Bangalore District Court
State By Chickpet Traffic Police ... vs Rangegowda S/O Gavigowda on 5 February, 2021
IN THE COURT OF THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE TRAFFIC
COURT- II, BENGALURU.
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021
Present: Smt. Rekha. H.C.
B.A.LLB
Metropolitan Magistrate,
Traffic Court-II, Bengaluru.
CC No. 3737/2017
2
Complainant: State by Chickpet Traffic Police Station, Bangalore.
(Represented by: Sr. APP)
V/s
Accused:- 1. Rangegowda S/o Gavigowda, 57 Yrs, R/at No.
10/2, Devaiah Compound, Near Jindhal, Tumkur
Road, Near Government School, Anchepalya,
Bengaluru.
Driver of BMTC Bus bearing Reg. no. KA 01 F 9579
2. Smt. Renuka W/o Nagaraj, 43 Yrs, R/at No. 85/2,
No.6, Bhavani Nagar, Doddabidirakallu, Nagasandra
Post, Bengaluru.
Conductor of of BMTC Bus bearing Reg. no. KA 01 F
9579
(Represented by Sri. HSS Adv.)
1. Date of commission of offence: 29.4.2016
2. Offences alleged against accused U/sec. 279, 338 of IPC
and 134 (a & b) r/w 187
of IMV Act.
3. Date of recording of evidence: 28.6.2018
4. Date of Judgment: 5.2.2021
JUDGMENT
The Inspector of Police, Chickpet Traffic P.S. has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences 2 CC 3737/2017 punishable U/sec. 279, 337 of IPC and 134 (a & b) r/w 187 of IMV Act.
2. The brief case of the prosecution is that;
On 29.4.2016 at about 9.25 a.m., within the jurisdiction of Chickpet Traffic police station, the accused no.1 being the driver of BMTC bus bearing Reg. no. KA 01 F 9579 stopped the same near CAR Central Gate, at that time the CW-2/Venkatesh who was boarding the said bus, at that time the accused no.2 being conductor of said bus gave signal and accused no.1 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger the human life. Due to the impact, said CW-2 who was boarding the bus lost his control and fell down and sustained simple injuries. At the time of accident the accused did not gave first aid to the injured nor informed the incident to nearest police station. Based on the first information statement registered by CW-1, the case came to be registered against the accused in Cr. No. 139/2016. The I.O. took up the investigation, visited the spot, drawn the spot mahazar and recorded the statement of witnesses. The I.O. after obtaining the Wound certificate and other documents and on completion of investigation has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/sec. 279, 337 of IPC and 134 (a &
b) r/w 187 of IMV Act.
3. Upon taking cognizance, case came to be registered against accused for the offences punishable U/sec. 279, 337 of IPC and 134 (a & b) r/w 187 of IMV 3 CC 3737/2017 Act. The accused appeared before court engaged counsel and enlarged on bail. Charge sheet copies furnished to the accused and thereby provision U/sec. 207 duly complied with.
4. Plea came to be framed for the offence punishable U/sec. 279, 337 of IPC and 134 (a & b) r/w 187 of IMV Act for which accused pleaded not guilty claimed to be tried.
5. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PWs-1 to 5 and got exhibited documents as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8. On completion of prosecution side evidence, the statement of accused U/sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded and the accused denied all the incriminating evidence appearing against him. No defence evidence led.
6. Heard arguments on both sides.
7. The points that arise for my consideration are as follows:
1. Whether prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 29.4.2016 at about 9.25 a.m., the accused no.1 being the driver of BMTC bus bearing Reg. no. KA 01 F 9579 stopped the same near CAR Central Gate, at that time the CW-2/Venkatesh who was boarding the said bus, at that time the accused no.2 being conductor of said bus gave signal and accused no.1 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner so as to 4 CC 3737/2017 endanger the human life. 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, and place, the accused no.1 being the driver of BMTC bus bearing Reg. no. KA 01 F 9579 and said CW-2 who was boarding the bus lost his control and fell down and sustained simple injuries. Thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable U/sec. 337 of IPC?
