Bangalore District Court
Raman Kumar vs Halasuru Traffic Ps, Bengaluru on 7 April, 2026
KABC0A0042312024
IN THE COURT OF THE XXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-29) MAYOHALL, BENGALURU
Dated this the 7th day of April, 2026.
PRESENT:
Sri BALAPPA APPANNA JARAGU B.Sc., LL.M.,
XXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
Criminal Appeal No.25424/2024
APPELLANT : Raman Kumar,
S/o. Mukinath Kunvar,
Aged about 32 years,
Residing at No.29, 1st Floor,
BDA Complex, Domluru,
Bengaluru - 560 071.
(By Sri Gagan V., Advocate)
-VERSUS-
RESPONDENT : State by Halasuru
Traffic Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(By Public Prosecutor)
JUDGMENT
This is a Criminal Appeal filed by the
appellant/accused No.1 under Section 415 of BNSS,
challenging the judgment of conviction and order of
2 Crl.A.No.25424/2024
sentence in CC.No.20597/2018 passed by learned
Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court-I, Mayohall Unit,
Bangalore dated 25.11.2024 and acquit the
Appellant/accused No.1 for the offences punishable
under Sections 279, 338 of IPC and Section 3(1) R/w
with Section 181, Section 134(A and B) R/w 187 of
2. The parties are referred to their respective
ranks they held before the Trial Court.
3. The brief facts of the case are that:
a) The accused/appellant having been charge-
sheeted for the offences punishable under under
Sections 279 and 338 of Indian Penal Code and Section
134(a) and (b) read with Section 187, 3(1) read with 181,
5 read with 180 of Indian Motor Vehicle Act, faced trial
before the Magistrate Court on the accusation that, on
26.03.2018 at or about 10.10 p.m., appellant/accused
No.1 being driver of Skoda Car bearing its registration
No.KA-41-MA-0123 drove it in reverse direction from
Lotus Anagha Apartment, situated on Shankarnag
Road, Dommalur towards Main Road dashed against
3 Crl.A.No.25424/2024
Suzuki Access Motorcycle bearing its registration
No.KA-41-L-2709 and caused injuries to C.W.4, who
was rider of said motorcycle. At that time, C.W.5 who
was pedestrian, who was walking on road also
sustained injuries in an accident caused by
appellant/accused No.1. After accident, accused neither
informed about incident to police nor attended injured
persons and ran away from spot. The accused No.1
without having valid license drove vehicle on public
road. Therefore, it is alleged that, accused has
committed the offences punishable under Sections
under Sections279 and 338 of Indian Penal Code and
Section 134(a) and (b) read with Section 187, 3(1) read
with 181, 5 read with 180 of Indian Motor Vehicle Act.
b) The prosecution in order to bring home the
guilt of the accused, in all has examined P.W.1 to P.W.6
and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10 have been marked. The Trial
Court, after recording 313 statement in respect of
incriminating material that has come in the evidence of
prosecution witnesses and hearing the arguments of
both sides, came to the conclusion that, the accused
4 Crl.A.No.25424/2024
No.1 by his rash and negligent driving caused an
accident to C.W.4 and C.W.5 and they have sustained
grievous injuries in accident. Finally, the accused/
appellant was sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and
in default to pay a fine, to undergo one moth simple
imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section
279 of Indian Penal Code. Further the accused/
appellant was sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for 30 days and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-
and in default to pay a fine, to undergo 30 days simple
imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section
338 of Indian Penal Code. Further, the accused/
appellant was sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in
default to pay a fine, to undergo one month simple
imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section
3(1) read with 187 of IMV Act. Further, the
accused/appellant was sentenced to pay fine of
Rs.1,000/- and in default to pay a fine, to undergo one
month simple imprisonment for the offence punishable
under Section134(A) and (B) read with 187 of IMV Act.
