Bangalore District Court
Hsr Layout Tr P.S vs Sami Ulla Driver Of Auto Rickshow No … on 5 May, 2025
KABC080051072023
Presented on : 04-10-2023
Registered on : 04-10-2023
Decided on : 05-05-2025
Duration : 1 years, 7 months, 1 days
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS (TRAFFIC COURT-VI), BENGALURU CITY.
DATED THIS 5TH DAY OF MAY 2025.
PRESENT : Smt.AKHILA H.K. B.A., LL.B.,
JMFC (TRAFFIC COURT-VI),
BENGALURU.
CC No.4544/2023
COMPLAINANT: State by H.S.R. Layout Traffic P.S
Bengaluru.
(State by : Learned APP)
V/s
ACCUSED: Sami Ulla
S/o Mohammed Yousuff
Aged about 35 years,
No.67, Opp. Kalasipalya Police
Station, Shambu Palya,
Kalasipalya,
Bengaluru - 560 002.
(Represented by Sri.M.M. Adv.,)
CC No.4544/2023
2
JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector of H.S.R. Layout Traffic Police
Station has filed charge sheet against the accused for the
offence punishable U/Sec.279 and 304(A) of IPC,
Sec.134(A & B) R/w Sec.187 & Sec.146 R/w Sec.196 of
IMV Act.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as
under: –
That on 03.04.2023 at 1.00 a.m. accused being the
driver of auto bearing registration No.KA-01-AK-3853
drove the same within the jurisdiction of H.S.R. Layout
Traffic Police station at Parangipalya towards KEB Office
junction at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner
so as to endanger human life meanwhile one two wheeler
bearing No.KA-04-KL-7932 which was came on 24 th main
road from Lotus hospital towards Parangipalya and saw
the accused vehicle which was came in a rash and
negligent manner suddenly applied break to his vehicle
as as a result rider and pillion rider i.e., C.W.2 fell down
and accused vehicle hit to both rider and pillion rider.
CC No.4544/2023
3Due to the impact rider of two wheeler sustained grievous
injuries and succumbed to death and pillion rider C.W.2
sustained scratch injuries on left leg. Further, after the
accident accused has failed to provide medical assistance
to the injured and also failed to inform the same to the
nearest police station. Further at the time of accident
offending vehicle did not had valid insurance. As such
the accused has committed an offence punishable
U/Sec.279 and 304(A) of IPC, Sec.134(A & B) R/w
Sec.187 & Sec.146 R/w 196 of IMV Act.
3. Cognizance was taken by perusing the
prosecution papers and materials, the accused on receipt
of summons appeared before the court and got himself
enlarged on bail. On the said date the prosecution papers
were furnished to the accused as per Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.
and substance of accusation in the form of plea was
read over and explained to him, accused pleaded not
guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. During the course of trial the prosecution has
examined PWs.1 to 7 and got marked Ex.P.1 to 16. The
CC No.4544/2023
4
statement of accused as per Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. was
recorded the accused had no explanation and he denied
the incriminating circumstances appearing against him.
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
03.04.2023 at 1.00 a.m. accused
being the driver of auto bearing
registration No.KA-01-AK-3853 drove
the same within the jurisdiction of
H.S.R. Layout Traffic Police station at
Parangipalya towards KEB Office
junction at a high speed in a rash
and negligent manner so as to
endanger human life, thereby
committed an offence punishable
under Sec.279 of IPC Act?
CC No.4544/2023
5
2. Whether the prosecution proves
beyond all reasonable doubt that, on
the same date, time and place
accused drove his vehicle in a rash
and negligent manner and meanwhile
two wheeler bearing No.KA-04-KL-
7932 which was came on 24th main
road from Lotus hospital towards
Parangipalya and saw the accused
vehicle which was came in a rash and
negligent manner and he suddenly
applied break to his vehicle as as a
result rider and pillion rider i.e.,
C.W.2 fell down along with the vehicle
and accused vehicle hit to both rider
and pillion rider. Due to the impact
rider of two wheeler sustained
grievous injuries and succumbed to
death and pillion rider C.W.2
sustained scratch injuries on left leg.
thereby accused committed an offence
punishable U/Sec.304(A) of IPC ?
CC No.4544/2023
6
3. Whether the prosecution proves
beyond reasonable doubt that, after
the accident accused has failed to
provide medical assistance to the
injured and also failed to inform the
same to the nearest police station,
thereby accused committed an
offence punishable under Sec.134 (A
& B) R/w Sec.187 of IMV Act?
