Bangalore District Court
Adugodi Tr P.S vs Thongremo Sangtam on 25 June, 2024
KABC080047992023
Presented on : 08-09-2023
Registered on : 08-09-2023
Decided on : 25-06-2024
Duration : 0 years, 9 months, 17 days
IN THE COURT OF THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
TRAFFIC COURT - VI, AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS 25TH DAY OF JUNE 2024.
PRESENT : Smt.AKHILA H.K. B.A., LL.B.,
M.M.T.C-VI, BENGALURU.
CC No.4245/2023
COMPLAINANT: State by Adugodi Traffic P.S
Bengaluru.
(State by : Learned APP)
V/s
ACCUSED: Thongremo Sangtam
S/o Yansashe
Aged about 29 years,
No.401, 20th C 2nd Cross, Ejipura,
Bengluru - 560 047.
Permanent R/at :
Chumukedima, Ward No.9,
Dimampur District,
CC No.4245/2023
2
Dimapur,
Nagaland - 797 103.
(Represented by Sri.S.M., Adv.,)
JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector of Adugodi Traffic Police Station has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.279 and 304(A) of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under: -
That on 26.04.2023 at 12.15 a.m accused being the rider of motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-01-JE- 7250 rode the same within the jurisdiction of Adugodi traffic police station on Koramangala 80 feet road, from Sony world junction towards Maharaja junction in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and near Helios Watch shop hit to pedestrian Sri.Chandanaswamy @ Sandanaswamy, when he crossing the road from Narayanareddy building towards watch shop, as a result pedestrian fell down and sustained injuries on his head, stomach and other parts CC No.4245/2023 3 of the body and while taking treatment at Victoria hospital on the same day at 9.00 a.m. he succumbed to death. As such the accused has committed an offence punishable U/Sec.279 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 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 5 and got marked Ex.P.1 to 17. The statement of accused as per Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded the accused had no explanation and he denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against him.
5. Heard both sides.
CC No.4245/2023 4
6. The point that arises for my determination is as under:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, on 26.04.2023 at 12.15 a.m accused being the rider of motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-01-JE-7250 rode the same within the jurisdiction of Adugodi traffic police station on Koramangala 80 feet road, from Sony world junction towards Maharaja junction in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sec.279 of IPC Act?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, on the same date, time and place accused drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and near Helios Watch shop hit to pedestrian Sri. CC No.4245/2023 5 Chandanaswamy @ Sandanaswamy, when he crossing the road from Narayanareddy building towards watch shop, as a result pedestrian fell down and sustained grievous injuries and while taking treatment at Victoria hospital on the same day at 9.00 a.m. he succumbed to death, thereby accused committed an offence punishable U/Sec.304(A) of IPC ?
3. 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 : As per final order for the following;
REASONS
8. POINT NOS.1 & 2: For the sake of convenience and to avoid repetition of facts, these points are taken up for common discussions to have brevity.
CC No.4245/2023 6
9. The prosecution case against the accused is that on 26.04.2023 at 12.15 a.m accused being the rider of motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-01-JE-7250 rode the same within the jurisdiction of Adugodi traffic police station on Koramangala 80 feet road, from Sony world junction towards Maharaja junction in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and near Helios Watch shop hit to pedestrian Sri.Chandanaswamy @ Sandanaswamy, when he crossing the road from Narayanareddy building towards watch shop, as a result pedestrian fell down and sustained injuries on his head, stomach and other parts of the body and while taking treatment at Victoria hospital on the same day at 9.00 a.m. he succumbed to death.
10. In order to bring home the charge against the accused the prosecution has examined 5 witnesses as PWs.1 to 5 and got marked Ex.P.1 to 17. Ex.P.1 is the complaint, Ex.P.2 is the spot mahazar, Ex.P.3 is the one photo, Ex.P.4 is the one CD, Ex.P.5 is the FIR, Ex.P.6 is the death memo, Ex.P.7 is the rough sketch, Ex.P.8 & 10 are the notice and reply, Ex.P.9 is the inquest mahazar, CC No.4245/2023 7 Ex.P.11 is the IMV report, Ex.P.l2 is the indemnity bond, Ex.P.13 is the PM report, Ex.P.14 is the seizure mahazar, Ex.P.15 PF, Ex.P.16 is the 2 photo & Ex.P.17 is the statement of PW.5.
11. Before adverting to the appreciation of evidence it is proper to state in brief the evidence deposed by the prosecution witnesses.
12. C.W.1 examined as P.W.1 is the complainant of this case. He deposed that, on 25.04.2023 his father went for work to Mesthri Palya and informed that he will be late and he has not come back home on that day and on 26.04.2023 at 9.00 a.m. some one informed him through phone that his father met with an accident and by receiving the information he went to Victoria hospital there he came to know that his father has succumbed to death. Further doctor informed him that on 25.04.2023 when his father was crossing the road at Sony World one Pulsar two wheeler bearing No.KA-01-JE-0172 came in a rash and negligent manner from Sony World towards Maharaja junction and hit to his father, due to that his CC No.4245/2023 8 father sustained injuries on his head and stomach and some one shifted his father to hospital. Further he deposed that, accident has occurred due to the fault of the rider of the offending vehicle. Further he deposed that, on 26.04.2023 at 1.00 p.m he signed on one document at police station and on the same day between 2.30 to 3.00 p.m. police conducted spot mahazar in his presence.