4. Feeling aggrieved by this Judgment of
conviction and order of sentence, accused
5 Crl.A.No.25424/2024
No.1/appellant has come up in this appeal, challenging
the correctness and validity of the same on the following
grounds:-
The impugned judgment of conviction and order of
sentence is illegal, perverse and devoid of merits, liable
to be set aside. Prosecution has failed to establish case
against accused for alleged offences. In spite of
examination of two eye-witnesses, nothing was
establishes to prove guilt of accused. The trial court
failed to appreciate, appellant was driving vehicle in
reverse direction where view of driver normally is limited
comparatively when driving in straight manner. The
trial court failed to appreciate P.W.1 is brother of
injured C.W.5. The P.W.1 and P.W.2 not supported case
of prosecution, during cross-examination by learned
Public Prosecutor they supported case of prosecution.
The trial court further failed to appreciate, P.W.3
injured nowhere stated, appellant was rush and
negligent in driving the car. The prosecution has not
complied issuance of certificate under Section 65B of
Indian Evidence Act, as such video footage cannot be
6 Crl.A.No.25424/2024taken into record. No prosecution case made out
satisfactorily as per law. Hence, on these grounds, he
has prayed for setting-aside the judgment of conviction
passed against him and to acquit him by allowing this
appeal.
5. After receiving the appeal, sentence of
imprisonment has been suspended by Predecessor-in-
office as per the order dated 25.11.2024 subject to
deposit of fine amount. The respondent appeared
through learned Public Prosecutor. The Trial Court
records have been secured.
6. I have heard the arguments on both sides and
perused the records.
7. The points that arise for my determination are:
1. Whether the prosecution has
established, on 26.03.2018 at or about
10.10 p.m., the accused
No.1/appellant being driver of Car
bearing its registration No.KA-41-MA-
0123, drove it from Anaga Lotus
Apartment situated on Shankarnag
Road, Domalur Mani Road, in reverse
direction in rash and negligent manner
7 Crl.A.No.25424/2024and dashed against Motorcycle of
C.W.4 and dashed against C.W.5
caused injuries to them and at the
time of accident appellant had no valid
driving license and he has not
attended injured and informed about
accident to nearest police station
thereby committed the offence
punishable under Sections Sections
279, 338 of IPC and Section 3(1) read
with Section 181, 134(A and B) read
with 187 of Indian Motor Vehicle Act?
2. Whether the finding given by the Trial
Court on point Nos.1 to 5 raised by it
are erroneous, so as to interfere with
the judgment?
3. What order?
8. My answers to the above points are as under:-
POINT No.1 – In the affirmative;
POINT No.2 – In the negative;
POINT No.3 – As per final order,
for the following –
REASONS
9. POINTS NO.1 AND 2 :- As these points are
inter-related to each other and involves common
8 Crl.A.No.25424/2024
appreciation of facts and evidence on record, findings on
one point are bearing on other point, in order to avoid
repetition of facts and for convenience sake, both points
are taken together for common discussion.
10. During the course of arguments, the learned
counsel for the appellant has submitted that, there are
many contradictions in evidence of prosecution
witnesses. Out of six witnesses examined by
prosecution, three witnesses have turned partly hostile.
The material witnesses like, doctor, RTO have not
examined before the court. No eye witnesses deposed
before court how accident actually occurred or whether
accident occurred because of only rash and negligent
act of appellant.
11. Now, this is the first Appellate Court and its
powers are well defined under Section 386 of Cr.P.C.
Now, this appeal being filed by the accused/appellant,
challenging the judgment of conviction, the Appellate
Court has got full powers to re-appreciate the evidence
to assess as to, whether the conclusion arrived at by the
Trial Court and consequent findings on points for
9 Crl.A.No.25424/2024
consideration are correct or not? In so doing, as per the
provisions of Section 386(b) of Cr.P.C., the Appellate
Court can;
i) Reverse the findings and sentence and acquit
or discharge the accused, or order him to be
re-tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction
subordinate to such Appellate Court or
committed for trial, or
ii) alter the finding, maintaining the sentence,
or
iii) with or without altering the finding, alter
the nature or the extent, or the nature and
extent, of the sentence, but not so to enhance
the same.
