Bangalore District Court
Jayanagara Trps vs Poornaiah D V on 17 April, 2026
KABC060087102022
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS
(TRAFFIC COURT - IV) AT BENGALURU
PRESENT: SRI TEJAS KUMAR S. B.A. LLB, LLM, DCL.,
JMFC (Traffic Court - IV),
BENGALURU
DATED : THIS THE 17th DAY OF APRIL 2026
C.C. No.8331/2022
COMPLAINANT: State by Jayanagar Traffic Police
Station, Bangalore
(Represented by: APP)
V/S.
ACCUSED: 1) Sri Poornaiah D.V.,
S/o. Late Venkata Ratnam,
Age: 72 years,
R/at No.1755, 'C' Block,
21st cross, 4th main road,
Shankaranagara,
Bengaluru - 560 092
(Represented by: Sri Rajagopala Naidu, Adv.)
2
C.C.No.8331/2022
LIST OF DATES
Date of Offence 24-06-2022
Date of FIR 26-06-2022
Date of Charge-sheet 09-08-2022
Date of framing of substance of accusations 16-03-2023
Date of commencement of evidence 11-08-2023
Date on which judgment is reserved 10-04-2026
Date of Judgment 17-04-2026
Date of Sentencing order, if any -
ACCUSED DETAILS
Rank Name of Date Date of Offences Whether Sentence Period of
of the Accused of Release Charged with Acquitted imposed detention
Accus Arrest on Bail or undergone
ed Convicted during
Trial for
purpose of
Section
428 CrPC
1. Sri - - Sec.279 and Acquitted - -
Poornaiah 338 of IPC,
D.V.
Sec.134(b) Convicted
R/w.187 of
M.V.Act
***
JUDGEMENT
The Sub-Inspector of Jayanagara Traffic Police
Station has filed the charge sheet against the accused for
the offences punishable U/s.279 and 338 of IPC,
Sec.134(b) R/w.187 of M.V.Act.
3
C.C.No.8331/2022
2. The brief case of the prosecution is that:
On 24-06-2022 at about 06.00 p.m. within the
jurisdiction of Jayanagara Traffic police station, the
accused being the driver of Maruthi Suzuki Alto Car
bearing registration No.KA-05-MG-1734 drove the same
J.P. Nagara 1st stage, in front of Indian Bank, 9th cross
road in a rash or negligent manner so as to endanger
human life he stopped his vehicle on the side of the road,
without putting any indicator took a right turn in a
negligent manner and dashed to Suzuki Axis Scooter
bearing registration No.KA-05-LB-0356 which was
proceeding in the said road. Due to the impact rider
C.W.1 fell on road with vehicle and sustained grievous
injuries on her face, teeth and right wrist was fractured.
Further the accused did not intimate the police station
about the accident. Thereby the accused is alleged to
have committed the offences punishable U/s.279 and
338 of IPC, Sec.134(b) R/w.187 of M.V.Act.
3. On the report of PW1, police registered FIR for
offences p/u/s U/s.279 & 338 of IPC, Sec.134(b)
R/w.187 of M.V.Act and commenced investigation. IO
prepared inquest panchnama, Seizure panchnama and
spot panchnama. He collected IMV report and PM report.
He recorded statements of witnesses and also injured
4
C.C.No.8331/2022
accused. After the completion of investigation the police
have submitted the charge sheet against the accused
persons for the aforesaid offences as the IO found that it
was the exclusive negligence of accused which resulted
in accident.
4. Acting on the charge-sheet, cognizance of the
offence U/s.190(1)(b) of Cr.P.C was taken and case came
to be registered against accused for the offences
punishable U/s.279 & 338 of IPC, Sec.134(b) R/w.187 of
M.V.Act. The accused appeared before the court through
his learned counsel and got enlarged on bail. Charge
sheet copies were furnished to the accused and thereby
provision U/s.207 of Cr.P.C. has been duly complied
with.
5. Subsequently, plea came to be framed for the
offences U/s.279 & 338 of IPC, Sec.134(b)
R/w.187 of M.V.Act for which accused pleaded not guilty
claimed to be tried.
6. During the course of trial, the prosecution has
examined P.W.1 and 2 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
5
C.C.No.8331/2022
incriminating evidence appearing against him and did not
choose to lead any defence evidence.
