. In this regard, he has cited Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. It was marked as Ex.P.6 and his signature as Ex.P.6(a). During cross-examination, it was suggested that he had not transferred the footage from the pen drive to the CD and had not saved it to the CD. He denied all suggestions put to him.
28. The prosecution has examined CW.15, Sri. Dinesh as PW.8. In his chief evidence, Seizure Mahazar was marked as Ex.P.7 and his signature as Ex.P.7(a). He stated that on 06.01.2022 at 06.00 p.m. at the Ashok Nagar traffic police station, the police, in his presence, saved the CCTV footage from the pen drive to the CD. They kept the CD in a white cloth and sealed it in his presence. The CD was marked as Ex.P.8, and his signature was marked as Ex.P.8(a). During cross-examination, he 16 C.C. No. 11857/2022 deposed that he knows Kannada. In Ex.P.7, the vehicle numbers were written. He didn't remember the lorry number. When he went to the police station, they were typing. He has seen the CCTV footage. The tipper lorry colour is yellow. In CCTV footage, the face of the tipper lorry driver is not visible. Other suggestions he denied.
29. The prosecution examined CW.24, Sri. Kiran as PW.9. He was the Investigating Officer of this case. He deposed the procedure he followed during the investigation of this case. During his chief evidence, relevant documents were marked, including the seizure mahazar, the Section 133 IMV Act notice, and its reply. He has also deposed about obtaining the CCTV footage of the incident spot, and a 65B Indian Evidence Act Certificate was also obtained. During cross-examination, he deposed that the official who is deputed in the Garuda Mall Junction informed him about the occurrence. After the information, he went to the hospital. He has taken the injured's statement. Other suggestions he denied.
30. On careful review of the oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses, it reveals that PW.1, the victim of the incident, deposed that the accident was caused by the accused's negligence, who suddenly took a left turn without any indication. PW.2 and PW.3 also deposed that the accused came in high speed and suddenly took a left turn without any indication, which resulted in the fatal accident. They both identified the accused. PW.4 and PW.5 are the spot mahazar witnesses. They supported the prosecution's case. Nothing contrary was stated during cross-examination by the defence side. PW.6 is the 17 C.C. No. 11857/2022 Senior Motor Vehicle Inspector, who inspected the vehicles involved in the accident. He categorically stated that, the lorry's rear wheel was scratched on the left side. On the other hand, the two-wheeler was damaged on the right side. PW.7 deposed that he had given the CCTV footage of the incident spot to the Investigating Officer and had also signed the 65B certificate under the Indian Evidence Act in this regard. PW.8 is the seizure mahazar witness who deposed in his presence. The CCTV footage was transferred from the pendrive to the CD. It was sealed in his presence. PW.9 is the Investigating Officer of this case. The defence miserably failed to prove anything contrary, as the prosecution witnesses, PW.1 to PW9, stood by their case.
31. As far as the documentary evidences are concerned, Ex.P.1 is the statement of the CW.1, who is injured. It was marked as Ex.P.1. Based on this statement, the Criminal Law was set in motion by the registration of Crime No.1/2022. Ex.P.2 is the mahazar. It reflects that, the incidental spot is the junction where four roads cross. Ex.P.3 is the inquest. The accused did not dispute the death of deceased Sanjana Priya. Thus, the inquest and post-mortem reports were marked with consent. The accused disputed his involvement in this accident. Ex.P.4, which is the post-mortem report, reveals the gravity of the accident. This report reveals that, the bones of the skull, maxilla, and mandible are fractured into multiple pieces. Ex.P.5 is the IMV report. As observed supra during the evidence of PW.6, there were scratches on the left side rear wheel of the offending vehicle. On the other hand, the victim's motorcycle was damaged towards the left side. This corroborates the version of the prosecution witnesses that, as the stepney wheel 18 C.C. No. 11857/2022 of the lorry came into contact with the right handle of CW.1's motorcycle, the accident occurred.
