Bangalore District Court
State By Upparpet Traffic Police ... vs Anand Nagareddy S/O Yenkappa Nagareddy on 13 January, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
TRAFFIC COURT- II BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2015
Present: Sri. Rajendra Kumar. K.M.
LLM. M Phil,
Metropolitan Magistrate,
Traffic Court-II, Bangalore.
C.C. No. 1178/2012
Complainant: State by Upparpet Traffic Police Station,
Bangalore.
Represented by: Sr. APP
V/s
Accused:- Anand Nagareddy S/o Yenkappa Nagareddy, 26
Yrs, Token No. 359, KSRTC, Chikkaballapura
Depot, Chikkaballapura.
Driver of KSRTC Bus Bearing No. KA 40 F 85
Represented by Sri. NJ, Advocate
1. Date of commission of offence: 2.5.2012
2. Offences alleged against accused : U/sec. 279 and 304-A
of IPC.
3. Date of recording of evidence: 19.3.2013
4. Date of Judgment: 13.1.2015
JUDGMENT
This case emanates from the charge sheet filed by Sub- inspector of Upparpet Traffic P.S. against the accused alleging that he has committed the offence punishable U/sec. 279 and 304-A of IPC.
2. The brief case of the prosecution that;
2 CC 1178/2012It is the case of the prosecution that on 2.5.2012 at about 11.55 a.m. the accused being the driver of KSRTC Bus no. KA 40 F 85 drove the same on Tank bund road from south towards north direction in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and while taking left turn near KSRTC bus entrance dashed against pedestrian-P. Lingaiah who was standing beside the road. Due to the impact, said pedestrian fell down and front left wheel of the bus ran over on his left leg and suffered severe injuries and while shifting him to hospital on the way the injured succumbed to the injuries sustained. Thereby the accused has committed the offences punishable U/sec. 279 and 304-A of IPC.
3. The record discloses that accused person was released on court bail.
4. On receipt of charge sheet this court has taken cognizance of the offences U/sec. 190 of Cr.P.C.
5. Acting U/sec. 207 of Cr.P.C. all the copies of prosecution papers were furnished to the counsel for the accused. Since, there are grounds for presuming that the accused person has committed the offences triable by this court, this court proceeded to frame the substance of accusation. The accused person pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Therefore, the matter was posted for recording the evidence of prosecution.
6. For the proof of the case, the prosecution has examined 8 witnesses out of 14 witnesses and got exhibited documents as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11.
3 CC 1178/20127. Since, there was incriminating evidence, the statement of the accused person U/sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. The case of the accused is that of total denial. The accused person did not lead any defence evidence.
8. I have heard both sides.
9. Now the points that arise for my consideration are as follows:
1. Whether prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 2.5.2012 at about 11.55 a.m. the accused being the driver of KSRTC Bus no. KA 40 F 85 drove the same on Tank bund road from south towards north direction in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and while taking left turn near KSRTC bus entrance dashed against pedestrian-P. Lingaiah who was standing beside the road. Thereby the accused has committed the offences punishable U/sec. 279 of IPC ?
2. Whether prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above date, time, Due to the impact, said pedestrian fell down and front left wheel of the bus ran over on his left leg and suffered severe injuries and while shifting him to hospital on the way the injured succumbed to the injuries sustained. Thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable U/sec. 304-A of IPC?
3. What Order?
10. Now, my findings to above points are as follows:
4 CC 1178/2012Point Nos.1 & 2 : Affirmative Point No. 3: As per order, for the following:
REASONS
11. Point Nos 1 & 2 :- It is well laid that in a criminal case the entire burden of proof rest upon the prosecution and the accused need prove nothing. Suffice for the accused to create doubt about the case of the prosecution and the reliability of the witnesses for prosecution. With this background, I proceed to discuss the evidence available on record.
12. It is the case of the prosecution that on 2.5.2012 at about 11.55 a.m. the accused being the driver of KSRTC Bus no. KA 40 F 85 drove the same on Tank bund road from south towards north direction in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and while taking left turn near KSRTC bus entrance dashed against pedestrian-P. Lingaiah who was standing beside the road. Due to the impact, said pedestrian fell down and front left wheel of the bus ran over on his left leg and suffered severe injuries and while shifting him to hospital on the way the injured succumbed to the injuries sustained. Thereby the accused has committed the offences punishable U/sec. 279 and 304-A of IPC.
