Bangalore District Court
State By H.S.R. Layout Traffic P.S vs Ravindra R on 7 March, 2023
IN THE COURT OF THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
TRAFFIC COURT - VI, BANGALORE
PRESENT: SRI GAGAN M.R. B.A.L LLB
Metropolitan Magistrate
Traffic Court - VI, BANGALORE
DATED : THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2023
C.C. No.3910/2020
COMPLAINANT: State by H.S.R. Layout Traffic P.S
Bengaluru.
(Represented by Learned APP)
V/s
ACCUSED : Ravindra R
S/o Ramappa,
Aged about 30 years,
#88/2, 7th Cross, Muneshwara Nagar,
Somasundrapalya, HSR Layout,
Bengaluru - 560 102.
(Represented by Sri.N.R.S. Adv.,)
Date of commission : 27.12.2019
of offence
Offences alleged : U/Sec.279, 337, 338 of IPC,
against accused Sec.134(A&B) R/w 187, Sec.56 R/w
192(A) of IMV Act
Date of recording of : 15.11.2021
evidence
2
C.C.No.3910/2020
Date of closing : 03.08.2022
evidence
Date of Judgment : 07.03.2022
***
JUDGEMENT
The SubInspector of H.S.R. Layout Traffic Police Station has filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/Sec.279, 337, 338 of IPC, Sec.134(A&B) R/w 187, Sec.56 R/w 192(A) of IMV Act.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 27.12.2019 at 11.30 p.m. the accused being the rider of Tata Indica taxi bearing registration No.KA546161 drove the same within the jurisdiction of HSR Layout Traffic police station on Outer ring road, from Ibbaluru towards Silk Board in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and at HSR Layout BMTC bus depot junction dashed to C.W.1 and C.W.2's motor cycle bearing No.CG 04KC5732 and KA51HE2455 respectively when they proceeding in same direction, due to the impact both riders fell down and C.W.1 sustained grievous injuries and C.W.2 sustained simple injuries. Further on the day of accident the accused did not provide medical aid to the injured nor he intimated the police about the accident and the alleged vehicle does not have valid F.C. Thereby the accused is alleged to have committed the offences 3 C.C.No.3910/2020 punishable U/Sec.279, 337, 338 of IPC, Sec.134(A&B) R/w 187, Sec.56 R/w 192(A) of IMV Act.
3. Upon taking cognizance, case came to be registered against accused for the offences punishable U/Sec.279, 337, 338 of IPC, Sec.134(A&B) R/w 187, Sec.56 R/w 192(A) of IMV Act. 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/Sec.279, 337, 338 of IPC, Sec.134(A&B) R/w 187, Sec.56 R/w 192(A) of IMV Act for which accused pleaded not guilty claimed to be tried.
5. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined 4 witnesses as P.W.1 to 4 and got exhibited documents as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9. 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.
4C.C.No.3910/2020
7. The points that arise for my consideration are as follows:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 27.12.2019 at 11.30 p.m. the accused being the rider of Tata Indica taxi bearing registration No.KA546161 drove the same within the jurisdiction of HSR Layout Traffic police station on Outer ring road, from Ibbaluru towards Silk Board in a rash and negligent manner as to endanger human life, thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable U/Sec.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 at HSR Layout BMTC bus depot junction dashed to C.W.1 and C.W.2's motor cycle bearing No.CG 04KC5732 and KA51HE2455 respectively when they proceeding in same direction, due to the impact both riders fell down and C.W.1 sustained grievous injuries and C.W.2 sustained simple injuries, thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable U/Sec.337 & 338 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the day of accident the accused did not provide medical aid 5 C.C.No.3910/2020 to the injured nor he intimated the police about the accident and the alleged vehicle does not have valid F.C., thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable U/Sec.134(A&B) R/w 187 & Sec.56 R/w 192(A) of IMV Act?