32. The prosecution marked one CD containing the CCTV footage of the incident spot. In this regard, PW.7 has given a Certificate No. 65B under the Indian Evidence Act. Stating that the video recording submitted by the Investigating Authority has been verified for being tamper-proof, the video obtained has been safely stored in the computer system, and the video recorder used is in the safe possession of the Forensic Lab. A leave was granted to produce a video extract as the true source. Ex.P.7 is the seizure mahazar. According to this, the police seized the CD, transferred the content of the pendrive, i.e., CCTV footage, to the CD, and filed a PF No. 1/2022.
33. Ex.P.10 is the hand-drawn map, is of great importance. As there is evidence, and as Ex.P.2 also reflects, the incidental spot is the junction where four roads cross. Ex.P.10 reflects that the offending vehicle travelled from north to south and took a sudden left turn towards the east side. At that time, the CW.1's vehicle was travelling straight from north to south. As the offending vehicle took a left turn, it collided with the Motorcycle. That resulted in the fatal accident.
34. Ex.P.11 & Ex.P.12 are the 133 IMV notice and its reply. Ex.P.14 is the wound certificate that reflects the injury that occurred to CW.1, which is of a grievous nature. The reply given to the section 133 IMV notice reflects that, the accused was the driver of the offending vehicle on the day of the occurrence. The PW.2 and PW.3 have also identified the accused. Though PW.7, 19 C.C. No. 11857/2022 the CD, does not reflect the person who was driving the lorry, it clearly shows that, when the motorcycle was moving straight ahead, the lorry came rashly and negligently took a left turn, colliding with the bike. The scene reveals that the lorry's rear wheel struck the motorcycle's right-hand handle. The CW.1 fell on the left side, and the deceased Sanjana Priya fell on the right side. At that time, the lorry ran over her, resulted in a spontaneous death.
35. It is germane to refer to sections 279, 338, and 304(A) of the IPC. They read as follows:
279. Rash driving or riding on a public way.
Whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on any public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
338. Causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others.
Whoever causes grievous hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
304A. Causing death by negligence.
Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
36. The main ingredients of these provisions are the 'rash or negligent driving on a public road that endangers human safety.' Rashness and negligence in a case involving a death by negligent driving were explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Rathnashalvan Vs. State of Karnataka, (SC) 2007 AIR 1064 wherein it was held that:
20C.C. No. 11857/2022
37. Section 304(A) IPC applies to cases where there is no intention to cause death and no knowledge that the act done in all probability will cause death. The provision is directed at offences outside the range of Sections 299 and 300 IPC. The provision applies only to such acts which are rash and negligent and are directly cause of death of another person. Negligence and rashness are essential elements under Section 304(A) IPC. Culpable negligence lies in the failure to exercise reasonable and proper care and the extent of its reasonableness will always depend upon the circumstances of each case. Rashness means doing an act with the consciousness of a risk that evil consequences will follow but with the hope that it will not. Negligence is a breach of duty imposed by law. In criminal cases, the amount and degree of negligence are determining factors. A question whether the accused's conduct amounted to culpable rashness or negligence depends directly on the question as to what is the amount of care and circumspection which a prudent and reasonable man would consider it to be sufficient considering all the circumstances of the case. Criminal rashness means hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is dangerous or wanton and the further knowledge that it may cause injury but done without any intention to cause injury or knowledge that it would probably be caused."
38. As noted above, "Rashness" consists in hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is so, and that it may cause injury. The criminality lies in such a case in running the risk of doing such an act with recklessness or indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negligence, on the other hand, is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to 21 C.C. No. 11857/2022 exercise that reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard against injury either to the public generally or to an individual in particular, which, having regard to all the circumstances out of which the charge has arisen it was the imperative duty of the accused person to have adopted."
39. The key factor in determining whether the driving that caused the accident was reckless and negligent includes not just the speed, but also the road's width, traffic density, and the attempt to overtake, which led to going on the wrong side and being liable for the accident.
40. The preliminary conditions, thus, are that (a) it is the manner in which the vehicle is driven; (b) it be driven either rashly or negligently; and (c) such rash or negligent driving should be such as to endanger human life. Once these ingredients are satisfied, the sentence contemplated under Section 279, 338 & 304(A) IPC are attracted.