13. In order to prove the identification of accused the prosecution got examined the PW-3 who is traffic controller of BMTC bus. The PW-3 who deposed that on 2.5.2012 the Upparpet police have issued the notice with respect to bus no. KA 40 F 85 has caused the accident and he gave the reply to that effect. The PW-3 further deposes that one Ananda Nagareddy, token no. 359 was driver and one Shivappa was 5 CC 1178/2012 the conductor of the said offending bus and accused before court was the driver of the offending bus. The 133 notice and reply are marked at Exs.P. 2 & 3 respectively and signatures marked at Exs.P.2 (a) and 3 (a) respectively.
14. On careful reading of the evidence of PW-3, it appears that he clearly deposed that the accused before court was the driver of offending bus bearing registration no. KA 40 E 85 and Shivappa was its conductor on 2.5.2014 i.e., on the date of accident.
15. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused even though cross examined the PW-3, there is nothing on record which creates any suspicion regarding the case of the prosecution.
16. The PW-5 is the IMV inspector who deposed that on 3.5.2012 at the request of P.I, Upparpet Tr. Police station he inspected the bus no. KA 40 F 85 and issued report as per Ex.P.6 and his signature at Ex.P.6 (a) and he opined that the accident was not happened due to either any mechanical defects of the offending vehicle.
17. On careful reading of the evidence of PW-5, it appears that the accident is not due to any mechanical defects of the offending vehicle.
18. The learned counsel for the accused has cross examined the PW-5. However, nothing useful is elicited from the mouth of the evidence of PW.5 so as to hold that the PW-5 is deposing falsely in favour of the prosecution.
19. The learned counsel for the accused, during the course of arguments, argued that if the bus had caused the 6 CC 1178/2012 accident then there must be some damages over the bumper of the offending bus. The arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the accused holds no water as in all times the damages cannot occurred when heavy vehicle dashed against human being directly.
20. In order to prove the rash and negligent driving of the accused the prosecution got examined PW-4 who deposed that on 2.5.2012 at about 11-15 a.m. he was deputed for duty near Amar junction, at that time bus no. KA 40 F 85 came in high speed while taking left turn dashed against pedestrian who was proceeding in the said road. Due to the impact, he fell down and front left wheel of the offending bus ran over on his leg and he suffered severe injuries. The PW-4 further deposed that the injured was shifted to Srinivas nursing home after first aid was shifted to Victoria hospital where on examination the doctor declared that the injured was brought dead. The PW-4 further deposed that after receiving the death memo he informed the same before SHO and came to know that the deceased name is Lingaiah and he gave report in this regard and same is marked at Ex.P.4 and his signature at Ex.P.4 (a). The PW-4 further deposes that the police have conducted spot mahazar and same is marked at Ex.P.1 and his signature at Ex.P.1 (c).
21. I have carefully gone through the evidence of PW-4, wherein his evidence is clear and cogent regarding rash and negligent driving of the accused by causing the accident.
22. The learned counsel for the accused has cross examined the PW-4 wherein nothing has been elicited in support of the case of the defence. There is no suggestion that 7 CC 1178/2012 the accused had not drove the offending bus in a rash manner. The counsel for the accused has suggested that the accused had drove his bus in a slow manner, which is denied by the PW-4. The said suggestion is sufficient to hold that the accused on that particular date was the driver of the offending bus. The learned counsel for the accused has not even taken the defence that at the spot of the accident there was a sky walker or under pass and if in case the deceased had used the said sky walker or under pass then the accident would not have been happened. Therefore, the learned counsel for the accused only during the course of arguments has argued that there was a sky walker and the deceased would have used the said sky walker holds no water as it was not suggested during the course of cross-examination of PW-4.
25. The prosecution has examined the PW-1 who is panch witness deposed that 2.5.2012 at about 11-45 to 12-00 p.m. he was proceeding towards TB road at that time KSRTC bus no. KA 40 F 85 came in high speed and while taking turn dashed against pedestrian who was stopped to cross the road. Due to the impact, he fell down and front left wheel of the bus ran over on his leg and he suffered severe injuries and shifted to Srinivas hospital and he came to know that the injured was succumbed. The PW-1 further deposes that the accused before court was the driver of the offending bus and due to the his fault the accident had happened and police have conducted spot mahazar and same is marked at Ex.P.1 and his signature at Ex.P.1 (a).
8 CC 1178/201226. The learned counsel for the accused has cross- examined the PW-1 at length, but nothing has been elicited in favour of the defence side.
27. The learned counsel for the accused relying upon the admissions of PWs. 1 & 2. That the accident if at all happened in the footpath then there must be some damages to the bus. However, I am of the opinion that only on the basis of said minor discrepancy with the case of the prosecution cannot be brushed aside. Further, the learned counsel for the accused argued that if all the PW-1 had got admitted the injured to Srinivas nursing home then the PW-1 had mentioned his name in the hospital register. However, I am of the opinion that non mentioning of the name of the person who got admitted the injured to the hospital is not fatal to the case of the prosecution for the simple reason that at the time of accident the immediate action of the person is only to provide all necessary medical assistance to the injured.
