Bangalore District Court
State By K.R.Puram Traffic Police ... vs Bheemaiah N.C S/O Changappa N.K on 17 June, 2015
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
TRAFFIC COURT - VI, BENGALURU CITY.
C.C. No.3075/2014
Dated: This the 17th day of June, 2015
Present: Smt.Lavanya H.N., B.Sc.,LL.B
P.O. of MMTC-VI, Bengaluru.
Complainant : State by K.R.Puram Traffic Police Station
V/s
Accused : Bheemaiah N.C S/o Changappa N.K,
Aged about 62 years,
No.200, Bhavani Nilaya,
2nd Main Road 3rd Cross,
Bangalore.
JUDGMENT
Police Sub-Inspector of Ashoka-Nagara Traffic Police Station filed charge sheet alleging that, the accused has committed offences punishable U/s 279 and 338 of IPC.
The facts of prosecution case in brief are as under:
2. On 26.08.2014 at about 4.15 P.M. within the jurisdiction of K.R.Puram Traffic Police Station the accused being the driver of Car bearing No.KA-53-P-
9640 drove it on Banjara Layout Main Road from Jayanthinagar towards Ohmshakthi Temple in a rash 2 CC.No.3075 /2014 and negligent manner so as to endanger human life, dashed to the TVS Excel Moped No.KA-53-Y-1949 which was proceeding ahead of the car as a result of which the rider of the moped Sri.Ghouse Moiuddin, aged about 37 years, and pillion rider, CW-1's son namely Mohammed Suban, aged about 4 years were sustained grievous injuries and vehicles got damaged. And, thereby the accused has committed the offences the as stated supra.
3. After Completion of Investigation, I.O. has filed charge sheet against the accused. Thereafter cognizance was taken of the offences punishable U/s 279 and 338 of IPC and process has been issued to the accused. Accused appeared through counsel in pursuance of process and got enlarged himself on bail.
4. Charge Sheet copies have been furnished to the accused in compliance of Section 207 of Cr.P.C.
5. Substance of accusation has been read over and explained to the accused, who pleads not guilty and claims to be tried. Hence, the case is posted for Prosecution evidence.
3 CC.No.3075 /20146. In order to establish its case Prosecution has examined five witnesses as PW.1 to 5 and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to 10 and closed its side.
7. Statement U/s 313 of Cr.P.C. is recorded. All the incriminating evidence appearing against the accused has been read over and explained to the accused, who denied the same. But, he did not choose to lead defense evidence.
8. I have heard the arguments and perused the materials available on record, the following points that would arise for consideration:
1) Whether prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that on 26.08.2014 at about 4.15 P.M. within the jurisdiction of K.R.Puram Traffic Police Station the accused being the driver of Car bearing No.KA-53-P-9640 drove it on Banjara Layout Main Road from Jayanthinagar towards Ohmshakthi Temple in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life, dashed to the TVS Excel Moped No.KA-53 Y-1949 which was proceeding ahead of the car and thereby, the accused has committed the offence punishable U/s 279 of Indian Penal Code ?4 CC.No.3075 /2014
2) pWhether prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that as a result of aforesaid rider and pillion rider of the aforesaid moped sustained grievous injuries and thereby, the accused has committed the offence punishable U/s 338 of Indian Penal Code?
3) What Order?
9.My findings to the above points are as under :
Point No. 1 and 2 : In the Negative Point No. 3 : As per final order for the following :
REASONS POINT Nos.1 and 2:
10. Since these points are interlinked with one and another, they are taken up together for common discussion to avoid repetition of facts.
In this case the prosecution has examined five witnesses as PW-1 to 5. PW-1 is Injured and Complainant. PW-2 is Spot-mahazar witness. PW-3 and 4 are Eye-witnesses. PW-5 is Investigation Officer.
11. PW-1 has deposed that on 26.08.2014 at about 4.15 p.m. when he was riding his TVS XL along with his four year kid and his sister from 5 CC.No.3075 /2014 Jayanthinagar towards Banjara layout, near Sri.Vinayaka Welding Shop the accused being the driver of the Car No.KA-53-P-9640 came in high speed behind him and dashed against his TVS XL as a result of which he along with his son and sister fell down on the road. In the said impact he sustained injuries to his head and right shoulder. His son sustained injuries to his head. His sister sustained simple injuries. Thereafter, the accused who is the driver of the Car took them to Koshish Hospital. On next day he lodged complaint as per Ex.P-1. As accused refused to give the medical expenses, he has lodged complaint one day later.
12. PW-3 has deposed that on 26.08.2014 between 5.00 to 6.00 p.m. when he was standing near welding shop of Banjara Layout the accused being the driver of Car came in speed and dashed against TVS XL which was proceeding ahead of the Car as a result of which the three who were in TVS XL fell down on the road. In the said impact rider of the TVS sustained injuries to his head and chest. Child sustained injuries to forehead and face. Sister of the rider of the TVS sustained injuries to hands. Thereafter, the accused who caused the accident took them to Koshish 6 CC.No.3075 /2014 Hospital. He has further deposed that next day at about 4.00 p.m. the police have conducted Spot- Inspection at accident spot and prepared mahazar as per Ex.P-2. He has further deposed that he does not remember Car number.
13. PW-3 during his cross-examination by the learned APP he has admitted to the suggestion put to him that he has stated before the Police that the Car number is KA-53-P-9640 and the driver of the said car drove the said car in high speed and negligent manner. 4.15 pm. He has also admitted to the suggestion put him that the accident took place at He has also admitted to the suggestion put to him that the police have conducted Spot Inspection on next day between 5.00 p.m. and 6.00 p.m.
