Bangalore District Court
Thalagattapura Trps vs Mahendran B on 6 February, 2025
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS
(TRAFFIC COURT - IV) AT BENGALURU
PRESENT: SRI GAGAN M.R. B.A.L LLB
JMFC (Traffic Court - IV),
BENGALURU
DATED : THIS THE 6th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025
C.C. No.141/2024
COMPLAINANT: State by Talghattapura Traffic Police
Station, Bangalore
(Represented by: APP)
V/S.
ACCUSED: 1) Sri Mahendran B.,
S/o. Sri Balasubramanian,
Age: 35 years,
R/at No.001,
Sri Sai Smaran Apartment,
3rd 'G' cross, BDA Layout,
Ramamurthy Nagara,
Bengaluru
(Represented by: Sri M. Mahanthesha Adv.)
1. Date of commission of offence : 03-10-2023
2. Offences alleged against accused : U/s.279, 337 & 304(A) of IPC,
3. Date of recording of evidence : 10-07-2024
4. Date of closing evidence : 04-01-2025
5. Date of judgment : 06-02-2025
***
2
C.C.No.141/2024
JUDGEMENT
The Police Inspector of Talghattapura Traffic Police Station has filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/s.279, 337 and 304(A) of IPC.
2. The brief case of the prosecution is that:
On 03-10-2023 at about 02.38 a.m. within the jurisdiction of Talghattapura Traffic police station, the accused being the driver of Tata Nexon Car bearing registration No.KA-03-AL-0602 drove the same on NICE Road, from Mysore road towards Kanakapura road near Chain age No.19.200 Sompura clover leaf, drove in a opposite lane in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and dashed to Lorry bearing registration No.TN-28-AE-6472 which was proceeding in the said road. Due to the impact the car toppled down and caught fire passengers inside the Car Sindhu, Pranavi and Kashavi sustained grievous injuries and later they succumbed to death. The lorry driver sustained simple injuries. Thereby the accused is alleged to have committed the offences punishable U/s.279, 337 and 304(A) of IPC.
3. Upon taking cognizance, case came to be registered against accused for the offences punishable 3 C.C.No.141/2024 U/s.279, 337 & 304(A) 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.
4. Plea came to be framed for the offences U/s.279, 337 & 304(A) 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 7 and got exhibited documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.19. 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 03-10-2023 at about 02.38 A.m. within the jurisdiction of Talghattapura Traffic police station, the accused being the driver of Tata Nexon Car bearing registration No.KA-03-AL-0602 drove the same on NICE Road, from Mysore road towards Kanakapura road near Chainage No.19.200 Sompura clover leaf, drove in a 4 C.C.No.141/2024 opposite lane in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life, 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 accused being the driver of the said vehicle, drove his vehicle in the above said manner. While so driving his vehicle he dashed to Lorry bearing registration No.TN-28-AE-6472 which was proceeding in the said road. Due to the impact the car toppled down and caught fire passengers of the Car Sindhu, Pranavi and Kashavi sustained grievous injuries and later they succumbed to death. The lorry driver sustained simple injuries, thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable U/s.337 and 304(A) of IPC?
3. What order?
8. My answer to the above points are as under:
1. POINT No.1: IN THE NEGATIVE
2. POINT No.2: IN THE NEGATIVE
3. 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 03-10-2023 at about 02.38 A.m. within the jurisdiction 5 C.C.No.141/2024 of Talghattapura Traffic police station, the accused being the driver of Tata Nexon Car bearing registration No.KA- 03-AL-0602 drove the same on NICE Road, from Mysore road towards Kanakapura road near Chainage No.19.200 Sompura clover leaf, drove in a opposite lane in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and dashed to Lorry bearing registration No.TN-28-AE-6472 which was proceeding in the said road. Due to the impact the toppled down and caught fire, passengers of the Car Sindhu, Pranavi and Kashavi sustained grievous injuries and later they succumbed to death. The lorry driver sustained simple injuries. Thereby the accused is alleged to have committed the offences punishable U/s.279, 337 and 304(A) of IPC.
11. In order to prove its case the prosecution examined 7 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.7 and marked 19 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.19.