28. The PW-2 is also examined on behalf of the prosecution who deposed that on 2.5.2012 at about 12-00 p.m. at KSRTC bus stand entrance one KSRTC bus no. KA 40 F 85 came in high speed and while taking left turn and dashed against one person. Due to the impact said person fell down and wheel of the bus ran over on his leg and injured was shifted to Srinivas hospital and police have conducted spot mahazar and same is marked at Ex.P.1 and his signature at Ex.P.1 (b). The PW-2 further deposes that the accused before court was the driver of the offending bus and due to his fault the accident had happed and he came to know that the injured was succumbed.
9 CC 1178/201229. The counsel for the accused has cross-examined the PW-2 wherein nothing has been elicited from the case of the defence. The learned counsel for the accused relying upon the admission of W-2 also argued that there is contradictory evidence of PWs. 1 & 2 with each other. Further argued that the PW-1 had admitted that with the help of public and police, he got admitted the injured to Srinivas hospital. Whereas, the PW-2 admits that he had admitted the injured to hospital along with the conductor. I have carefully gone through the evidence of PWs.1 & 2 once again wherein there is no major discrepancy in their evidence. Non mentioning of the name of the hospital which they admitted the injured to the hospital is not fatal to the prosecution. Further as per the evidence of PW-1, he has admitted that the injured admitted to hospital with the help of police and the public. As per the evidence of PW-2 he also admitted that with the help of conductor he got admitted the injured to the hospital. As per the evidence of PW-1 he has stated that the injured was shifted to hospital with the help of public and police. It means the public who helped the PW-1 might have been the PW-2. Further as per the evidence of PW-2 he has admitted the injured to hospital along with the conductor. During that particular movement the PW- 2 might have been thought that the person who helped him on the basis of colour of the dress he might thought is conductor. But the said person might have been the police as admitted by the PW-1. Therefore, there is nothing major discrepancy in their evidence which goes against the case of the prosecution.
30. On careful reading of the evidence of PWs. 1 & 2, there is clear evidence to show that the accused has driven his 10 CC 1178/2012 vehicle in rash and negligent manner. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused not even suggested that there is no panchanama conducted in their presence and that they have not witnessed the accident.
31. The PW-7 is the doctor who deposed that on 2.5.2012 Upparpet HC no. 36723 was brought one P. Lingaiah with the history of road traffic accident and on examination the injured was brought dead. In this regard he gave death intimation and his signatures at Exs.P. 9 & 10 are marked as Exs.P. 9 (a) & 10(a) respectively.
32. The learned counsel for the accused has not cross- examined the PW-7.
33. The PW-8 is the conductor of the offending bus who turned hostile deposed that on 2.5.2012 was the conductor of the offending bus no. KA 40 F 85 and accused before court was the driver of the said bus. The PW-8 further deposes that at about 11-45 a.m. the police informed about the accident from their bus and he do not know whose fault the accident had happened.
34. However, the PW-8 has been supported the case of the prosecution to the extent that on 2.5.2012 the accused was the driver of the offending bus bearing registration no. KA 40 F 85 and that he was the conductor of the said bus.
35. The PW-8 has been treated as hostile and during the course of cross-examination by the Sr. APP wherein nothing has been elicited from the mouth of this witness so as to hold that he is deposing falsely in order to help the accused person. The statement is marked at Ex.P.12.
11 CC 1178/201236. The PW-6 is the Investigating Officer who has supported the case of the prosecution to the extent that on 2.5.2012 he received the death memo from Victoria hospital and CW-1 came and gave first information and on its basis, he registered the case in Cr. No. 31/12 and sent FIR to the court and his superior officers. FIR is marked at Ex.P.7 and his signature at Ex.P.7 (a) and he gave visited the spot and drawn spot mahazar in presence of panch witnesses and prepared rough sketch which are marked at Exs.P. 1 & 8 respectively. The signatures at Exs.P.1 (d) & 8 (a). That, he visited the Victoria hospital and conducted inquest mahazar in presence of panchas and same is marked as Ex.P.5 and his signature at Ex.P.5 (a) and he issued 133 notice and received reply and produced the accused person before the court. The said reply are marked at Exs.P.2 & 10 and his signatures at Ex.P. 2 (a) & 10(a) and he gave requisition to IMV inspector to inspect the vehicle and received post mortem report and IMV report and on conclusion of investigation he filed the charge sheet against the accused. The IMV report and post mortem reports are marked at Exs.P. 6 & 11 respectively and his signatures at Exs.P. 6 (a) & 11 (a) respectively.