4. Whether the prosecution proves
beyond reasonable doubt that, at the
time of accident offending vehicle did
not had valid insurance thereby
accused committed an offence
punishable U/Sec.146 R/w Sec.196 of
IMV Act?
5. 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 negative;
CC No.4544/2023
7Point No.4 : In the affirmative;
Point No.5 : As per final order for the
following;
REASONS
8. Point No.1 to 4: 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 is
that on 03.04.2023 at 1.00 a.m. accused being the driver
of auto bearing registration No.KA-01-AK-3853 drove the
same within the jurisdiction of H.S.R. Layout Traffic
Police station at Parangipalya towards KEB Office
junction at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner
so as to endanger human life meanwhile one two wheeler
bearing No.KA-04-KL-7932 which was came on 24 th main
road from Lotus hospital towards Parangipalya and saw
the accused vehicle which was came in a rash and
negligent manner suddenly applied break to his vehicle
as as a result rider and pillion rider i.e., C.W.2 fell down
and accused vehicle hit to both rider and pillion rider.
CC No.4544/2023
8
Due to the impact rider of two wheeler sustained grievous
injuries and succumbed to death and pillion rider C.W.2
sustained scratch injuries on left leg. Further, after the
accident accused has failed to provide medical assistance
to the injured and also failed to inform the same to the
nearest police station. Further at the time of accident
offending vehicle did not had valid insurance.
10. In order to bring home the charge against the
accused the prosecution has examined 7 witnesses as
PWs.1 to 7 and got marked Ex.P.1 to 16. Ex.P.1 is the
complaint, Ex.P.2 is the spot mahazar, Ex.P.3 is the
statement of P.W.5, Ex.P.6 is the rough sketch, Ex.P.7 is
the inquest mahazar, Ex.P.8 is the CDR, Ex.P.9 is the
IMV report, Ex.P.10 is the PM report, Ex.P.11 & 12 are
the notice and reply U/Sec.133 of IMV Act, Ex.P.13 is the
IMV report, Ex.P.14 is the 2 photos, Ex.P.15 & 16 are the
CD.
11. Before adverting to the appreciation of
evidence it is proper to state in brief the evidence
deposed by the prosecution witnesses.
CC No.4544/2023
9
12. C.W.1 examined as P.W.1 is the complainant. He
deposed that deceased Gokul Das is brother of his wife
and on 02.04.2023 deceased Gokul Das and C.W.2 went
to watch IPC cricket match and while returning in his
two wheeler at HSR layout, Parangipalya layout Agrahara
one auto bearing No.3853 hit to them and both sustained
simple injuries and driver of the auto went away from the
spot as there is no major injuries sustained to them.
After that C.W.2 went away from the spot as he got call
and informed Gokul Das to go to home. Gokul Das
sustained internal bleeding injury and he was sitting at
the spot till 5.00 a.m. and public informed the same to
the police and on 03.04.2023 at 7.00 p.m. police
informed the same to him through phone. With this
regard he has lodged a complaint as per Ex.P.1. Further
he deposed that, one week after the accident police called
him to the station and shown CCTV footage of the
accident. Further he deposed that, he does not know on
whose fault accident occurred. In his cross examination
he has denied the suggestion that, deceased Gokul Das
had consumed alcohol and the accident occurred due to
his fault.
CC No.4544/2023
10
13. C.W.2 examined as P.W.2 is the eye witness and
victim of this case. He deposed that, on 02.04.2023 at
1.00 p.m. he was the pillion rider and his friend Gokul
Das was riding the bike on 24th Main road, HSR Layout,
near Muthoot finance one auto came from their front and
hit to their vehicle and they fell down and 2 Swiggy
delivery boys helped them to sit and he sustained
bleeding injury on his leg and Gokul Das did not have
any bleeding injury hence, he informed him to go to
home, for that he went to home. On next day his friend
informed that Gokul Das succumbed to death. With this
regard he has given statement to the police. Further he
deposed that, accident has occurred due to the fault of
the driver of the offending vehicle. 10 days after the
accident police called him to station obtained his
signature on Ex.P.2 and shown the driver of the auto.