13. In his cross examination he has stated that, C.W.3 is his colleague. He has denied the suggestion that C.W.2 is his father's friend and he has also denied that he has written in Ex.P.1 complaint that C.W.2 is his father's friend. He has admitted that, himself, C.W.2 and 3 signed Ex.P.3 in the police station. He has denied the suggestion that, his father has crossed the road negligently.
14. C.W.3 examined PW.2 is the mahazar witness. He deposed that, on 26.04.2023 between 2.30-3.00 p.m. he signed on Ex.P.2 opposite to Titan Watch showroom CC No.4245/2023 9 and C.W.1 and 2 also signed on it and C.W.2 has shown the accident spot to the police.
15. In the cross examination he has admitted that, C.W.1 is his friend he is not acquainted with C.W.2 and
4. He has denied the suggestion that, he has signed Ex.P.3 in the police station.
16. C.W.2 examined as P.W.4 is the eye witness to the incident. He deposed that, 2 years back at about 10.30 to 11.00 p.m. he was standing near Sony world signal on Koramangala 80 feet road by that time one two wheeler came in a high speed from Sony signal towards Maharaja signal and hit to one pedestrian when he was crossing the road. After the incident rider of the offending vehicle tried to call ambulance later he shifted injured through auto to the hospital and he came to know that injured has succumbed. On the next day at 10.00 a.m. police conducted spot mahazar in his and C.W.4's presence. Further he deposed that, accident has occurred due to the fault of the rider of the offending CC No.4245/2023 10 vehicle. As the accused came in high speed after hit pedestrian has fallen 5 feet away.
17. In is cross examination he has admitted that, the road where the accident occurred is a busy road with vehicles plying entire day. He has admitted that, there is a divider in the said road to avoid pedestrian from crossing the road. He has admitted that, he will not be able to depose in which direction the pedestrian was facing and by how many feet pedestrian had crossed the road. He has admitted that, there are no break mark on the road. He has admitted that, the pedestrian has crossed the road negligently without observing the vehicles on the road. He has further admitted that, he looked at the accident only after he heard a loud noise from the accident. He has denied the suggestion that, he has not visited the spot of accident at the time of mahazar.
18. C.W.4 examined as P.W.5, is the eye witness to the incident. He deposed that, he was working in Dosa CC No.4245/2023 11 hotel which is near to the Sony world junction, on 26.04.2023 at 12.00 p.m. when he was at hotel he heard a loud sound and went to spot and saw one motor cycle had hit one pedestrian and 2 persons who were known to the injured came and they called ambulance and injured had sustained scratch injuries on his head. Further he deposed that, after 1 or 2 days after the accident he came to know that injured had succumbed to death. Further he deposed that, he does not know on whose fault accident has occurred. Further he deposed that, when he saw the injured he came to know that injured had consumed alcohol. Further he deposed that, offending vehicle came from Sony world junction towards Maharaja junction and when pedestrian was crossing the road from Sony world junction accident took place and at that time there was no traffic.
19. This witness has been treated as hostile by learned APP with the permission of the Court and he was cross examined. He has denied the suggestion that he has given a statement to the police that he has seen the accused driving his vehicle in a rash and negligent CC No.4245/2023 12 manner and hitting the pedestrian who was crossing the road. He has stated that, he has not witnessed the accident. He went to the spot after the accident. He has further stated that, the deceased had consumed alcohol. The counsel for the accused has not cross examined this witness.
20. C.W.16 examined as P.W.3 is the Investigating Officer and he has deposed about the investigation conducted by him. In the Cross Examination it is elicited that, there is signal at 300 meters from the spot of accident. He has also admitted that, there is no provision for the pedestrians to cross the road in the spot of accident. Apart from that he has denied all the other suggestions.
21. With the above evidence, this court has to ascertain whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. In order to prove offence U/Sec.279 of IPC the prosecution has to prove;
CC No.4245/2023 13
(i) Rash and negligent driving on public way
(ii) The act must be such as to endanger human life or likely to cause hurt or injury to any person.
22. To prove an offence U/sec.304(A) of IPC the prosecution has to prove;
i) death of a person.
ii) the death occurred due to the rash or negligent act of the accused person.
iii) there must be an absence of an intention to cause death
iv) there must be a direct link between the rash and negligent act and death of the victim.
23. After marshalling all the oral and documentary evidence it is crystal clear that, in this case there is no dispute regarding the accused riding the offending vehicle bearing registration No.KA-01-JE-7250 on the date of the accident. There is no dispute about the death of Chandanaswamy @ Sandanaswamy who was the pedestrian. As per P.M. report/Ex.P.13 the injuries are ante-mortem and death occurred due to head injury CC No.4245/2023 14 sustained. Hence, there is no dispute that the injuries were sustained by the deceased as a result of accident. There is no dispute regarding IMV report as per Ex.P.11, which states that there is no mechanical defects in the offending vehicle. Hence, the accident did not occur due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle involved in the accident. Since, the death of the Chandanaswamy @ Sandanaswamy is not disputed and it is not denied that the accused was riding the offending vehicle. The Court only needs to consider if there was any negligence or rashness on the part of the accused due to which the accident occurred.