37. During the course of cross-examination of PW-6 by the learned counsel for the accused, nothing has been elicited in favour of the defence side.
38. On marshalling entire evidence and on meticulous perusal of the documentary proof, in this case there is no dispute regarding the identification of the accused. Further the accident had not happened due to any mechanical defects of the offending vehicle is also not in dispute. The evidence of 12 CC 1178/2012 PW-4 is clear and cogent and believable. The panch witnesses PWs. 1 & 2 are also eye witnesses have fully supported the case of the prosecution. There is no suggestion by the defence counsel that the accused had not driven his vehicle in rash and negligent manner and no mahazar was conducted in the spot in the presence of mahazar witnesses.
39. I have carefully gone through the rough sketch Ex. P.8 wherein it appears that the accident had happened near entrance of BMTC and KSRTC bus stands where normally more number of public will gathering around and there will be huge amount of vehicular movement is also more. The accident had happened very near to the footpath. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the accused being the driver of offending bus should have taken some precaution in driving the bus. If the accused had taken some precaution in driving the offending bus, then accident would not been happened and precious life of one human being would have been saved. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, for the said reasons and discussions made the points, which arose, for consideration liable to be answered in Affirmative.
40. Point No. 3: Inview of the answering the point nos. 1 & 2 in affirmative..................
discussions made by me in the above points, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER 13 CC 1178/2012 Acting U/sec. 255(2) of Criminal procedure code, the accused is hereby Convicted of the offences alleged against him punishable U/sec. 279 and 304-A of IPC.
The accused shall under go simple imprisonment for a period of three months with fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rs. One thousand only) in default of payment of fine he shall under go one month of simple imprisonment for the offence punishable U/sec. 279 of IPC.
The accused shall under go simple imprisonment for a period of two years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. Five thousand only) in default of payment of fine he shall under go another three month of simple imprisonment for the offence punishable U/sec. 304-A of IPC.
Both sentences shall run concurrently.
The bail bond and surety bonds of the accused stands cancelled after the period of six months.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 13th day of January 2015).
(Rajendra Kumar. K.M) M.M.T.C-II, B'lore.
14 CC 1178/2012ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for Prosecution:-
PW-1 Anil Kumar PW-2 Varun Kumar PW-3 D.P. Nanjappa PW-4 Appaji PW-5 Vishwanath. N. Shetter PW-6 Sanjeev Kumar Mahajan PW-7 Dr. H.V. Shivakumar PW-8 Shivappa Hanagunda
List of documents marked for Prosecution:
Ex.P.1: Spot mahazar
Ex.P.1 (a to d ) Signature of PWs 1 , 2, 4 & 6
Ex.P.2 Copy of 133 notice
Ex.P.2 (a & b) Signatures of PWs. 3 & 6
Ex.P.3 Reply
Exs.P. 3 (a & b) Signatures of PWs-3 & 6
Ex.P.4 Inquest report
Exs.P. 4 (a &b) Signature of PWs. 4 & 6
Ex.P.5 Inquest mahazar
Ex.P.6 IMV report
Ex.P.6(a) Signature of PW-5
Ex.P.7 FIR
Ex.P.7(a) Signature of PW. 6
Ex.P.8 Rough sketch
Ex.P.8 (a) Signature of PW-6
Ex.P.9 Death memo
Ex.P. 9 (a & b) Signatures of PWs. 6 & 7
Ex.P.10 Reply
Ex.P.10 (a) Signature of PW-6
Ex.P.11 Postmortem report
15 CC 1178/2012
Ex.P.11 (a) Signature of PW-6
M.M.T.C-II, B'lore.
Orders vide separate Order sheet
ORDER
Acting U/sec. 255(2) of Criminal procedure code, the accused is hereby Convicted for the offence punishable U/s. 279, 338 of IPC and 187 r/w 134 (a&b) of IMV Act.
The accused shall pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-
for the offence punishable U/sec. 279 of IPC and in default he shall undergo S.I. for a period of 15 days..
Further the accused shall pay a fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence punishable U/sec. 338 of IPC and in default he shall undergo S.I. for a period of 15 days.
Further the accused shall pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable U/sec. 187 r/w 134 (a&b) of IMV Act and in default he shall undergo S.I. for a period of 30 days..
In total the accused shall pay fine of Rs.
2,500/- as a fine.
His bail bond stands cancelled after the period of six months.
16 CC 1178/2012(Rajendra Kumar. K.M) M.M.Tr.Ct-II, B'lore.