Bangalore District Court
State By Basavanagudi Traffic P.S vs No.1: Rajanna T on 4 May, 2023
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 4th DAY OF MAY 2023
C.C. No.5198/2018
COMPLAINANT: State by Basavanagudi Traffic P.S
Bengaluru.
(Represented by Learned APP)
V/s
ACCUSED NO.1: Rajanna T
S/o Late Thimmegowda,
Aged about 40 years,
Badge No.23229, BMTC Depo NO.16,
Deepanjali Nagara,
Bangalore - 560 026.
(Represented by Sri.B.N., Adv.,)
1. Date of commission of offence : 27.03.2018
2. Offences alleged against accused : U/s.279 and 338 of IPC,
3. Date of recording of evidence : 09.01.2019
4. Date of closing evidence : 04.08.2022
5. Date of judgment : 04.05.2023
***
2
C.C.No.5198/2018
JUDGEMENT
The SubInspector of Basavanagudi Traffic Police Station has filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/s.279 and 338 of IPC.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 27.03.2018 at about 10.30 p.m. accused being the driver of B.M.T.C. bus bearing registration No.KA01F3863 drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner as to endanger human life on D.V.G. Road, in front of South India Mall, he dashed against the motor cycle bearing registration No.KA05HS7049 which was proceeding in the opposite direction in the said road, due to the impact of accident the rider C.W.1 fell down along with vehicle and the front right wheel of the bus ran over on the right leg of the rider and he sustained grievous injuries. Thereby the accused is alleged to have committed the offences punishable U/s.279 and 338 of IPC.
3. Upon taking cognizance, case came to be registered against accused for the offences punishable U/s.279 & 338 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.
3C.C.No.5198/2018
4. Plea came to be framed for the offences U/s.279 & 338 of IPC for which accused pleaded not guilty claimed to be tried.
5. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined P.W.1 to 6 and got exhibited documents as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11. 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 27.03.2018 at about 10.30 p.m. accused being the driver of B.M.T.C. bus bearing registration No.KA01F3863 drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner as to endanger human life on D.V.G. Road, thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable U/s.279 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place the 4 C.C.No.5198/2018 accused being the driver of the said vehicle, drove his vehicle in the above said manner. While so driving in front of South India Mall, he dashed against the motor cycle bearing registration No.KA05HS7049 which was proceeding in the opposite direction in the said road, due to the impact rider C.W.1 fell down and sustained grievous injuries, thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable U/s.338 of IPC?
3. What order?
8. 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 THE FINAL ORDER For the following REASONS
9. POINT No.1 and 2: For the sake of convenience and to avoid repetition of facts, these points are taken up for common discussion to have brevity.
10. It is the case of the prosecution that on 27.03.2018 at about 10.30 p.m. accused being the driver of B.M.T.C. bus bearing registration No.KA01F 5 C.C.No.5198/2018 3863 drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner as to endanger human life on D.V.G. Road, in front of South India Mall, he dashed against the motor cycle bearing registration No.KA05HS7049 which was proceeding in the opposite direction in the said road, due to the impact of accident the rider C.W.1 fell down along with vehicle and the front right wheel of the bus ran over on the right leg of the rider and he sustained grievous injuries. Thereby the accused is alleged to have committed the offences punishable U/s.279 and 338 of IPC.
11. In order to prove the contents of complaint the prosecution examined 6 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.6 and marked 11 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11.
12. C.W.1/ Narayan is examined as P.W.1 who is the complainant witness of this case. He deposed that on 27.03.2018 at 10.30 p.m. he received information through his neighbor that his son met with an accident,by receiving the same he went to spot there he came to know that when his son was proceeding near Nettakallappa circle in two wheeler one BMTC bus came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to his son's vehicle, as a result his son sustained grievous injuries and he shifted injured to Sai Ambika hospital. Further he deposed that 6 C.C.No.5198/2018 accident has happened due to the fault of the driver of the offending bus and with this regard he lodged a complaint as per Ex.P.1.
During his crossexamination he admits that he does not know the contents of the complaint and his son was driving the bike after consuming alcohol and denied the suggestions of the accused counsel.
13. C.W.3/ Manjunath is examined as P.W.2 who is the mahazar witness of this case. He deposed that on 28.03.2018 at 11.30 a.m. police have conducted spot mahazar as per Ex.P.2 at accident spot in his presence and obtained his signature on it.
During his crossexamination he admits that he was brought to the court by complainant and denied the suggestions that he signed the spot mahazar in police station.