On 04.04.2023 he has shown the accident spot to the
police. In his cross examination he has admitted that,
deceased Gokul Das had consumed alcohol before the
accident. He has admitted that, he has not observed the
auto before the accident occurred. He has admitted that,
there were many pot holes in the spot of accident. He
CC No.4544/2023
11
has also admitted that, Gokul Das could have avoided
injuries if he was wearing the helmet.
14. C.W.5 examined as P.W.3 is the mahazar witness
of this case. He deposed that, C.W.1 is his friend and on
03.04.2023 at 7.00 a.m. police conducted spot mahazar
at accident spot as per Ex.P.2 in his presence and
obtained his signature on it and along with him C.W.6
also signed on it and accident spot shown by the public
to the police. In his cross examination he has admitted
that, he signed to Ex.P.2 in the police station.
15. C.W.6 examined as P.W.4 is the mahazar witness
of this case. He deposed that, C.W.1 is known to him
and on 03.04.2023 at 7.00 a.m. police conducted spot
mahazar at accident spot as per Ex.P.2 in his presence
and obtained his signature on it and along with him
C.W.6 also signed on it and accident spot shown by the
public to the police. In his cross examination he has
admitted that, he signed to Ex.P.2 in the police station.
16. C.W.4 examined as P.W.5 is the other witness.
He deposed that, on 04.03.2023 at 5.00 a.m. he was
CC No.4544/2023
12
proceeding from Parangi Palya towards Agara at that time
near Muthoot Finance Boutique shop public gathered
and at spot one person laying on the road and public
informed that he had died. He informed the same to the
police. Further he deposed that, at spot one scooty
bearing No.KA-04-KL-7932 was standing and that
vehicle’s front sheet and mirror got damaged. Further he
deposed that, he does not know how accident took place
and police told the name of the deceased as Gokul. The
counsel for the accused has not cross examine this
witness.
17. C.W.3 examined as P.W.6 is the eye witness to
the accident. He deposed that, on 2 nd or 3rd April 2023
between 1.00 to 1.30 a.m. he was proceeding in his bike
at 24th main road, Parangi Palya at that time near
Muthoot finance in front of him 2 persons proceeding in
a scooter meanwhile one auto rickshaw came in opposite
direction and hit to said scooter, as a result both fell
down and rider sustained injuries on his shoulder and
leg and pillion rider sustained injuries on his leg. After
the accident driver of the offending vehicle went away
CC No.4544/2023
13
from the spot. 2 days after the accident police called
him for enquiry and informed that rider succumbed to
death in the accident. Further he deposed that, he does
not know on whose fault accident occurred. In his cross
examination he has admitted that, he went to the spot of
accident 15-20 minutes after the accident.
18. C.W.22 examined as P.W.7 is the Investigating
Officer and he has deposed about the investigation
conducted by him. In his Cross Examination nothing
worthful elicited from him to disbelieve his evidence.
19. 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.
CC No.4544/2023
14
20. 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
iv) there must be a direct link between the rash and
negligent act and death of the victim.
21. After marshalling all the oral and documentary
evidence it is crystal clear that, in this case, there is
dispute regarding the accused and his vehicle being
involved in the accident. There is no dispute about the
death of Gokul Das who who riding motor cycle bearing
registration No.KA-04-KL-7932. As per P.M.
report/Ex.P.10 the injuries are ante-mortem and death
occurred due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of
blunt injuries sustained to chest and abdomen. Hence,
there is no dispute that the injuries were sustained by
the deceased as a result of accident. There is no dispute
regarding IMV report as per Ex.P.13, which states that
CC No.4544/2023
15
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 the Gokul Das is not disputed. The Court
only needs to consider if the accused was involved in the
accident and if there was any negligence or rashness on
the part of the accused due to which the accident
occurred.
22. In order to prove that the accused was driving the
offending vehicle the prosecution is relying on the trip
details by Namma Yathri App marked as Ex.P.8.
Admittedly, in this case P.W.1 has lodged a complaint
against unknown auto rickshaw driver. None of the eye
witnesses including the victim witness have stated the
auto rickshaw registration number at the time of giving
their statement to the police at the first instance.
Thereafter, I.O. has issued notice to Ola, Uber, Namma
Yathri companies to give him details about the autos
which were on duty in the spot of accident at the time of
accident. Thereafter, on receiving Ex.P.8 from Namma
Yathri company I.O has arrived at a conclusion that the
CC No.4544/2023
16
accused vehicle is involved in the accident. Thereafter,
I.O. has summoned the accused and it appears that the
I.O. has taken further statement from all the eye
witnesses regarding the registration number of the auto
and identification of the accused. Even though there are
statements of eye witnesses U/Sec.161 of Cr.PC
identifying the accused and the offending vehicle none of
the eye witnesses have stated the registration number of
the auto and identified the accused before this Court at
the time of deposing their evidence. They have all stated
that, they have not seen the accused and they have not
noted the registration number of the auto. They have
stated they have not given further statement to the I.O.