7. Heard arguments on both sides.
8. The points that arise for my consideration are as
follows:
1.Whether the prosecution proves beyond all
reasonable doubt that on 24-06-2022 at
about 06.00 p.m. within the jurisdiction of
Jayanagara Traffic police station, the accused
being the driver of Maruthi Suzuki Alto Car
bearing registration No.KA-05-MG-1734 drove
the same J.P. Nagara 1st stage, in front of
Indian Bank, 9th cross road in a rash or
negligent manner so as to endanger human
life he stopped his vehicle on the side of the
road, without putting any indicator took a
right turn in a negligent manner, 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 and dashed to Suzuki Access Scooter
bearing registration No.KA-05-LB-0356 which
was proceeding in the said road. Due to the
impact rider C.W.1 fell on road with vehicle
and sustained grievous injuries on her face,
teeth and right wrist was fractured, thereby
the accused has committed an offence
punishable U/s.338 of IPC?
6
C.C.No.8331/2022
3. Whether the prosecution further proves that
the accused did not intimate the police about
the accident, thereby the accused has
committed an offence punishable U/s.134 (b)
R/w. Sec.187 of M.V.Act?
4. What order?
9. 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: IN THE AFFIRMATIVE
4. POINT No.4: AS PER THE FINAL ORDER
For the following
REASONS
10. 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.
11. It is the case of the prosecution that on
24-06-2022 at about 06.00 p.m. within the jurisdiction of
Jayanagara Traffic police station, the accused being the
driver of Maruthi Suzuki Alto Car bearing registration
No.KA-05-MG-1734 drove the same J.P. Nagara 1st stage,
in front of Indian Bank, 9th cross road in a rash or
negligent manner so as to endanger human life he
stopped his vehicle on the side of the road, without
putting any indicator took a right turn in a negligent
7
C.C.No.8331/2022
manner and dashed to Suzuki Axis Scooter bearing
registration No.KA-05-LB-0356 which was proceeding in
the said road. Due to the impact rider C.W.1 fell on road
with vehicle and sustained grievous injuries on her face,
teeth and right wrist was fractured. Further the accused
did not intimate the police station about the accident.
Thereby the accused is alleged to have committed the
offences punishable U/s.279 and 338 of IPC, Sec.134(b)
R/w.187 of M.V.Act.
12. In order to prove the contents of complaint
the prosecution examined 2 witnesses as P.W.1 and
P.W.2 and marked 9 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9.
13. C.W.1/ Smt. Mahalakshmi is examined as
P.W.1 who deposed that she was working as a
receptionist at Janani Clinic in J.P. Nagar and was going
to college to study in the evening. On 24-06-2022 she
finished her work around 6.00 p.m., while she was going
to evening college at Jayanagar in her two wheeler
bearing registration No.KA-05-LB-0365 at J.P. Nagar 1st
stage, 9th cross road, near Dental college junction one
Alto car driver suddenly took his vehicle to the right side
and dashed to her vehicle and moved forward without
stopping. Due to the impact she rubbed 4-5 feet forward.
Later the general public came and helped her and the car
8
C.C.No.8331/2022
driver also came. Her two teeth are broken and hand
bone was also broken. Later, the public took her to the
nearby Prem Hospital. They did an X-ray and found that
her hand bone was broken. They said that she needed
surgery for one of the injuries and gave her first aid.
Later, she was shifted to the nearby Rajashekar Hospital.
Later, her husband and the police came to the hospital.
The next day she underwent surgery. On the 26th, the
police came to the hospital and recorded her statement.
She had given a statement requesting action to be taken
against the driver of the car number KA-05-MG-1734
that hit her. She had put her thumb to the statement
because she had surgery on her hand at the time. She
has identified the accused present before the court. The
accident has occurred due to the car driver suddenly
crossed to the other side of the road without giving any
intimation.