14. C.W.2/Venakatesh is examined as P.W.3 who is eye witness of this case. He deposed that on 27.03.2018 around 10.00 to 11.00 p.m. he was present at Nettakallappa circle, Upahara Darshini signal by that time accused BMTC bus came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to rider of the motor cycle, as a result rider sustained injuries 7 C.C.No.5198/2018 and injured was shifted to hospital. Further he deposed that accident has happened due to the fault of the driver of the offending bus. Further he deposed that he signed on Ex.P.2 at the station.
During his crossexamination he admits that he has seen the accident from the distance of 20ft and by the side of his vehicle five vehicles were in moving position and no vehicles were moving by the side of the injured vehicle and he denies that the accused is his relative and denies that victim was driving the vehicle after consuming alcohol and denies that police were checking for drunk and drive offences. He deposed that he has seen the accused in the accident spot and deposed that he signed the spot mahazar in police station.
15. C.W.4/Nandan examined as P.W.4 who is the victim of this case. He deposed that on 27.03.2018 at 10.30 p.m. he was proceeding from Nagasandra circle towards Nettakallappa Circle in his two wheeler bearing No.KA05 HS7049 by that time one BMTC bus came from his opposite direction and dashed to him, as a result he sustained injuries on his head and right leg and he informed same to his friends and they shifted him to hospital. On the next day of the incident he has given statement to the police. Further 8 C.C.No.5198/2018 he deposed that accident has happened due to the fault of the driver of the offending vehicle.
During his crossexamination he admits about the existence of traffic signal and also admits about the existence of bus stop and also deposed that there is a divider in the said road. and he admits that at accident spot on the said day traffic police was checking for drunk and drive offences and denied the suggestions of the accused counsel.
16. C.W.7/Krishnappa is examined as P.W.5 who is the Investigation Officer of this case. He deposed that on the basis of information given by C.W.1 he received the complaint and registered the case in Crime No.40/2018 against the accused. He visited the spot and conducted spot mahazar and prepared rough sketch. He has issued 133 notice and received reply for notice. He has received IMV report from RTO officer and he received wound certificate. After completion of investigation he has filed a Charge Sheet against the accused U/s.279 and 338 of IPC.
During his crossexamination he admits that there is a divider in the said road and admits that there are commercial shops on the side of the road and also admits 9 C.C.No.5198/2018 about existence of CCTV cameras in the commercial establishments and denies that on the said day police were checking for drunk and drive offenders and denies suggestions that the victim in order to avoid checking has made self accident.
17. C.W.6/Chetana examined as P.W.6 who is the IMV Inspector of this case. He deposed that on the request of the Basavanagudi traffic police on 28.03.2018 he inspected the BMTC bus bearing No.KA01F3863 and two wheeler bearing No.KA05HS7049 and with this regard he has given report as per Ex.P.10. Further he opined that accident has not caused on the mechanical defect of the both the vehicles.
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, Ex.P.5 & 6 is the 133 notice, Ex.P.7 is the reply, Ex.P.8 & 9 are the the trip sheet log sheet, Ex.P.10 is the IMV report & Ex.P.11 is the wound certificate.
19. After the conclusion of prosecution evidence the accused persons were informed about the 10 C.C.No.5198/2018 incriminating evidences recorded against them by reading over the contents of deposition while recording 313 statement. The accused persons denied the incriminating evidence as false and submitted they will not lead any defence evidence and did not given any explanation.
20. The learned APP contended that in the instant case P.W.4 the victim has clearly deposed that accident has taken place due to the rash and negligent act of the accused bus driver. In the said version is supported by P.W.3 eye witness as well. The prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and prays for conviction of accused. To counter the same the learned counsel for the accused argued that it is their contention that the victim was riding the vehicle under the influence of alcohol and as admitted by the witnesses anti drinking drive was held by concerned police in the said road and victim seeing the same in order to avoid the checking has taken 'U' turn and colluded to standing bus, but later the victim, complainant in clandestine arrangement with police has projected false theory and filed false charge sheet against the accused. The said fact has been admitted by the witnesses and prosecution has failed to prove its case accordingly he prays for acquittal of the accused.
11C.C.No.5198/2018
21. In the instant case the prosecution is alleged that the accused has committed the offences punishable U/s.279 and 338 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.
