Bangalore District Court
Adugodi Tr Ps vs Rushikesh on 3 September, 2025
KABC080027622021
Presented on : 30-07-2021
Registered on : 30-07-2021
Decided on : 03-09-2025
Duration : 4 years, 1 months, 4 days
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS (TRAFFIC COURT-VI), BENGALURU CITY.
DATED THIS 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025.
PRESENT : Smt.AKHILA H.K. B.A., LL.B.,
JMFC (TRAFFIC COURT-VI),
BENGALURU.
CC No.2607/2021
COMPLAINANT: State by Adugodi Traffic P.S
Bengaluru.
(State by : Learned APP)
V/s
ACCUSED NO.1: Rushikesh
S/o Sidram
Aged about 22 years,
No.2, 1st Floor, Above Lakshmi
Medicals, Near Ganesha Temple,
Kodigehalli Circle, Kodigehalli,
Bengaluru - 560 092.
CC No.2607/2021
2
ACCUSED NO.2: Jitendra
S/o Annarao
No.2, 1st Floor, Above Lakshmi
Medicals, Near Ganesha Temple,
Kodigehalli Circle, Kodigehalli,
Bengaluru - 560 092.
(A1 & 2 Rep. by Sri.N.N., Adv.,)
JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector of Adugodi Traffic Police Station has filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 and 2 for the offence punishable U/Sec.279, 337 304(A) of IPC and Sec.146 R/w Sec.196 of IMV Act.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under: -
That on 29.05.2021 at 4.00 p.m. accused No.1 being the rider of two wheeler bearing registration No.KA- 51-AE-4028 rode the same along with pillion rider C.W.5 within the jurisdiction of Adugodi traffic police station on Hosuru Lashkar Road and normally Forum mall towards Adugodi C.A.R Hopcoms road was one way road but due to covid-19 on the said day it was converted as two way CC No.2607/2021 3 road and accused No.1 rode his vehicle from Adugodi C.A.R. Hopcoms gate towards Forum mall junction in high speed in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and near Adugodi police station, in front of Razorpay building hit to one scooter bearing registration No.KA-05-HR-5490 which was proceeding from Forum mall towards C.A.R Hopcoms gate, as a result riders and pillion rider of both the vehicles fell down along with the vehicle and rider Sri.Chikkaboregowda SC sustained injuries on his head and face and while shifting him to Nimhans hospital he succumbed to death and pillion rider C.W.5 sustained simple injuries. Further at the time of accident offending vehicle did not have valid insurance. As such the accused No.1 and 2 have committed an offence punishable U/Sec.279, 337 304(A) of IPC and Sec.146 R/w Sec.196 of IMV Act.
3. Cognizance was taken by perusing the prosecution papers and materials, the accused No.1 and 2 on receipt of summons appeared before the court and got themselves enlarged on bail. On the said date the prosecution papers were furnished to the accused No.1 CC No.2607/2021 4 and 2 as per Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. and substance of accusation in the form of plea was read over and explained to them, accused No.1 and 2 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. During the course of trial the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 9 and got marked Ex.P.1 to 14. The statement of accused as per Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded the accused No.1 and 2 had no explanation and he denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against them.
5. Heard both sides.
6. The point that arises for my determination is as under:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, on 29.05.2021 at 4.00 p.m. accused No.1 being the rider of two wheeler bearing registration No.KA-51-AE-4028 rode CC No.2607/2021 5 the same along with pillion rider C.W.5 within the jurisdiction of Adugodi traffic police station on Hosuru Lashkar Road and normally Forum mall towards Adugodi C.A.R Hopcoms road was one way road but due to covid-19 on the said day it was converted as two way road and accused No.1 rode his vehicle from Adugodi C.A.R. Hopcoms gate towards Forum mall junction in high speed in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life, thereby accused No.1 has committed an offence punishable U/Sec.279 of IPC Act?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, on the same date, time and place near Adugodi police station, in front of Razorpay building hit to one scooter bearing registration No.KA-05-HR-
CC No.2607/2021 6 5490 which was proceeding from Forum mall towards C.A.R Hopcoms gate, as a result riders and pillion rider of both the vehicles fell down along with the vehicle and rider Sri.Chikkaboregowda SC sustained injuries on his head and face and while shifting him to Nimhans hospital he succumbed to death and pillion rider C.W.5 sustained simple injuries, thereby accused No.1 has committed an offence punishable U/Sec.337 & 304(A) of IPC ?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, accused No.2 being the owner of the offending vehicle at the time of accident offending vehicle did not have valid insurance, thereby accused No.2 committed an offence CC No.2607/2021 7 punishable U/Sec.146 R/w Sec.196 of IMV Act?