Under such circumstances the entire investigation comes
under a cloud of doubt. Further the I.O is relying on
CCTV footage marked as Ex.P.16 to prove the
involvement of the accused. But perusal of CCTV footage
reveals that the said footage is not clear and the
registration number of the auto and driver of the auto are
not visible in the CCTV footage. It is the defence of the
accused that, he passed through the spot of accident on
the date of accident after the accident had occurred and
CC No.4544/2023
17
he did not cause the accident. Since, none of the eye
witnesses are able to identify the accused or the
offending vehicle it creates a doubt in the mind of the
Court about the involvement of the accused in the
accident. Further, it is strange that IO has issued notice
to only 3 transport aggregator companies to ascertain the
offending vehicle by completely disregarding the fact that
there is a possibility of vehicles which are not connected
to the transport aggregator companies plying on the road
at the time of accident. Further, he has also disregarded
the fact that there are many transport aggregator
companies other than Ola, Uber and Namma Yathri.
Further, Ex.P.8 does not indicate the time during which
the vehicle of the accused passed through the spot of the
accident and it also does not bear the seal and signature
of Namma Yathri company. Hence, solely on the basis of
Ex.P.8 this Court cannot come to the conclusion that
accused and his vehicle were involved in the accident.
I.O has also relied on reply issued by accused to the
notice U/Sec.133 of IMV Act marked as Ex.P.11. Indeed
in the said reply accused has admitted that, he was
driving his auto bearing registration No.KA-01-AK-3853
CC No.4544/2023
18
on the date of accident in the spot of accident. But that
does not prove that the accident has occurred from the
vehicle driven by the accused. It is also pertinent to
note that as per IMV report of the auto marked as
Ex.P.13 there are no damages to the auto. As per the
eye witnesses the two wheeler of the deceased and the
auto have directly collided with each other. If that was
the case surely auto would have sustained some
damages. The fact that there are no damages to the auto
also creates a doubt about the auto being involved in the
accident.
23. Here it is also pertinent to note that, it is the case
of the prosecution that, on 03.04.2023 at 1.00 a.m.
accused being the driver of auto bearing registration
No.KA-01-AK-3853 drove the same within the jurisdiction
of H.S.R. Layout Traffic Police station at Parangipalya
towards KEB Office junction at a high speed in a rash
and negligent manner so as to endanger human life
meanwhile one two wheeler bearing No.KA-04-KL-7932
which was came on 24th main road from Lotus hospital
towards Parangipalya and saw the accused vehicle
CC No.4544/2023
19
which was came in a rash and negligent manner
suddenly applied break to his vehicle as as a result rider
and pillion rider i.e., C.W.2 fell down and accused vehicle
hit to both rider and pillion rider. Due to the impact rider
of two wheeler sustained grievous injuries and
succumbed to death and pillion rider C.W.2 sustained
scratch injuries on left leg. But contrary to the version of
the prosecution P.W.2 who is the injured witness has
stated that, there was a head on collision between the
auto and the scooter of the deceased. Even P.W.1 in his
complaint has stated that there was a head on collision
between the auto and the scooter. Under such
circumstances it is not clear how the I.O. has concluded
that the accused had applied breaks on seeing the auto
coming at high speed and he fell down thereafter the auto
hit the deceased and pillion rider. Therefore, the entire
investigation appears to be shoddy and without any
factual basis.
24. That apart, eye witnesses P.W.5 and 6 have
turned hostile to the case of the prosecution before the
Court and deposed that they have not witnessed the
CC No.4544/2023
20
accident and they arrived at the spot after the accident
had occurred. Therefore, their evidence is not helpful to
prove the guilt of the accused. Only P.W.2 i.e., the
injured witness has supported the prosecution. But as
already stated there is a discrepancy between the
evidence of PW.2 and the version of the prosecution.
Moreover, P.W.2 has clearly stated that deceased had
consumed alcohol before the accident. Even in
Ex.P.2/mahazar P.W.2 has stated that, himself and the
deceased went to M.K. Bar and consumed alcohol
thereafter they met with an accident. Hence, from
evidence of P.W.2 it is proved that deceased was driving
under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident.