4. 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: PARTLY AFFIRMATIVE POINT No.4: AS PER THE FINAL ORDER For the following REASONS
9. POINT No.1 to 3: 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 27.12.2019 at 11.30 p.m. the accused being the rider of Tata Indica taxi bearing registration No.KA546161 drove the same within the jurisdiction of HSR Layout Traffic police station on Outer ring road, from Ibbaluru towards Silk Board in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and at HSR Layout BMTC bus depot junction dashed to C.W.1 and C.W.2's motor cycle bearing No.CG 6 C.C.No.3910/2020 04KC5732 and KA51HE2455 respectively when they proceeding in same direction, due to the impact both riders fell down and C.W.1 sustained grievous injuries and C.W.2 sustained simple injuries. Further on the day of accident the accused did not provide medical aid to the injured nor he intimated the police about the accident and the alleged vehicle does not have valid F.C.
11. In order to prove the contents of complaint the prosecution examined 4 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.4 and marked 11 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9.
12. C.W.1/Jayesh Chowhan is examined as P.W.1 who is victim/complainant witness of this case. He deposed that on 27.12.2019 at 11.30 p.m. he was proceeding in his two wheeler from HSR Layout towards Koramangala by that time at HSR Layout one Uber tax came and hit to his two wheeler, due to that he fell down and public shifted him to Canbell hospital. After the incident driver of the offending vehicle went away from the spot. He has not seen the driver of the offending vehicle. With regard to the incident he lodged a compliant as per Ex.P.1. With regard to material aspects such as vehicle number and identification of the accused the witness turned hostile even though he was subjected to cross examination by learned APP nothing worthful is elicited from his mouth.
7C.C.No.3910/2020
13. C.W.2/Ali Ahmed is examined as P.W.2 who is victim/mahazar witness of this case. He deposed that on 27.12.2019 at 11.30 p.m. he was proceeding in his two wheeler from Outer ring road towards BTM by that time one car came and hit to his two wheeler from back side, due to that he fell down and sustained simple injuries. Further he deposed that he has not seen the offending vehicle registration number and driver. On the next day of the incident police conducted spot mahazar as per Ex.P.2 at incident spot and obtained his signature on it. With regard to material aspects such as vehicle number and conducted of mahazar at the spot the witness turned hostile even though he was subjected to crossexamination by learned APP nothing worthful is elicited from his mouth.
14. C.W.8/Suresh K.S. is examined as P.W.3 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.111/2019 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, IMV Report from concern officers. After completion of investigation he has filed a Charge Sheet against the accused.
8C.C.No.3910/2020
15. C.W.3/Raj Deep Kole examined as P.W.4 who is eye witness and mahazar witness of this case. He deposed that C.W.1 and 4 known to him. On 27.12.2019 at 11.30 p.m. he and C.W.4 proceeding in one two wheeler and C.W.1 also proceeding in another two wheeler from HSR Layout towards Silk board by that time near BMTC bus stand one car came from this back and dashed to C.W.1's two wheeler and secondly dashed to his two wheeler, due to that both riders fell down and sustained injuries and with the help of public he shifted injured to Kengal hospital. After the incident driver of the offending vehicle went from the spot. For further treatment injured was shifted to Columbia Asia hospital. Further on the next day of the incident at incident spot police conducted spot mahazar as per Ex.P.2 and obtained his signature on it.
During his crossexamination he deposed that C.W.1 and 4 are his friends. He denied that he has committed the self accident and further deposed that he does not know Kannada, he does not know the contents of Ex.P.2, he does not know the schedule of the accident spot.
16. 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 portion statement of P.W.2, Ex.P.4 is the restatement of P.W.2, Ex.P.5 is 9 C.C.No.3910/2020 the FIR, Ex.P.6 is the rough sketch, Ex.P.7 and 8 are the Notice and reply U/Sec.133 of IMV Act and Ex.P.9 is the IMV report.
17. In the instant case the prosecution is alleging that due to rash and negligent driving of the accused driver is the vital point to book him u/s 279 IPC or section 338 IPC.