12. On careful re-appreciation of entire material
on record, P.W.4 – Purushotham being complainant has
deposed in consonance with his First Information
Statement as per Ex.P.2. It is specifically stated by
P.W.4 that, when he himself, his mother, his brother
and his nephew were walking towards Shankarnag
Road opposite to Lotus Anagha Apartment, accused
being driver of Car involved in accident drove it in
reverse direction and dashed against C.W.5.
13. The P.W.4 in his cross-examination by learned
Public Prosecutor has clearly deposed that, before Car
hit against C.W.5, it was dashed against Suzuki Access
10 Crl.A.No.25424/2024
Scooter bearing it’s registration No.KA-41-L-2709. It is
further specifically stated by P.W.4 that, it was the
accused No.1, who present before court, who was
driving Car at the time of said accident. The P.W.4 has
identified accused No.1 before court. When it is
suggested to P.W.4 that, on that day, it was accused
No.2 who was driving Car, same has been denied as
false.
14. Eye witness to accident, who is P.W.1-
Niranjan in his evidence before the court has deposed,
on 26.03.2018 at or about 10.00 p.m., Skoda Car was
coming in reverse direction and dashed against
Vaibhav. In said accident, Vaibhav has sustained
injuries on chest and stomach. The witnesses has
identified accused No.1 as Car driver, who caused
accident on that day. The P.W.1 also deposed in his
cross-examination by learned Public Prosecutor that,
Car firstly dashed against Suzuki Access Scooter
bearing No.KA-41-L-2709.
15. The P.W.3 – Maruthi, who is injured in
accident has deposed, accused No.1 drove Skoda Car in
11 Crl.A.No.25424/2024
reverse direction and dashed against him. Further, Car
dashed to Vaibhav, who was pedestrian on road. The
P.W.3 has specifically deposed, he sustained injuries in
accident on his forehead, head, left hand, left leg,
stomach and ribs. He specifically stated, he was
admitted to Chinmaya Hospital and thereafter to St
Johns Hospital for treatment.
16. Wound certificate of Vaibhav has been
produced as per Ex.P.3. Likewise wound certificate of
P.W.3-Maruthi has been produced as per Ex.P.4. In
these documents, it is mentioned, alleged history of
road traffic accident. The eye-witnesses and injured
P.W.3 in their evidence have clearly stated, it is the
accused, who caused accident in which Vaibhav and
P.W.3 have sustained injuries as mentioned in wound
certificates as per Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4.
17. The P.W.6-Suresh PSI., in his evidence has
deposed, he received First Information Statement as per
Ex.P.2 filed by P.W.4 and registered case in crime
No.23/2018 and prepared FIR and submitted same to
12 Crl.A.No.25424/2024
the court. It is specifically stated by P.W.6 that, he
collected wound certificates as per Ex.P3 and Ex.P.4.
18. The P.W.1- Niranjan in his evidence has
deposed, spot mahazar as per Ex.P.1 conducted in his
presence. The P.W.2- Harish Babu, who is one of
witnesses to spot mahazar has deposed, in his presence
spot mahazar as per Ex.P.1 was conducted. The P.W.6
has deposed, on same day, when accident took place, he
visited spot and conducted spot mahazar as per Ex.P.1
in the presence of C.W.1 to C.W.3. Further he deposed,
as per Ex.P.8 rough sketch of spot prepared.
19. P.W.6 has deposed, during investigation of
case, he collected IMV report as per Ex.P.4. On perusal
of Ex.P.5 it is mentioned, damages to vehicle bearing it’s
registration No.KA-41-MA-0123 and vehicle bearing it’s
registration No.KA-41-L-2709 and it is clearly
mentioned damages are fresh. The RTO has opined,
above accident is not due to any mechanical defects of
vehicles.
20. While cross examining P.W.1 it was suggested
as there was dark, he could not able to see accident,
13 Crl.A.No.25424/2024
same is denied as false. While cross examining P.W.3 it
is suggested, said accident was due to his fault, same is
denied as false. The P.W.4 has specifically stated, after
accident, he dragged the accused No.1 from Car. The
P.W.5- Kanji deposed, on 27.03.2018 Police come to his
shop and he furnished police a CC TV footage. The
P.W.6 has specifically stated, at the time of accident,
accused No.1 had no valid driving license. To disprove
same, accused No.1 has not produced driving license
before Investigating Officer or before court.