During the course of cross-examination by the
learned counsel for accused, P.W.1 deposed that on the
day of accident she was working at Janani clinic and her
work timings was from morning 8.30 a.m. to evening 5.00
p.m. Further she deposed that her college timings is
around 5.45 p.m. to 9.00 p.m. and the accident had
taken place at about 6.00 p.m. in the evening. It is
9
C.C.No.8331/2022
deposed that the vehicle which caused the accident
initially standing on the road and when P.W.1 came the
vehicle which caused the accident started moving. It is
denied that P.W.1 was going college in a fast manner as it
was getting late to the college. It is denied that P.W.1
himself voluntarily went and hit the car. It is deposed
that on 26th police had recorded the statement of P.W.1. It
is deposed that P.W.1 was taken to the hospital by the
public and not by the accused. It is denied that the
accused had taken the P.W.1 to the hospital. It is denied
that the accused has signaled the people who were
coming behind while moving the vehicle. Further it is
deposed that the accused did not made any hand signal
nor turned on the indicator. It is admitted that initially
the accused stated that he will look after the medical
expenses and same has been stated in the complaint, but
later the accused did not receive phone, hence P.W.1 had
filed complaint before the police. Further it is deposed
that on 24-06-2022 the accident had taken place. It is
denied that the accused has taken care of all the medical
expenses of P.W.1. It is denied that P.W.1 demanded
huge money from the accused and when accused did not
pay the same P.W.1 initiated to file a complaint against
the accused. It is denied that P.W.1 himself drove the
vehicle in a rash or negligent manner and the vehicle was
10
C.C.No.8331/2022
not in a control she hit the vehicle of the accused. P.W.1
denies she is deposing false evidence before the court.
14. C.W.7/ Sri Puttaswamy is examined as
P.W.2 who is the Investigating Officer of this case. He
deposed that on 25-06-2022 he received the report
regarding the road accident case from Rajashekar
hospital. When he visited hospital, the injured was
getting ready for surgery and the doctors said that he was
not in a condition to give statement. The next day, he
visited the hospital again and recorded the statement of
the injured person. On the basis of said complaint, he
registered the case in crime No.84/2022 for the offences
punishable U/s.279, 337, Sec.134(a and b) R/w.187 of
M.V.Act and forwarded the FIR to court and senior
officials. On the same day he enquired the eye witnesses
and conducted Panchanama at the accident spot in the
presence of C.W.3 and 4 between 4.00 to 5.00 p.m. and
prpeared one rough sketch. On the same day he recorded
the statement of C.W.2. On the next day he issue Sec.133
notice to the owner of the vehicle and sent requisition
letter to concerned the RTO inspector regarding the
inspection of the vehicles which involved in the accident.
On 28th he conducted the vehicle inspections. On 29 th he
revived reply to the notice. In the reply he found that the
11
C.C.No.8331/2022
vehicle was driven by him. He recorded the voluntary
statement and on the basis of said statement he arrested
the accused by following arrest procedure and released
him on station bail after obtaining necessary bonds. On
the same day he released the vehicle in favour of the
owner after obtaining necessary bonds. He sent a
requisition letter with regard to wound certificate. On the
same day he received the motor vehicle inspection report.
He received the wound certificate. Upon perusal of
records the investigation was completed and submitted
final report to court.
15. Out of the documents marked for
prosecution Ex.P.1 is the complaint, Ex.P.2 is the FIR,
Ex.P.3 is the spot mahazar, Ex.P.4 is the Rough sketch,
Ex.P.5 is the 133 notice, Ex.P.6 is the reply, Ex.P.7 is the
Indemnity bond, Ex.P.8 is the IMV Report and Ex.P.9 is
the wound certificate.
Defence of Accused
16. Learned Counsel for accused argued that
accused doesn’t deny the accident and involvement of
vehicle. Further that the victim himself was riding
negligently due to which the accident occurred. Hence the
negligence is on the victim. Further Learned Counsel for
12
C.C.No.8331/2022
accused argued that there is no evidence of rashness or
negligence. Further argued that the police to help family
members of victim to claim compensation have shifted
the rashness and negligence on accused without any
scientific basis. He argues that none of the eye-witnesses
supported the version of prosecution to state with
certainty that the accused was rash or whether the
accident occurred due to the negligence of the accused.
Thus, counsel for accused prayed to acquit the accused.
Evaluation of evidence
17. In the instant case the prosecution is
alleging that the accused being the driver of the bus
drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and
dashed to motor cycle, due to the impact the rider
sustained grievous injuries and prosecution contended
that accused committed the offences punishable U/s.279
and 338 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 to any
13
C.C.No.8331/2022
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: (i) 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.