14. PW-4 who is pillion rider of the aforesaid TVS has deposed that on 26.08.2014 at about 4.15 p.m. when she was going along with his brother in two wheeler which was riding by his brother, one Car came behind them and hit the two wheeler of his brother as a result of which she sustained simple injuries, his brother's son sustained injuries to his face and his 7 CC.No.3075 /2014 brother sustained injuries to his right shoulder. The accused who caused the accident took them to Koshish Hospital. She has further deposed that she did not see how Car was driven. She has further deposed that she does not know the number of the Car.
15. PW-2 who is Spot-mahazar witness has deposed that on 27.08.2014 between 5.00 p.m. and 6.00 p.m. near Ohmshakthi Temple of Banjara Layout with the history of the accident police have conducted Spot-Inspection in his presence and prepared mahazar as per Ex.P-2.
16. PW-5 has deposed with regard to investigation.
17. PW-1 to 5 have been subjected to cross- examination by the defense. It is specific defense of the accused that he has not caused the accident in question. This accident is due to negligent driving of the PW-1 as he himself hit the Car of the accused. In order to claim compensation, PW-1 has lodged complaint against the accused.
8 CC.No.3075 /201418. In this case IMV Report and Wound Certificate which are marked at Ex.P-4 to 6 respectively have not been denied by the accused. It is also not in dispute as on the date and time of alleged accident the accused was driving the aforesaid Car which belongs to him. It is also not in dispute that PW-1 and his son sustained grievous injuries in the road traffic accident as more-fully narrated in Ex.P-5 and P-6. It is also not in dispute that the accident took place on public road. It is not the defense of the accused that this accident is due mechanical defect of the vehicles involved in the accident. Moreover, Ex.P.4, IMV Report has not been denied by the defense. On going through the Ex.P.4 it could be seen that the IMV Inspector who inspected the vehicles has expressed his opinion that this accident is not due to mechanical defect of the vehicles involved in the accident. Now, the question remains before the Court is whether this accident is due to rash and negligent driving of the accused or not.
19. PW-1 and 4 are material witnesses to the case. PW-1 has deposed that the accused being the driver of the aforesaid Car came in high speed and dashed against TVS which was proceeding ahead of the 9 CC.No.3075 /2014 Car. PW-4 has also deposed that the accused being the driver of the Car hit the TVS of PW-1 which was proceeding ahead of the Car. However, PW-4 in her examination-in-chief has deposed that she did not see how the Car was driven by accused. During cross- examination by the learned APP she has admitted to the suggestion put to her that the accused was driving the Car in high speed and negligent manner and caused the accident. During cross-examination by the defense PW-1 and 4 have deposed that they did not see the Car prior to the accident. From these parts of evidence it could be said that their versions can not be believable as they are not trustworthy witnesses to believe them.
20. PW-3 is Eye-witness has deposed that the accused being the driver of the Car came in speed and dashed against TVS which was proceeding ahead of the Car. During cross-examination he has deposed that he did not see whether rider of the TVS worn helmet or not. He has also deposed that he does not know color of the Car. He has also deposed that he did not see whether indicator and number plate of the TVS damaged or not. He has admitted in his cross-
10 CC.No.3075 /2014examination that the Car number and date of the accident has been written in his hand. He has also stated that the accident took place about 50 meters far away from welding shop where he was standing. He saw the Car and two-wheeler when they were coming at 50 feet away. From this fact of evidence it could be gathered he has not seen the accident in question how it happened.
21. On going through the documentary evidence at Ex.P-4, IMV Report it could be seen that in the IMV Report it is reported that right side crash guard of the Car was bent, rear left quarter panel of the car scratched and rear left door of the car bent and crashed. If the Car came in high speed and hit the TVS behind it then there should be damage to rear side of the TVS as well as front side of the Car. But, in this case no damage has been caused to the Car in its front side and similarly no damage has been caused to TVS in its back side. From this it could be gathered that the rider of the TVS hit the Car which was proceeding ahead of the TVS which supports defense of the accused. Under-these circumstances, the benefit of doubt should be given to accused. Hence, it is held that 11 CC.No.3075 /2014 the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused being the driver of the aforesaid Car drove the said Car in high speed and negligent manner and caused the accident. Hence, Point No.1 and 2 are answered in the Negative.
Point No.3:
22. In view of findings on Point No.1 and 2, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER Acting U/s 255(1) of Cr.P.C. the accused is acquitted for the offences punishable U/s 279, 338 of IPC.
The bail bond executed by the accused shall stand cancelled.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript and computerized by him, revised, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this 17th day of June, 2015) (Smt.Lavanya H.N.) P.O. OF MMTC-VI, BENGALURU.
12 CC.No.3075 /2014ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the prosecution :
PW-1 : Ghouse Mohiuddin, PW-2 : C.Ghouse Mohuddin, PW-3 : Ravi, PW-4 : Khurshid.K, PW-5 : Shivaram.U.G.M. Documents Exhibited for the prosecution:
Ex.P1 : Complaint, Ex.P2 : Spot mahazar, Ex.P3 : Statement of PW-4, Ex.P4 : IMV, Ex.P5 and 6 : Wound certificate, Ex.P7 : FIR. Ex.P8 : Rough sketch. Ex.P9 : Notice, Ex.P10 : Reply. Witness examined for the defence : Nil. Documents exhibited for the defence : Nil.
Material object got marked in this case : Nil.
P.O of MMTC-VI, Bengaluru City.13 CC.No.3075 /2014 14 CC.No.3075 /2014