12. C.W.1/ Sri Mani Maran is examined as P.W.1 who is the complainant of this case. He deposed that he is working as ASO in NICE company. On 12-10- 2023 he was deputed to night duty, while he was discharging his duty at around 3.00 a.m. he received a message from control room that a car caught fire due to an accident. Immediately he rushed to the spot, there he 6 C.C.No.141/2024 saw one car was on fire, a man was lying and a girl was screaming. Immediately he called ambulance and Fire Engine. They came and controlled fire, when he looked inside the car a woman burnt in the fire. The number of the Car is KA-03-AL-0662 which involved in the accident. The said car proceeding from Tumkuru towards Electronic city. The car lost his control and fell on the other lane of road. Then one truck came there and hit the car, the car again came back and toppled down and caught fire. Due to the impact the truck also toppled down. He shifted the injured to hospital in an ambulance. Later he came to know the injured name is Mahendran and he told him that we were going with wife and two children in the car, I and one daughter came out, wife and other daughter had died in the fire . Later he lodged complaint against the Mahendran before police station. On the same day he showed the accident spot to police. Police conducted mahazar at about 3.00 p.m. and obtained his signature. The learned APP treated the witness as partly hostile and cross-examined him with the permission of the court. During his cross- examination by the APP he admits the suggestion with regard to the timings of the mahazar and truck number. He admitted the the truck driver Bharathi Raj has also sustained injuries.
7C.C.No.141/2024 During his cross-examination by the accused counsel he denied the suggestion that the accident has taken place due to the negligent act of the car driver. He denied the suggestion that no one has given information about the accident. He denied the suggestion that he has not shown the accident spot and conducted mahazar in his presence.
13. C.W.24/ Sri Bharathi Raj is examined as P.W.2 who is the eye witness of this case. He deposed that on 03-10-2023 during night time on NICE road he was driving his Lorry bearing registration No.TN-28-AE- 6472, he was going towards Mumbai from Palani with goods. While he was on NICE road near Kanakapura road, suddenly one car came from opposite side, immediately he turned his vehicle to avoid an accident, then the wheel of his lorry came off and his lorry toppled down to the left side. His legs stuck between the lorry. The another lorry driver came and helped him. The car driver also lying there. Later general public shifted them to hospital. He does not know how accident has taken place. His lorry was damaged due to impact of the accident when he made attempt to turn his vehicle. The learned APP treated the witness as partly hostile and cross-examined him with the permission of the court.
8C.C.No.141/2024 During his cross-examination by the APP he deposed he does not know how the accident has taken place , he denied due to due to the negligent act of the car driver Mahendran the accident has taken place, He denied the suggestion that he is deposing false facts to help the car driver who caused accident. He denied the suggestion that he has given statement before police that accident has taken place due to the negligent act of the Mahndran. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing false facts.
14. C.W.25/ Sri Raju is examined as P.W.3 who is the eye witness of this case. He deposed that on 03-10- 2023 they were proceeding in lorry bearing registration No.TN-28-AE-6472 they were carrying goods towards Mumbai. On that day while they were going on NICE road, Bangalore, he was sleeping in the lorry at around 3.00 p.m. he wake up due to the sound of an accident. When he saw their lorry driver's leg got stuck, one car caught fire in front of their lorry. He pulled out his lorry driver and ambulance came there. Later they shifted him to hospital. He taken first aid and informed to his owner. IN this regard he has given statement before police. The learned APP treated the witness as partly hostile and cross-examined him with the permission of the court. During his cross-examination by the APP he denied the 9 C.C.No.141/2024 suggestion that he is deposing false facts with regard to help the car driver who caused accident.
15. C.W.26/ Sri Raj Kumar is examined as P.W.4 who is the owner of the lorry which involved in the accident. He deposed that he has two lorries. One is driven by him. Another lorry is driven by his driver. Lorry bearing registration No.TN-28-AE-6782 was given to his driver Bharathi Raj to on 03-10-2023 along with another driver Rajesh. On that day he was sending the goods to Mumbai in the said lorry. On the said day at around 2.45 a.m. the lorry driver called him and informed that while they were proceeding on NICE road, one car came from the other side road and dashed to their vehicle, due to which the lorry toppled down. After accident the car caught fire, the NICE company officials came and pulled them out and admitted them to hospital. Later he came to know that the accident has taken place due to the negligent act of the car driver. In this regard he has given statement before police. He does not know how accident has taken place. Accused counsel did not cross examine the witness.