18. In the instant case the prosecution though
listed 7 witness in charge sheet, but examined only 2
witnesses that one is complainant and the other is
investigating officer. In the case on hand prosecution
alleged that accused being the driver of the Car driven
the same in rash or negligent manner and dashed to
complainant’s scooter and thereby committed the said
offences. Among the witnesses examined on behalf of
prosecution P.W.1 is the complainant and victim of this
case. Apart from her the prosecution has examined the
investigating officer as P.W.2 and they did not examine
any other eye witness or mahazar witness to prove their
case. The complainant is examined as P.W.1 she deposed
that while she was going to college in her two wheeler
near dental college junction the accused came in high
speed and dashed to her two wheeler and due to which
14
C.C.No.8331/2022
she sustained injury on her left hand. In spite of
sufficient efforts made by the prosecution they were
unable to secure C.W.2 to 4 and in spite of issuance of
proclamation the prosecution did not find it routes to
secure C.W.2 to 4.
19. On the case in hand only the evidence of
P.W.1 and P.W.2 can be relied upon and P.W.1 states
about the accident and apart from her no eye witness
have been examined to prove the rash or negligence act of
the accused. P.W.2 who is the investigating officer has
deposed in his evidence that he has investigated the
matter in details and has filed charge sheet against the
accused. Apart from these two witnesses there are no
credible witnesses to rely upon for this court to come to a
conclusion that the accident had occurred due to the
speed and rash driving of the accused. Therefore in this
circumstance of the case the case on hand of the
prosecution regarding rash or negligent act of accused
could not be made out beyond reasonable doubt. This
court is of the opinion that the case of the prosecution
appears to be doubtful as such the evidence available on
record and the materials placed could not be relied upon
as to whether the accused had driven the said vehicle in
15
C.C.No.8331/2022
a rash or negligent manner so as to endanger human life
so as to personal safety to others.
20. Thus, this court finds that the prosecution
was unable to prove the negligence of accused which
resulted in accident and injury was caused. The accident
is admitted even by the accused, thus is not sufficient to
merely prove the incident. In the absence of clear and
unambiguous evidence against accused, Accused must
be given the benefit and be acquitted. The evidence led by
prosecution is not only deficient on the essential
ingredient of rashness or negligence in driving the vehicle
but even the eye witnesses do not appear to be believable
witnesses. The accusations levelled against the accused
remained unproved and the accusation of the prosecution
is not supported by evidence to complete the chain.
Accordingly, the points under determination are
answered point No.1 and 2 IN THE NEGATIVE.
21. POINT No.3: In the instant case it is alleged
that the accused did not intimate the police about the
accident on the date of the accident. Accordingly he has
committed the offence punishable U/s.134(b) R/w.187 of
M.V.Act. It is pertinent to note that the accused has not
led any defence evidence to rebut the evidence adduced
by P.W.1 and 2. After meticulous observation it is
16
C.C.No.8331/2022
important to note that the accused has not denied the
accident and has not proved why he was unable to inform
the police regarding the occurrence of accident. Therefore
adverse inference can be drawn against the accused for
the offences U/s.134(b) R/w.187 of M.V. Act. The
accused has not contested this aspect and did not cross-
examine the witnesses on this aspect, and they did not
furnish any documents to deny the case of the
prosecution with regard to the allegations leveled against
him. Hence, the court answer this point IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE.
22. POINT No.4: In view of the above
discussions and findings, this court proceeds 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/s.279 & 338 of IPC.
Acting U/s.255(2) of Criminal Procedure
code, the accused is hereby convicted of the
offences alleged against him punishable
U/s.134(b) R/w.187 of M.V.Act.
The accused is directed to pay fine of
Rs.5,000/- for the offences punishable
U/s.134(b) R/w.187 of M.V.Act. In default
shall under go SI for a period of 3 months.
17
C.C.No.8331/2022
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
17th day of April 2026).
(TEJAS KUMAR S.)
JMFC (Traffic Court – IV),
BENGALURU
ANNEXURE
1. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
P.W.1: Smt. Mahalakshmi
P.W.2: Sri Puttaswamy
2. LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1: Complaint
Ex.P.2: FIR
Ex.P.3: Spot mahazar
Ex.P.4: Rough Sketch
Ex.P.5: 133 notice
Ex.P.6: Reply
Ex.P.7: Indemnity bond
Ex.P.8: IMV Report
Ex.P.9: Wound certificate
3. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE ACCUSED:
NIL
4. LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE ACCUSED:
NIL
(TEJAS KUMAR S.)
JMFC (Traffic Court – IV),
BENGALURU