24. In order to prove rashness or negligence of the accused the prosecution has examined PW.4 and 5. P.W.4 has deposed that the bike came at a high speed and dashed to the deceased when he was crossing the road. In his cross examination he has admitted that, there is a road divider in the spot of accident to prevent pedestrians from crossing the road. He has further admitted that, the said road always has a heavy traffic. He has admitted that, he will not be able to tell by how CC No.4245/2023 15 many feet the deceased had crossed the road or in which direction the deceased was proceeding. He has admitted that, the accident occurred because the deceased crossed the road without noticing the vehicles on the road. Further the prosecution is relying on the evidence of P.W.5 who has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and stated that, he has not witnessed the accident and he came to the spot after the accident. In spite of cross examination of this witness by APP nothing has been elicited to help the prosecution. Therefore, the evidence of both the eye witnesses are not helpful to the case of the prosecution. Apart from that prosecution is examined P.W.1 who is the son of the deceased and he is the defacto complainant. Admittedly, he has not witnessed the accident and he has stated that, he has given the complaint against the accused on the basis of the information given to him by PW.4. As already discussed P.W.4 has admitted that, the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased. Hence, even evidence of P.W.1 is not helpful to prove the guilt of the accused. Apart from the oral evidence the prosecution is relying on the spot mahazar/Ex.P.2 and CC No.4245/2023 16 rough sketch/Ex.P.7 to prove the spot of incident. P.W.1 and PW.2 are the pancha witnesses for Ex.P.2. P.W.1 has deposed that, he has signed on Ex.P.2 in the police station and he has stated that, he does not know who else signed with him. In the cross examination by APP P.W.1 has stated that , he has signed Ex.P.2 at the spot of the accident and also in the police station. From the contradiction made by P.W.1 it becomes doubtful if P.W.1 signed to Ex.P.2 in the spot of the incident. The spot of accident as per Ex.P.2 has been identified by P.W.4. P.W.4 has deposed that, he has signed Ex.P.2 in the spot of accident and he has also stated that, C.W.1 and 3 were present along with him. He has also identified the photograph taken at the time of mahazar. Ex.P.7 is the rough sketch which is prepared by the IO and the point of impact has been marked as - A. Admittedly, as per Ex.P.7 there is no zebra crossing or traffic signal at the spot of accident. The spot of accident is not denied by the accused. It is the contention of the accused that, the deceased crossed the road negligently without observing the vehicles on the road and the accident occurred due to his fault. Under CC No.4245/2023 17 such circumstances even though Ex.P.2/mahazar and Ex.P.7/rough sketch prove the spot of accident by themselves these two documents cannot impute rashness or negligence on the part of the accused. Further the prosecution is relying on the IMV report as per Ex.P.11 which states that, the front head light doom assembly of the offending vehicle is damaged. Therefore, it is proved that, the said vehicle was involved in an accident. But Ex.P.11 cannot prove that the accident occurred due to the rashness or negligence of the accused. Hence, there is no sufficient evidence on record to prove the guilt of the accused.
25. It is the burden of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. The evidence placed on record do not rise up to the expectation to prove beyond reasonable doubt in so far as the involvement of accused in the incident is concerned. Therefore, the prosecution version that on the account of rash and negligent driving by the accused, accident has occurred cannot be held to be proved.
CC No.4245/2023 18
26. By ascertaining all these oral and documentary evidence it is clear that, there is no substantive, cogent and corroborative evidence to prove the guilt of the accused. Hence, mere evidence of official witness is insufficient to prove the guilt of accused. Therefore, by considering the overall facts and circumstances of this case, this court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, point Nos.1 and 2 are answered in the Negative.
27. Point No.3: In view of the findings on point Nos.1 & 2, 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 U/Sec.279 and 304(A) of IPC.
CC No.4245/2023
19
His bail bond and surety
bond stands cancelled after the
lapse of appeal period.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 25th day of June, 2024) (AKHILA H.K.) MMTC-VI, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION:
PW.1 Arun Robinson PW.2 Arul PW.3 Hithendra MS PW.4 Suresh PW.5 Chandru
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 Complaint Ex.P.2 Spot mahazar Ex.P.3 Photo Ex.P.4 CD Ex.P.5 FIR Ex.P.6 Death memo Ex.P.7 Rough sketch Ex.P.8-10 Notice & Reply U/Sec.133 of IMV Act Ex.P.9 Inquest mahazar CC No.4245/2023 20 Ex.P.11 IMV report Ex.P.12 Indemnity bond Ex.P.13 PM Report Ex.P.14 Seizure mahazar Ex.P.15 P.F. Ex.P.16 2 phtos Ex.P.17 Statement of PW.5
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR ACCUSED:
-Nil-
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR ACCUSED:
-Nil-
(AKHILA H.K.) MMTC-VI, BENGALURU.