4. 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 : In the affirmative; Point No.4 : As per final order for the following;
REASONS
8. Point No.1 to 3: For the sake of convenience and to avoid repetition of facts, these points are taken up for common discussions to have brevity.
9. The prosecution case against the accused No.1 and 2 is that on 29.05.2021 at 4.00 p.m. accused No.1 being the rider of two wheeler bearing registration No.KA- 51-AE-4028 rode the same along with pillion rider C.W.5 within the jurisdiction of Adugodi traffic police station on CC No.2607/2021 8 Hosuru Lashkar Road and normally Forum mall towards Adugodi C.A.R Hopcoms road was one way road but due to covid-19 on the said day it was converted as two way road and accused No.1 rode his vehicle from Adugodi C.A.R. Hopcoms gate towards Forum mall junction in high speed in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and near Adugodi police station, in front of Razorpay building hit to one scooter bearing registration No.KA-05-HR-5490 which was proceeding from Forum mall towards C.A.R Hopcoms gate, as a result riders and pillion rider of both the vehicles fell down along with the vehicle and rider Sri.Chikkaboregowda SC sustained injuries on his head and face and while shifting him to Nimhans hospital he succumbed to death and pillion rider C.W.5 sustained simple injuries. Further at the time of accident offending vehicle did not have valid insurance.
10. In order to bring home the charge against the accused the prosecution has examined 9 witnesses as PWs.1 to 9 and got marked Ex.P.1 to 14. Ex.P.1 is the complaint, Ex.P.2 is the statement of P.W.2, Ex.P.3 is the CC No.2607/2021 9 spot mahazar, Ex.P.4 is the part statement of P.W.3, Ex.P.5 is the FIR, Ex.P.6 is the rough sketch, Ex.P.7 is the death memo, Ex.P.8 is the inquest mahazar, Ex.P.9 is the IMV report, Ex.P.10 & 11 are the notice and reply U/Sec.133 of IMV Act, Ex.P.12 is the PM report and Ex.P.13 & 14 are the wound certificate.
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, deceased Chikkaboregowda is his father and he succumbed in the accident. Further he deposed that, on 29.05.2021 at 4.15 p.m. police informed him through phone about his father's accident and shifting him to Nimhans hospital. By receiving the information he went to said hospital and he came to know that his father succumbed to the injuries on his head. After enquiry about the accident he came to know that his father was proceeding in two CC No.2607/2021 10 wheeler bearing registration No.KA-05-HR-5490 from Forum Mall meanwhile another two wheeler bearing registration No.KA-51-AE-4028 hit to his father. In offending vehicle 2 persons were proceeding and rider's name is Rushikesh. With this regard he lodged a complaint as per Ex.P.1. In his cross examination he has stated that, his father was going to work on the date of the accident. He has denied the suggestion that, his father was driving his vehicle without wearing a helmet and under the influence of alcohol and accident occurred due to his father's negligence.
13. C.W.4 examined as P.W.2 is the eye witness of this case. He deposed that, on 29.05.2021 at 4.00 p.m. he was near Adugodi police station to release his two wheeler in station at that time he heard the loud sound and after that he came to know that accident occurred between 2 two wheelers and accused No.1 is the rider of one two wheeler and another two wheeler's rider is aged person. Further he deposed that, he does not know on whose fault accident has took place. The learned APP treated this witness as hostile and cross-examined him CC No.2607/2021 11 and he denied all the suggestions put by the learned APP and he has not supported to the case of prosecution.
14. C.W.2 examined as P.W.3 is the eye witness of this case. He deposed that, on 29.05.2021 at 4.00 p.m. he and his friend Suresh went to police station to release his vehicle at that time he was standing at police station near bus stop and his friend Suresh only went inside the police station, meanwhile one two wheeler bearing No.KA-51-AE-4028 came from Forum mall towards Hosuru Road at a high speed along with pillion rider and hit to another two wheeler bearing registration No.KA-05- HR-5490 which was proceeding from Forum mall towards Adugodi station, as a result rider of KA-05-HR-5490 fell down and sustained grievous injuries and shifted him to Nimhans hospital and further he came to know that he succumbed to injuries. With this regard he has given statement to the police. Further on 29.05.2021 at evening police called him to accident spot and conducted spot mahazar at 6.00 p.m. in his presence and obtained his signature on it and along with him C.W.6 also signed. Further he deposed that, accident has occurred due to CC No.2607/2021 12 the fault of the rider of the two wheeler bearing registration No.KA-51-AE-4028. This witness is not cross examined by the accused.