16. C.W.35/ Sri Prashanth is examined as P.W.5 who is the 2nd Investigating Officer of this case. He deposed that on 03-10-2023 he received the case file from 10 C.C.No.141/2024 C.W.2 and conducted further investigation. On the same day he visited accident spot and requested the scientific lab to collect evidence as it was a fire case. He made arrangements to shift the dead body to KIMS hospital mortuary. Upon enquiry he came to know that four peoples were in the said car. Among them one is hospitalized, one is dead and he has appointed a staff to find missing one . He conducted spot mahazar between 10.30 to 11.30 a.m. in the presence of C.W.6 and 7, prepared rough sketch. Later he came to know that the child was injured in the accident and went for treatment has also died, he instructed to take the body of the child to KIMS Hospital mortuary for further procedure. He visited KIMS hospital mortuary and conducted inquest mahazar of Sindhu between 12.00 to 1.30 p.m. in the presence of C.W.8 to 10. On the same day he received the postmortem report. He sent a requisition to concerned RTO. He issued Sec.133 notice to the owner of the vehicle. He requested to Santosh hospital to provide wound certificate. The accused is undergoing treatment at BGS hospital and requested the doctor to give his blood sample to confirm whether he was under the influence of alcohol or not. On next day when they were shifting the lorry they found the body of the missing child below the lorry,he shifted the body to mortuary and 11 C.C.No.141/2024 directed his subordinate to conduct inquest and do postmortem, he conducted the scientific examination of the spot, he sent blood sample of the driver to forensic lab, he conducted the vehicle inspection through vehicle inspector later the GPA holder for the car owner appeared and provided the documents , since it is a rent cab he collected the GPS tracking details and hire details and released the car in their favour. He collected the postmortem reports and other documents After completion of investigation he has submitted charge sheet against the accused. During his cross-examination he denied the suggestions of the accused counsel.
17. C.W.27/ Sri Lakshmi Narasimhaiah is examined as P.W.6 who is the eye witness of this case. He deposed that he is working as driver in NICE company. On 02-10-2023 he was deputed to night duty. On that day he was appointed as the driver for their officer from Mysore road to Kanakapura road. At around 3.00 a.m. his officer received message from control room that an accident has taken place near Sompura road. Immediately they went to the spot, there was a traffic jam for ½km. His officer has got down from vehicle and went there. He parked the vehicle and went there and saw that one car was on fire. Later fire extinguisher came to spot , 12 C.C.No.141/2024 on the other lane a lorry was parked which met with accident a person was lying along with a child they shifted them to hospital, he deposed he does not know the car number and not seen any person. The witness was treated as partly hostile and he was cross examined by the APP he denied the suggestion of number plate of the car, admits they shifted the injured by name Mahendran to hospital , he denied the manner in which accident has taken place. During his cross-examination he denied the suggestions of the accused counsel.
18. C.W.02/ Sri Venugopal is examined as P.W.7 who is the 1st Investigating Officer of this case. He deposed that on 02-10-2023 while he was deputed to patrolling duty. On 03-10-2023 mid night an accident has taken place on NICE Road. In that regard staff of NICE road came to station at around 6.00 a.m. and lodged oral complaint, he received the same and on the basis of said complaint he registered the case in Crime No.275/23 against the accused and forwarded the same to court and higher officers. For further investigation he handed over the case file to C.W.35 for further investigation. During his cross-examination he denied the suggestions of the accused counsel.
13C.C.No.141/2024
19. 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 133 notice, Ex.P.4 is the Inquest mahazar, Ex.P.5 is the Inquest mahazar, Ex.P.6 is the Inquest mahazar, Ex.P.7 is the reply, Ex.P.8 is the Indemnity bond, Ex.P.9 is the ORIX Company document, Ex.P.10 is the wound certificate, Ex.P.11 is the wound certificate, Ex.P.12 to 14 are the P.M. Report, Ex.P.15 is the IMV Report, Ex.P.16 is the Scientific sketch, Ex.P.17 is the Lab report, Ex.P.18 is the NICE company report and Ex.P.19 is the FIR.
20. In the instant case the prosecution is alleging that the accused being the driver of the Car drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the Lorry and thereby caused death. Prosecution contends accused has committed the offences punishable U/s.279 and 304(A) 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 14 C.C.No.141/2024 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.
21. In order to constitute offence U/s.304(a) of IPC the prosecution must establish the essential ingredients of Sec.304(A) of IPC which are as follows: (I) The death of the person must be in question (ii) The death must have caused by the accused; and (iii) The act of the accused was rash or negligent and it did not amount to culpable homicide.