18. Sec. 279 of IPC deals with rash and negligent driving any vehicle or riding on a public way in 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/sec. 279 of IPC, it must be established that the accused was driving the vehicle on a public way in a rash and negligent manner to endanger human life or to likely cause hurt or injury to any other person. For the purpose of section 279 of IPC, 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 Sec. 279 of IPC are; i) Rash and negligent driving or riding on public way. (ii) The act must be such as to endanger human life or likely to cause hurt or injury to any person. Regarding rash or negligent driving Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravi Kapur VsState of Rajasthan in AIR 2012 SC 2986 observed as follows : 10 C.C.No.3910/2020
10.In order to examine the merit or otherwise of contentions (b) and (c) raised on behalf of the Appellant, it is necessary for the Court to first and foremost examine (a) what is rash and negligent driving; and (b) whether it can be gathered from the attendant circumstances. Rash and negligent driving has to be examined in light of the facts and circumstances of a given case. It is a fact incapable of being construed or seen in isolation. It must be examined in light of the attendant circumstances. A person who drives a vehicle on the road is liable to be held responsible for the act as well as for the result. It may not be always possible to determine with reference to the speed of a vehicle whether a person was driving rashly and negligently. Both these acts presuppose an abnormal conduct. Even when one is driving a vehicle at a slow speed but recklessly and negligently, it would amount to 'rash and negligent driving' within the meaning of the language of Section 279 Indian Penal Code. That is why the legislature in its wisdom has used the words 'manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life'. The preliminary conditions, thus, are that (a) it is the manner in which the vehicle is driven; (b) it be driven either rashly or negligently; and (c) such rash or negligent driving should be such as to endanger human life. Once these ingredients are satisfied, the penalty contemplated Under Section 279 Indian Penal Code is attracted.
11. 'Negligence' means omission to do something which a reasonable and prudent person guided by the considerations which ordinarily regulate human affairs would do or doing something which a prudent and reasonable person guided by similar considerations would not do. Negligence is not an absolute term but is a relative one; it is rather a comparative term. It is difficult to state with precision any mathematically exact formula by which negligence or lack of it can be infallibly measured in a given case. Whether there exists negligence per se or the course of conduct amounts to negligence will 11 C.C.No.3910/2020 normally depend upon the attending and surrounding facts and circumstances which have to be taken into consideration by the Court. In a given case, even not doing what one was ought to do can constitute negligence.
12. The Court has to adopt another parameter, i.e., 'reasonable care' in determining the question of negligence or contributory negligence. The doctrine of reasonable care imposes an obligation or a duty upon a person (for example a driver) to care for the pedestrian on the road and this duty attains a higher degree when the pedestrian happen to be children of tender years. It is axiomatic to say that while driving a vehicle on a public way, there is an implicit duty cast on the drivers to see that their driving does not endanger the life of the right users of the road, may be either vehicular users or pedestrians. They are expected to take sufficient care to avoid danger to others.
13. The other principle that is pressed in aid by the courts in such cases is the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. This doctrine serves two purposes one that an accident may by its nature be more consistent with its being caused by negligence for which the opposite party is responsible than by any other causes and that in such a case, the mere fact of the accident is prima facie evidence of such negligence. Secondly, it is to avoid hardship in cases where the claimant is able to prove the accident but cannot prove how the accident occurred. The courts have also applied the principle of res ipsa loquitur in cases where no direct evidence was brought on record. The Act itself contains a provision which concerns with the consequences of driving dangerously alike the provision in the Indian Penal Code that the vehicle is driven in a manner dangerous to public life. Where a person does such an offence he is punished as per the provisions of Section 184 of the Act. The courts have also taken the concept of 'culpable rashness' and 12 C.C.No.3910/2020 'culpable negligence' into consideration in cases of road accidents. 'Culpable rashness' is acting with the consciousness that mischievous and illegal consequences may follow but with the hope that they will not and often with the belief that the actor has taken sufficient precautions to prevent their happening. The imputability arises from acting despite consciousness (luxuria). 'Culpable negligence' is acting without the consciousness that the illegal and mischievous effect will follow, but in circumstances which show that the actor has not exercised the caution incumbent upon him and that if he had, he would have had the consciousness. The imputability arises from the neglect of civic duty of circumspection. In such a case the mere fact of accident is prima facie evidence of such negligence. This maxim suggests that on the circumstances of a given case the res speaks and is eloquent because the facts stand unexplained, with the result that the natural and reasonable inference from the facts, not a conjectural inference, shows that the act is attributable to some person's negligent conduct. [Ref. Justice Rajesh Tandon's 'An Exhaustive Commentary on Motor Vehicles Act, 1988' (First Edition, 2010].