3. Whether prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that at the time of accident, At the time of accident the accused gave first aid to the injured nor informed the incident to nearest police station and thereby the accused committed an offence punishable U/sec.134 (a & b) r/w 187 of IMV Act?
4. What Order?
8. Now, my findings to the above points are as follows:
Point Nos.1 to 3 : In the Negative Point No. 4: As per order, for the following:
REASONS
9. Point Nos. 1 to 3 :- All points taken together for common discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts and for appreciation of evidence 5 CC 3737/2017 It is the specific case of the prosecution that on 29.4.2016 at about 9.25 a.m., within the jurisdiction of Chickpet Traffic police station, the accused no.1 being the driver of BMTC bus bearing Reg. no. KA 01 F 9579 stopped the same near CAR Central Gate, at that time the CW-2/Venkatesh who was boarding the said bus, at that time the accused no.2 being conductor of said bus gave signal and accused no.1 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger the human life. Due to the impact, said CW-2 who was boarding the bus lost his control and fell down and sustained simple injuries. At the time of accident the accused did not gave first aid to the injured nor informed the incident to nearest police station.
10. To prove its case, the prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 5 and marked Exs.P.1 to 8 with sub marking.
11. CW-1 Anitha examined as PW-1 who is the complainant and mahazar witness of this case. She deposed that on 29.4.2016 at about 8.50 a.m., near Police ground her husband was boarding the bus which was came from Nandini Layout and driver of said bus moved suddenly and her husband lost his control and fell down and public were shifted him to hospital. Hence, she lodged complaint on 16.6.2016 before the police it has been marked as Ex.P.1. On the basis of complaint, the police have conducted mahazar as per Ex.P.2 in presence of said witness.
6 CC 3737/201712. In the cross-examination she specifically admitted that she is not an eye witness of this case. Even though after lapse of 2 months she lodged the complaint against the accused, but she did not given sufficient reason for delay in lodging the first information statement. Further she did not mentioned alleged offending vehicle number in Ex.P.1.
13. CW-2 is examined as PW-2 who is injured of this case. He deposed that on 29.4.2016 at about 8.50 a.m. near Police Ground he was boarding the bus bearing Reg. no. KA 01 F 9579, at that time the driver of bus suddenly moved the same and he fell down. Due to the impact, he sustained injuries to his stomach and waist. The accused was the driver of offending bus and accident occurred due to negligent of driver of bus conductor. The accident happened due to the fault of conductor who did not observed the passengers who were boarding the bus and police have shifted him to hospital for treatment.
14. In the cross-examination PW-2 stated that before the accident the bus was stopped in the bus stand and at that day the bus was full with passengers. After the accident he lost his conscious, so he do not know anything about after the accident. Further he has not stated sufficient reason for delay for lodging the complaint and before the accident he did not saw the driver and conductor of offender bus.
15. CW-5 examined as PW-3who is an eye witness states that on 29.4.2016 at about 8.30 near Mysore 7 CC 3737/2017 circle, Binnimill infront of Police quarters, he was waiting for the bus in the bus stop, at that time the passengers were boarding the bus, one of passenger fell down and offending bus was ran over on said passenger. When injured was boarding the bus the conductor gave signal to move the bus.
16. In the cross-examination PW-3 also admitted that offending vehicle was full with passengers and at the time of accident he do not saw the driver of offending vehicle.
17. PW-4 is ATI states that the PSI of Chickpet Traffic Police station issued in notice u/s 133 of IMV Act and he gave reply to the same that on the alleged date of accident Rangegowda, token no. 3843 was the driver of the bus and Smt. Renuka, token no.8806 was the conductor of offending bus and he identified the accused before court.
18. PW-5 is the Investigating Officer deposed that on 29.4.2016, he received the first information statement from CW-1 and on its basis he registered the case in Cr. No. 139/2016 and dispatched FIR to the court. On the same day, he visited the spot and conducted spot mahazar and prepared rough sketch. On 21.2.2017 he gave requisition to IMV inspector to inspect the vehicle and obtained reply. He issued IMV notice and obtained reply and on obtaining Wound certificate and on conclusion of investigation he filed the charge sheet against the accused.