41. Negligence refers to the omission of an action that a reasonable and prudent person, guided by typical human considerations, would perform, or doing something that such a person would not. It is a relative rather than an absolute term, meaning it compares conduct rather than measuring it precisely. It's challenging to define an exact formula to quantify negligence in any case. Whether conduct is negligent depends on the specific facts and circumstances surrounding each case, which the Court considers. Sometimes, failing to do what one should can also be deemed negligence.
22C.C. No. 11857/2022
42. The Court must consider 'reasonable care' as an additional factor when assessing negligence or contributory negligence. The principle of reasonable care requires a person, such as a driver, to exercise caution for pedestrians on the road; this duty becomes more stringent when the pedestrian is a young child. It is fundamental that while operating a vehicle on a public road, drivers have an inherent obligation to ensure their driving does not pose a risk to other road users, whether they are motorists or pedestrians. Drivers are expected to exercise adequate caution to prevent harm to others.
43. To impose criminal liability under this section, it is necessary that the death should have been the direct result of a rash or negligent act of the accused, and that act must be the proximate cause without the intervention of another's negligence. It must be the causa causans; it is not enough that it may have been the causa sine qua non. Culpable rashness is acting with consciousness that the mischievous and illegal consequences may follow, but with the hope that they will not, and often with the belief that the driver has taken sufficient precautions to prevent their happening. Culpable negligence is acting without the consciousness that the illegal and mischievous effect will follow, but in circumstances which show that the driver has not exercised the caution required of him, and that if he had, he would have had the consciousness. A rash or negligent act is an act done not intentionally or deliberately. A rash act is primarily an over-hasty act, and is thus opposed to a deliberate act, but it also includes an act which, though it may be said to be deliberate, is yet done without due deliberation and caution. Negligence is the breach of a duty caused by 23 C.C. No. 11857/2022 omission to do something which a reasonable man guided by considerations that ordinarily regulate human conduct would do, or the doing of something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. Negligence is the genus of which rashness is a species. For rashness or negligence to be criminal, it must be of such a degree as to amount to taking a hazard, knowing that the hazard was such that injury or death was most likely to be caused thereby. The criminality lies in running the risk or doing such an act with recklessness and indifference to the consequences. Further, In a criminal trial, the onus remains on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, and the benefit of doubt, if any, must necessarily go in favour of the accused. The element of rashness and negligence is sine qua non for offence under section 279/304(A) IPC, and the same cannot be presumed.
44. Having observed the settled legal position of the law in respect of the rash or negligent driving, resulting in the death of the person, reverting to the case in hand, the PW.1 to 9 supported the prosecution's case. The ocular testimony of these witnesses reveals that, the death of Ms. Sanjana Priya is the proximate act of the accused, without taking any precautions and his negligent driving. Further, the speed hardly matters in the offence under sections 279, 338 and 304(A) of the IPC, as the word used is "rash or negligent" driving. Thus, if the rashness or negligence is established, that is sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused. In my considered view, the act of the accused, thereby hitting the vehicle of the victim from behind, was grossly rash and negligent. The very manner of driving by the accused reeks of risk-taking and demonstrates his 24 C.C. No. 11857/2022 casual attitude towards the other road users, including the victims. In the case at hand, there is no specific defense setup by the accused. The defense side suggested that, there was a less traffic and generally the vehicles were moving slowly and when the vehicles take a turn, they move slowly. It is a general suggestion put up by the defense side to the prosecution witnesses. If that is the case, the duty cast upon the accused to travel slowly and take a turn by following traffic rules. Despite there being slow moving traffic, the accused rushed on the road, and suddenly take a left turn without observing the other vehicles recklessly. The negligence of the accused is writ large in the present case. This court has no reason to disbelieve the evidence put forth by the prosecution witnesses. The prosecution has established the ingredients of the alleged offenses, identification of the accused and the rash and negligent driving by him that resulted in the death of Ms. Sanjana Priya who was merely 21 years old. Considering all these aspects, I answer points no.1 to 4 in the affirmative.