22. In the instant case the prosecution has relied on the victim, complainant and one eye witness. Apart from them no other independent witness was examined by the prosecution. P.W.5 is the investigating officer and he deposed about his duty. The prosecution has relied its case on P.W.3 eye witness and P.W.4 victim. The learned 12 C.C.No.5198/2018 APP stressed on victim. It is true that the statement of an injured witness carries more weight than the statement of an ordinary witness. In the present case, the injured witness is a person who himself has received injuries arising out of the accident and; therefore, his presence and his statement is on a higher footing qua the statement of an ordinary witness. The prosecution has meticulously contended that they have established their case as per their contention. The defence counsel stressed on the aspect of drunken condition of the victim P.W.4. P.W.4 in his crossexamination denied that he was drunken at the time of the accident, with regard to intoxicated condition of the victim the other eye witness deposed that he does not know about the fact. Whereas the father of the victim and the complainant i.e., P.W.1 clearly admitted that their son P.W.4 was drunken at the time of the accident. The same question was put to investigating officer, but he deposed that he has not investigated that aspect since he was admitted to hospital. The wound certificate did not disclose anything about alcohol content in the blood of the victim. Generally no father will depose false facts about their son unless they are addicted to drinking and they hurt themselves due to the drinking. In the instant case as well the father i.e., the 13 C.C.No.5198/2018 complainant clearly stated that his son was under the influence of alcohol.
23. The other contention taken by hte accused counsel is at the accident spot the police were conducting anti drunken drive and seeing the same the victim to avoid checking turned his vehicle due to which the accident has taken place. To establish that fact the same question was put to all the witnesses P.W.3 is the eye witness denied about checking, whereas P.W.4 victim himself admits that police were conducting anti drunken drive in the said spot. The I.O. denied the said aspect, as discussed earlier it is the victim who is in best position to depose the facts at the time of the accident and when he clearly deposed that anti drunken drive was carried out by the police the contention of the defence counsel holds good. With regard to genuineness of eye witness some material contradiction are found in the deposition. P.W.3 eye witness in his chiefexamination has deposed that while he was standing at traffic signal near Upahara Darshini the accident has taken place whereas in his statement before police he deposed that while he was going in his auto the incident has taken place. In his crossexamination he admits that he was at a distance of 20ft when accident has taken place and he clearly admits 14 C.C.No.5198/2018 that by his side around 5 vehicles were moving and no vehicles is found by the side of the victim's vehicle. If at all his version is true then why prosecution has not made any other witness remains unanswered question.
24. Further in the instant case both victim as well as Investigating officer admits that there is a divider in the road where accident has taken place. Upon perusal of Ex.P.4 i.e., the accident spot sketch map the police did not disclose anything about divider and upon perusal of the same the accident spot is shown as (A) which is situated about 10ft from the center point of the road and it falls on other lane according to I.O. the BMTC bus driver driven his vehicle to the other lane and caused accident to the bike of the victim which was passing in that lane. The same IO in his crossexamination clearly deposed about existence of divider and the same is supported by victim as well. If that version is taken into consideration then the accused bus driver must have ran his bus over the divider and entered the other lane no such thing is placed before the court not even the photographs of the accident spot is placed before the court. Further the victim deposed that soon after the accident he called his friend and they shifted him to hospital as per the version of the complainant the accused 15 C.C.No.5198/2018 met with an accident and complainant rushed to the spot and he admitted the victim to the hospital. Upon perusal of over all evidence there are several material contradictions found in the case of the prosecution that affects the root of the case of the prosecution.
25. 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 had driven the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, so as to endanger the human life and personal safety of others. Therefore, in the circumstances of the case, as per the rules of criminal justice if any doubt arise about the commission of the act then such doubt shall be in favour of accused. The prosecution has failed to prove the alleged offence against the accused. Accordingly, the points under consideration are answered point No.1 and 2 IN THE NEGATIVE.
26. POINT No.3: In view of the above discussions and findings I proceed to pass the following 16 C.C.No.5198/2018 ORDER Acting U/s.255(1) of Criminal Procedure code, the accused is hereby acquitted of the offences alleged against him punishable U/s.279 & 338 of IPC.
Bail bonds of accused and surety bonds shall stands cancelled after the appeal period.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court this the 4th day of May 2023).
(GAGAN M.R.) MMTC - IV, BANGALORE.
ANNEXURE
1. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
P.W.1: Narayan P.W.2: Manjunath P.W.3: Venkatesh P.W.4: Nandan P.W.5: Krishnappa P.W.6: Chetana
2. LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1: Complaint Ex.P.2: Spot mahazar Ex.P.3: FIR 17 C.C.No.5198/2018 Ex.P.4: Rough Sketch Ex.P.5: 133 notice Ex.P.6: 133 notice Ex.P.7: Reply Ex.P.8: Trip sheet Ex.P.9: Log Sheet Ex.P.10: IMV Report Ex.P.11:Wound certificate
3. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE ACCUSED:
NIL
4. LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE ACCUSED:
NIL (GAGAN M.R.) MMTC - IV, BANGALORE.