19. In the instant case the prosecution is alleging that accused drove his car in a negligent manner and colluded to two two wheelers which were proceeding in front of him in a junction. To prove the said aspect the prosecution is relied on P.W.1 who is the complainant and victim, P.W.2 who is an eye witness and P.W.4 who is also an eye witness. Among the said witnesses P.W.1 and2 did not deposed that the alleged car which was driven by accused was the caused for the accident. They denied the suggestions of the APP with regard to vehicle number as well as accused. When the 13 C.C.No.3910/2020 complainant and victim themselves turned hostile other witnesses cannot be relied. Prosecutor relied on P.W.3 who is the investigating officer and P.W.4 who is the eye witness as well as panch witnesses. P.W.4 also did not identify the accused person. Except investigating officer no other witness identified the accused person in such circumstances the case of the prosecution appears to be doubtful. Though the witness were subjected to cross examination nothing with regard to identification is elicited from their mouth. This raises doubt about the veracity of the witness.
20. 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 has driven the offending vehicle in a negligent manner. The prosecution did not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and in such circumstances as per the rules of criminal justice the benefit of doubt should be given in favour of accused. Therefore, in the circumstances of the case, the court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the alleged offence against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the point is answered IN THE NEGATIVE.
21. POINT No.3: In the instant case it is alleged that the accused was failed to provide medical aid to the injured nor he 14 C.C.No.3910/2020 intimated the police about the accident and not having fitness certificate to use the said vehicle on road. On the alleged date of accident and he was having the fitness certificate is to be established by accused himself. The IO in his charge sheet as well as evidence as alleged that the said vehicle was not having a valid fitness certificate on the date of accident. The said issue has to be negatived by accused by furnishing relevant documentary evidence. Such thing is not placed before the court. It constitutes an independent offence as well.
22. In the instant case the prosecution further alleged that the accused person after committing the accident has not provided medical aid to the victims and not intimated to the same to the police. While discussing point no.1 and 2 the court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed established that the accused was driving the alleged vehicle on the said day at said spot. When the accident itself is not proved to the satisfaction of the court then the question of providing medical aid and intimating police did not arise for consideration, because none of the witnesses identified the accused person and deposed the vehicle number of the accused. Hence, the said part is answered in negative and the total portion of the point for discussion is answered in PARTLY AFFIRMATIVE.
15C.C.No.3910/2020
23. POINT No.4: In view of the above discussions and findings I proceed to pass the following ORDER Acting U/s.255(1) of Criminal Procedure code, the accused is hereby acquitted of the offences alleged against him punishable U/Sec.279, 337, 338 of IPC & Sec.134(A&B) R/w 187of IMV Act.
Acting under Sec.255(2) of Cr.P.C.
accused No.1 is hereby convicted of the offence alleged against him punishable Sec.56 R/w 192(A) of IMV Act.
Accused No.1 is hereby directed to pay fine of Rs.5,000/ for the offences punishable U/s.56 R/w 192(A) of IMV Act in default shall undergo SI for 3 months.
The 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 7 th day of March 2023).
(GAGAN M.R.) C/c MMTC - VI, BANGALORE.
16C.C.No.3910/2020 ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION:
PW.1 Jayesh chowhan PW.2 Ali Ahmed PW.3 Suresh K.S. PW.4 Raj Deep Kole
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 Complaint Ex.P.2 Spot mahazar Ex.P.3 Portion of Statement of PW.2 Ex.P.4 Restatement of PW.2 Ex.P.5 FIR Ex.P.6 Rough sketch Ex.P.7 & 8 Wound certificate Ex.P.9 IMV report
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR ACCUSED:
Nil LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR ACCUSED:
Nil (GAGAN M.R.) C/c MMTC - VI, BANGALORE.