8 CC 3737/201719. In the cross-examination, the Investigating Officer has admitted that after lapse of 1 ½ months the complainant has lodged complaint, but he did not mentioned any reason for delay for lodging the complaint. Further, he did not collect trip sheet and log sheet for the offender vehicle.
20. Out of the exhibits marked for prosecution Ex.P.1 is the First information statement, Ex.P.2 is spot mahazar, Ex.P.3 is copy of 133 notice, Ex.P.4 is reply, Ex.P.5 is IMV report, Ex.P.6 is Wound certificate, Ex.P.7 is FIR and Ex.P.8 is Rough sketch.
21. In the light of the above material available on record, the learned Sr. APP argued that there is sufficient material on record to convict the accused.
22. The learned counsel for the accused argued that there is no evidence to show rash or negligent riding on the part of the accused. Further, he argued that the material and evidence available on record is not sufficient to believe the case of prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, he prayed to acquit the accused.
23. I have carefully gone through the evidence and material available on record, PW-1 is first informant and an hearsay witness and she is not an eye witness of this case. As per Ex.P.1 the accident occurred on 29.4.2016, but she lodged complaint on 16.6.2016. On perusal of Ex.P.1, she has not given any reason for delay for lodging the complaint.
9 CC 3737/2017On perusal of evidence of PW-2 injured deposed that due to impact of said accident he sustained grievous injuries. So he had taken treatment. In this regard the prosecution has got exhibited the Wound certificate of the injured, but not examined the medical officer who has given the treatment to the injured. Thus it is fatal to the case of prosecution.
24. The Investigating Officer/PW-5 deposed about the investigation conducted by him. During the cross- examination of PW-5/Investigating Officer he stated that he has not stated anything about delay in lodging the complaint and he is not properly explained about it. Further, Investigating Officer has not obtained trip sheet and log sheet from the concern authorities to prove the guilt against the accused persons.
25. 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 10 CC 3737/2017 as to endanger human life or likely to cause hurt or injury to any person.
26. I have carefully gone through the charge sheet materials and also evidence made available in the file. The witnesses have not stated regarding the number of vehicle involved in the alleged accident. Further, the witnesses have not stated rash and negligent act on the part of the accused on the date of alleged incident and witnesses have not identified the accused persons. Therefore, in this circumstances of the case, the case of prosecution regarding rash and negligent act and also regarding involvement of the vehicle of accused could not be made out beyond reasonable doubt.
27. The material witnesses to the case of prosecution have not supported the case. 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 a doubt as to whether the accused was driver of offending vehicle. So also there is a doubt as to whether the accused had driven the said vehicle in a rash or negligent manner. 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 in the Negative.
28. Point No.3: In view of 'Negative' findings on the above points, the accused is entitled for acquittal on the ground of doubt benefit. Therefore, I proceed to pass the following:-
11 CC 3737/2017ORDER 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 of IPC and 134 (a & b) r/w 187 of IMV Act.
Bail bonds of accused and surety bonds shall stand cancelled after completion of appeal period.
The interim custody of BMTC bus bearing Reg. no. KA 01 F 9579 is hereby made absolute.
(Dictated to the stenographer, directly on the computer, typed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 5th day of February 2021).
(Rekha. H.C.) M.M.T.C-II, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for Prosecution:-
PW-1 Kum. Anitha PW-2 Venkatesh PW-3 Nandakumar PW-4 Narasappa PW-5 Muniraju
List of documents marked for Prosecution:
Ex.P.1: First information statement Ex.P.2 Spot mahazar Ex.P.3 Copy of 133 notice Ex.P.4 Reply Ex.P. 5 IMV report Ex.P. 6 Wound certificate Ex.P.7 FIR Ex.P.8 Rough sketch M.M.T.C-II, Bengaluru.