22. The prosecution has to establish that the accused is the person who is driving the Car on the alleged day. The Car driver drove his vehicle in rash and negligent manner and due to his negligent act the deceased succumbed to death. To prove that aspect the prosecution has examined 7 witnesses, they are P.W.1 is the complainant who is an hearsay witness, P.W.2 ,3 & 6are the eye witnesses, P.W.5 and 7 are the investigating officers and P.W.4 is the circumstantial witness.
15C.C.No.141/2024
23. P.W.1 who is the complainant who deposed that he works as ASO in NICE company who visited the accident spot after occurrence of accident. He cannot say about the rash and negligent act since he does not had first hand information about the accident and he did not depose who has provided him information about the accident. P.W.2 is the eye witnesses even he did not depose how accident has taken place and did not deposed due to negligent act of the accused the accident has taken place, the other eye witness pw3 deposed since he was sleeping he did not seen the accident and Pw6 also did not support the case of prosecution though they were subjected to cross examination by APP nothing worthfull is elicited from their mouth.
24. Here the prosecution has the burden to establish accused was the driver of the car , though they have collected the rent details since it is self driven rent car the documents were not marked by prosecution and IO did not stress on those documents which raises doubt whether accused was the driver of the said car.
25. Upon perusal of the records of the instant case though the witness speak about collusion by the accused to lorry, but they did not speak about any negligence of the car driver. Admittedly the said road is 16 C.C.No.141/2024 express high way quite wider enough for movement of large vehicles and it is a high way road with divider. The accident has taken place on the other lane of the road and it is a head to head collusion on other lane , how car went to other lane whether it crossed in middle or not is not explained and after impact with lorry it fell again on the divider . Negligence is the absence of care and caution whereas culpable rashness results from lack of circumspection. High speed is a relative term and that has to be examined in the light of the facts & circumstances of the case. In the instant case the allegation is the accused has driven his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to proceeding lorry . None of the prosecution witness deposed that due to high speed the accused was unable to control the same and dashed his vehicle to proceeding vehicles. Hence the accident has taken place. In the instant case to establish the said fact the examined witness did not depose in clarity about negligence of the accused. With the available materials the court cannot come to the conclusion that the accident has occurred due to the speed of the accused alone. Therefore, in this circumstance of the case, the case of prosecution regarding rash and negligent act of accused could not be made out beyond reasonable doubt.
17C.C.No.141/2024
26. The examined witnesses have not stated rash and negligent act on the part of the accused on the date of alleged incident. Further eye witnesses have not stated the rash and negligent act of the accused to show his involvement. Therefore, in this circumstance of the case, the case of prosecution regarding rash and negligent act of accused could not be made out beyond reasonable doubt.
27. 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, 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.
28. POINT No.3: In view of the above discussions and findings I proceed to pass the following 18 C.C.No.141/2024 ORDER Acting U/sec. 255(1) of Criminal procedure code, the accused is hereby acquitted of the offences alleged against him punishable U/sec. 279, 337 and 304(A) of IPC.
Bail bonds of accused and surety bonds shall stand canceled after completion of appeal period.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court this the 6 th day of February 2025).
(GAGAN M.R.) JMFC (Traffic Court - IV), BENGALURU ANNEXURE
1. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
P.W.1: Sri Mani Maran P.W.2: Sri Bharathi Raj P.W.3: Sri Raju P.W.4: Sri Raj Kumar P.W.5: Sri Prashanth P.W.6: Sri Lakshmi Narasimhaiah P.W.7: Sri Venugopal
2. LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1: Complaint Ex.P.2: Spot mahazar Ex.P.3: 133 notice Ex.P.4: Inquest mahazar 19 C.C.No.141/2024 Ex.P.5: Inquest mahazar Ex.P.6: Inquest mahazar Ex.P.7: Reply to the notice Ex.P.8: Indemnity bond Ex.P.9: ORIX Company document Ex.P.10: Wound certificate Ex.P.11: Wound certificate Ex.P.12 to 14: P.M. Report Ex.P.15: IMV Report Ex.P.16: Scientific sketch Ex.P.17: Laboratory report Ex.P.18: NICE company report Ex.P.19: FIR
3. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE ACCUSED:
NIL
4. LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE ACCUSED:
NIL (GAGAN M.R.) JMFC (Traffic Court - IV), BENGALURU