45. Point No.5: For myriad reasons discussed supra, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Accused is found guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 279, 338, 304(A) IPC and also under Section 134(A&B) r/w Section 187 of IMV Act.
Acting under section 255(2), the accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 338, 304(A) IPC and also under Section 134(A&B) r/w Section 187 of IMV Act.
The accused is hereby sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 279. In default, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days.25
C.C. No. 11857/2022 Further, the accused is hereby sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence punishable under section 338. In default, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days.
The accused is hereby sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months for the offence punishable under section 304(A) IPC.
The accused is hereby sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 6,000/- for the offence punishable under section 134 (A & B) r/ w 187 IMV Act.
Default sentence shall run concurrently.
The bail bond of the accused and that of his surety bond shall continue till the expiry of the appeal period.
Supply the free copy of the judgment to the accused forthwith.
(Dictated to stenographer, transcribed and typed by her on the computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 9th March 2026).Digitally signed by
NEELAM NEELAM NITIN RAO
NITIN RAO Date: 2026.03.28
15:38:28 +0530
(Neelam Nitin Rao)
JMFC, Traffic Court - 1
Bangalore
26
C.C. No. 11857/2022
ANNEXURE
LIST OF WITNESS EXAMINED ON PROSECUTION SIDE:
1. PW.1 : Sri. Vinay
2. PW.2 : Sri. Pavan Pratyush
3. PW.3 : Sri. Abhilash
4. PW.4 : Sri. Harish. A.S
5. PW.5 : Sri. Mahesh
6. PW.6 : Sri. Prabhu
7. PW.7 : Sri. Musthaf
8. PW.8 : Sri. Dinesh
9. PW.9 : Sri. Kiran LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON PROSECUTION SIDE:
Ex.P.1 : Statement of PW.1
Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of PW.1
Ex.P.1(b) : Signature of PW.9
Ex.P.2 : Spot Mahazar
Ex.P.2(a) : Signature of PW.2
Ex.P.2(b) : Signature of PW.4
Ex.P.2(c) : Signature of PW.5
Ex.P.2(d) : Signature of PW.9
Ex.P.3 : Inquest
Ex.P.3(a) : Signature of PW.9
Ex.P.4 : Postmortem report
Ex.P.4(a) : Signature of PW.9
Ex.P.5 : IMV Report
Ex.P.5(a) : Signature of PW.6
Ex.P.5(b) : Signature of PW.9
Ex.P.6 : 65(B) Certificate
Ex.P.6(a) : Signature of PW.7
27
C.C. No. 11857/2022
Ex.P.7 : Seizure mahazar
Ex.P.7(a) : Signature of PW.8
Ex.P.7(b) : Signature of PW.9
Ex.P.8 : CD/DVD
Ex.P.8(a) : Signature of PW.8
Ex.P.9 : FIR
Ex.P.9(a) : Signature of PW.9
Ex.P.10 : Hand drawn Map
Ex.P.10(a) : Signature of PW.9
Ex.P.11 : 133 Notice
Ex.P.11(a) : Signature of PW.9
Ex.P.12 : 133 Notice reply
Ex.P.12(a) : Signature of PW.9
Ex.P.13 : BBMP AE Sketch Copy
Ex.P.13(a) : Signature of PW.9
Ex.P.14 : Wound Certificate
Ex.P.14(a) : Signature of PW.9
Ex.P.15 : A to E - CDR
Ex.P.16 : 65(B) Certificate
Ex.P.16(a) : Signature of PW.9
Ex.P.17 : 65(B) Certificate
Ex.P.17(a) : Signature of PW.9
LIST OF WITNESS EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS MARKED ON DEFENCE SIDE:
NIL (Dictated to stenographer, transcribed and typed by her on the computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 9th March 2026).Digitally signed by
NEELAM NEELAM NITIN RAO
NITIN RAO Date: 2026.03.28
15:38:19 +0530
(Neelam Nitin Rao)
JMFC, Traffic Court - 1
Bangalore