In spite of P.W.2’s statement I.O has not collected blood
report of the deceased regarding alcohol content in the
blood of the deceased at the time of accident. Even this
is a loophole in the investigation. Since, the deceased
had consumed alcohol at the time of accident
contributory negligence on part of the deceased cannot
be ruled out. Further P.W.2 is an interested witness and
his evidence cannot be relied without corroborating
evidence and as already discussed there is no evidence
CC No.4544/2023
21
before this Court corroborating evidence of P.W.2. Even
if evidence of P.W.2 is accepted he has deposed that he
has not observed the auto before the accident and he has
admitted that, there were pot holes in the road and
deceased had consumed alcohol at the time of accident.
Therefore, when P.W.2 has not observed the auto before
the accident it cannot be said that the accident has
occurred due to the fault of the auto driver. As already
stated, P.W.2 is unable to identify the accused and the
auto. Under such circumstances evidence of P.W.2 does
not prove the guilt of the accused. P.W.1 is admittedly a
hearsay witness and his evidence is not helpful to the
case of the prosecution. P.W.3 and 4 are mahazar
witnesses and they have identified their signature in the
mahazar and deposed that they have visited the spot of
accident along with the police. But they have admitted
that, they are friends of P.W.1. Hence, even they are
interested witnesses. Even if mahazar is accepted it does
not prove the guilt of the accused.
25. It is the burden of the prosecution to prove
the guilt of the accused. The evidence placed on record
CC No.4544/2023
22
do not rise up to the expectation to prove beyond
reasonable doubt in so far as the involvement of accused
in the incident is concerned. Therefore, the prosecution
version that on the account of rash and negligent
driving by the accused, accident has occurred cannot be
held to be proved. Since, the accident did not occur due
to the negligence or rashness of the accused the liability
U/Sec.134(A & B) of IMV Act cannot be imposed on the
accused.
26. 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. Hence, mere evidence of official
witnesses are insufficient to prove the guilt of accused.
Therefore, by considering the overall facts and
circumstances of this case, this court is of the considered
view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of
the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, point
Nos.1 to 3 are answered in the Negative.
27. However, the allegation against accused that
he is the owner of offending vehicle and he did not
CC No.4544/2023
23
possess vehicle insurance on the date of the incident. As
there is nothing on record to show that he did possess
valid insurance on the date of the offence. Hence, point 4
is answered in the affirmative.
28. Point No.5: In view of the findings on point
Nos.1 to 4, this court proceeds to pass the following;
ORDER
Acting under Sec.255(1) of
Cr.P.C. accused is hereby acquitted
for accusation of commission of the
offence punishable U/Sec.279 and
304(A) of IPC & Sec.134(A & B) R/w
Sec.187 of IMV Act.
Acting U/Sec.255(2) of Criminal
Procedure code, the accused is
hereby convicted of the offences
punishable U/Sec.Sec.146 R/w 196
of IMV Act.
Accused is sentenced to pay fine
of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand
CC No.4544/2023
24
only) in default shall undergo simple
imprisonment for a period one
month for the offence punishable
U/Sec.146 R/w 196 of IMV Act.
His bail bond and surety
bond 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 5th day of May, 2025)
(Akhila H.K.)
JMFC (Traffic Court-VI),
Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION:
PW.1 Pavithran PW.2 Karthika P.V. PW.3 Unnikrishna PW.4 Subhesh Kumar PW.5 Mallikarjun PW.6 Varun Kumar C PW.7 Naveen Kumar
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 Complaint
Ex.P.2 Spot Mahazar
CC No.4544/2023
25
Ex.P.3 Statement of P.W.5
Ex.P.4 Restatements of P.W.6
Ex.P.5 FIR
Ex.P.6 Rough sketch
Ex.P.7 Inquest mahazar
Ex.P.8 CDR
Ex.P.9 IMV report
Ex.P.10 PM report
Ex.P.11-12 Notice & Reply U/Sec.133 of IMV Act
Ex.P.13 IMV report
Ex.P.14 Photos
Ex.P.15 & 16 CD
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR ACCUSED:
-Nil-
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR ACCUSED:
-Nil-
(Akhila H.K.)
JMFC (Traffic Court-VI),
Bengaluru.
[ad_1]
Source link