15. C.W.5 examined as P.W.4 is the one of the victim and eye witness of this case. He deposed that, on 29.05.2021 at 4.00 p.m he and accused No.1 were proceeding in two wheeler bearing registration No.KA-05- 4028 from MG Road towards HSR layout on sanitize work, they were proceeding in left side in slow manner on Adugodi junction at that time one two wheeler came in their opposite direction and hit to their vehicle, as a result he and accused also sustained injuries and public shifted them to Jayadeva hospital. Due to his injuries he does not know what happened to another rider of two wheeler and later he came to know that his name is Boregowda. Further he deposed that, accident has occurred due to the fault of the another two wheeler rider. Learned APP treated the witness as hostile with the permission of the Court and cross examined him in detail but nothing is elicited from him to disbelieve his evidence. In the cross examination by the learned CC No.2607/2021 13 counsel for the accused he has stated that, accused was not driving his vehicle at a high speed.
16. C.W.7 examined as P.W.5 is the mahazar witness of this case. He deposed that, on 29.05.2021 at 6.00 p.m. police conducted spot mahazar as per Ex.P.3 in his presence at accident spot and obtained his signature on it. In his cross examination he has stated that, the deceased is his friend and when he had visited the hospital to see the deceased police obtained his signature on Ex.P.3.
17. C.W.6 examined as P.W.6 is the mahazar witness of this case. He deposed that, on 29.05.2021 at 4.00 p.m. police conducted spot mahazar as per Ex.P.3 in his presence at accident spot and obtained his signature on it. In his cross examination nothing is elicited from him to disbelieve his evidence.
18. C.W.17 examined as P.W.8 is the doctor who conducted post mortem on deceased Chikkaboregowda.
CC No.2607/2021 14 He deposed that, on 30.05.2021 on request of C.W.20 he conducted post mortem on deceased and he has given PM report as per Ex.P.12. In his cross examination he has stated that, he does not know if the deceased had obtained treatment as outpatient in the hospital. He has stated that, he received requisition from IO on 29.05.2021 at 4.00 p.m. and he has conducted post mortem on 30.05.2025 at 10.35 a.m. He has stated that, police have stated summary of the case in the requisition. He has stated that, the deceased had suffered grievous injuries to his head when he examined the body of the deceased.
19. CW.18 being the IMV inspector examined as PW.9 and deposed about the inspection done by him to the vehicles bearing registration No.KA-05-HR-5490 and KA-51-AE-4028 which were involved in the accident as per Ex.P.9. He has not been cross examined by the counsel for the accused.
20. C.W.20 examined as P.W.7 is the Investigating Officer and she has deposed about the CC No.2607/2021 15 investigation conducted by her. In the cross examination nothing worthful elicited from her to disbelieve her evidence.
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;
(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 CC No.2607/2021 16
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 the involvement of the offending vehicle bearing registration No.KA-51-AE-4028 is not disputed, there is no dispute regarding the accused No.1 being the driver of the offending vehicle on the date of the accident. There is no dispute about the death of Sri.Chikkaboregowda S.C. who is rider of two wheeler bearing registration No.KA- 05-HR-5490. As per P.M. report/Ex.P.12 the injuries are ante-mortem and death occurred due to skull fracture and intracranial haemorrhage as a result of head injury sustained. There is no dispute regarding IMV report as per Ex.P.9, 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 vehicles involved in the accident. Since, the death of Sri.Chikkaboregowda S.C. is not disputed, the Court only needs to consider if the accused No.1 rode his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and due to which the accident occurred.
CC No.2607/2021 17
24. In order to prove that the accused was driving the offending vehicle in a rash or negligent manner the prosecution has examined P.W.2, 3 and 4 as eye witnesses. Out of the said witnesses P.W.3 and 4 have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. Learned APP treated the witnesses as hostile with the permission of the Court and cross examined them in detail but nothing is elicited from them to disbelieve their evidence. P.W.3 is the only eye witness who had supported the prosecution. He has stated that, accused drove his vehicle at a high speed and hit the two wheeler of the deceased which was coming from the opposite side. Evidently, P.W.3 has not stated the exact speed of the offending vehicle. He has vaguely stated that vehicle was coming at a high speed.
25. Merely because a vehicle was being driven at a high speed does not mean that the driver was driving rashly or negligently. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka V/s Sathish reported in 1998 SCC (Cri) 1508 has stated that, driving at a high speed by itself does not imply negligence or rashness. Negligence CC No.2607/2021 18 or rashness would have to be established as a fact. There is only a bare statement made by P.W.3 that the offending vehicle was driven at a high speed and rash manner. No attempt has been made to establish that there was rashness on the part of the accused. The expression high speed could range from 30 k.m. per hour to 100 k.m. per hour. The speed limit in the particular road is also not on record. Therefore in absence of material fact merely because P.W.3 has alleged that accused was driving at a high speed it cannot be said that the accused is guilty of rash or negligent act. Apart from the that prosecution has examined P.W.1 who is the defacto complainant but he has not witnessed the accident. Hence, his evidence is not useful to the case of the prosecution.
26. Apart from that the prosecution is relying on mahazar and rough sketch i.e., Ex.P.3 and 6. In this regard the prosecution has examined P.W.5 and 6. P.W.5 has stated that, he signed to the mahazar in the police station. P.W.6 has stated that, he has signed to the mahazar on the day of the accident between 4.00 to 6.00 CC No.2607/2021 19 p.m. Therefore, evidence of P.W.5 and 6 do not corroborate each other. Further as per Ex.P.3 the spot of accident is fixed on the say of P.W.4 who is the pillion rider of the accused. But he has turned hostile and stated that deceased came at a high speed. Hence, Ex.P.3 / mahazar is not reliable. Prosecution has also relied on PM report. But in the PM Report there is no mention about the rashness and negligence of the accused. Prosecution is relying on IMV report marked as Ex.P.9. Since, the accident is not disputed evidently both the vehicles have sustained damages during the accident. But from IMV report alone it cannot be concluded that accident occurred due to the fault of the accused person. Hence, the documentary evidence submitted by the prosecution is not helpful to this case.
27. It is the burden of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused No.1. 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 No.1 in the incident is concerned. Therefore, the prosecution version that on the account of rash and CC No.2607/2021 20 negligent act by the accused No.1, accident has occurred cannot be held to be proved. 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 No.1. Hence, point No.1 and 2 are answered in the negative
28. Accused No.2 has also not submitted valid insurance for his vehicle at the time of accident. Hence, he has committed offence punishable U/Sec.146 R/w 196 of IMV Act. Hence, point No.3 is answered in the affirmative.
29. Point No.4: In view of the findings on point Nos.1 to 3, this court proceeds to pass the following;
ORDER Acting under Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C.
accused No.1 is hereby acquitted for accusation of commission of the offence punishable U/Sec.279, 337 and 304(A) of IPC.
CC No.2607/2021 21 Acting U/Sec.255(2) of Criminal Procedure code, the accused No.2 is hereby convicted of the offences punishable U/Sec.146 R/w Sec.196 of IMV Act.
Accused No.2 is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) in default shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period one month for the offence punishable U/Sec.146 R/w Sec.196 of IMV Act.
Their bail bonds and surety
bonds 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 3rd day of September, 2025) (Akhila H.K.) JMFC (Traffic Court-VI), Bengaluru.
CC No.2607/2021 22 ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION:
PW.1 Kiran Kumar PW.2 Jameel Ahammed PW.3 Pradeep PW.4 Dastagir PW.5 TN Harish PW.6 Suresh D PW.7 Hemalatha R PW.8 Dr. Varghese P.S. P.W.9 Nissar Ahammed
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 Complaint Ex.P.2 Statement of P.W.2 Ex.P.3 Spot Mahazar Ex.P.4 Part statement of P.W.3 Ex.P.5 FIR Ex.P.6 Rough sketch Ex.P.7 Death memo Ex.P.8 Inquest mahazar Ex.P.9 IMV report,
Ex.P.10-11 Notice & Reply U/Sec.133 of IMV Act Ex.P.12 PM report Ex.P.13-14 Wound certificate LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR ACCUSED:
-Nil-
CC No.2607/2021 23 LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR ACCUSED:
- Nil -
(Akhila H.K.) JMFC (Traffic Court-VI), Bengaluru.