21. As per contents of charge sheet, accused No.1
arrested on 28.03.2018. Accident took place on
26.03.2018. It is clear that, after accident, accused
No.1 has not attended injured and he has not informed
factum accident to nearest Police Station.
22. It is worth to note here that, from evidence of
witnesses as referred above, prosecution sufficiently
proved, the accused by his rash and negligent driving
caused an accident in which Vaibhav and Maruthi have
sustained grievous injuries and at the time of accident,
accused No.1 had no valid driving license issued by
14 Crl.A.No.25424/2024
competent authority and after accident accused No.1
has not attended injured and informed about accident
to nearest Police Station.
23. There is much consistency in evidence of eye-
witnesses and injured. Furthermore evidence of these
witnesses and other official witnesses is natural and
inspires the confidence of court. Considering these
facts, the prosecution with support of evidences of
witnesses has sufficiently established ingredients of
section 279, 338 of IPC and section 3(1) read with 181
and section 134 (A and B) read with section 187 of
Indian Motor Vehicle Act. Therefore, on close scrutiny
of the evidence on record and its re-appreciation as
above, the grounds urged by the appellant in the
Memorandum of Appeal and one urged by the learned
counsel for the accused during the course of argument,
are not sustainable and absolutely, there is no scope for
this Appellate Court to find fault with the findings of the
Trial Court so as to interfere with the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence.
15 Crl.A.No.25424/2024
24. The learned counsel for appellant has argued
that, accused No.1 is aged about 26 years and he is
Watchman, if he send to Jail for one month as ordered
by learned Trail court for offence under section 338 of
IPC, his family will be put to hardship, it is accused
No.1 is only bread earner of family. The learned counsel
for appellant requested the court to suitably modify
sentence imposed by learned trial court in respect of
offence under section 338 of IPC.
25. It is worth to note here that, there is no
specific order by learned trial court that, fine is part of
sentence. As per section 357 (3) of Cr.P.C.,
compensation can be awarded in addition to fine
imposed. Looking into nature of injury sustained by
Maruthi and Vaibhav in accident caused by appellant
and his financial capacity to pay compensation,
sentence in respect of offence under section 338 of IPC
by learned trial court is hereby modified as accused
No.1 is convicted for offence punishable under section
338 of IPC and he shall pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in
default of payment of fine he shall undergo simple
16 Crl.A.No.25424/2024
imprisonment for one month, in addition, appellant has
to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- as per provisions of
section 357 (3) of Cr.P.C. and in default of payment of
compensation, he shall undergo simple imprisonment
for one month. Hence, I answer point No.1 in the
affirmative and point No.2 in the negative.
26. Point No.3: In view of my findings on above
points, this appeal deserves to be allowed by modifying
order of sentence only in respect of sentence pertaining
to offence under section 338 of IPC and by confirming
judgment in respect of other offences. Hence, I proceed
to pass the following:
ORDER
Criminal Appeal filed under
Section 415 of BNSS, by the accused
No.1/appellant is hereby allowed, by
confirming the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 25.11.2024 in CC
No.20597/2018 passed by the
Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court – I,
Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru in respect of
17 Crl.A.No.25424/2024offences punishable under section 279 of
IPC, section 3(1) r/w Section 181 and
section 134 (A and B) r/w Section 187 of
Indian Motor Vehicle Act.
So far as sentence in respect of
offence under section 338 of IPC is hereby
modified as accused No.1 is convicted for
offence punishable under section 338 of
IPC and he shall pay fine of Rs.1,000/-
and in default of payment of fine, he shall
undergo simple imprisonment for one
month, in addition, appellant/accused
No.1 has to pay compensation of
Rs.20,000/- as per provisions of section
357 (3) of Cr.P.C., in default of payment of
compensation, he shall undergo simple
imprisonment for one month.
After deposit of compensation amount as mentioned above by accused No.1/appellant before Trial court,
compensation amount of Rs.10,000/- be
given to Vaibhav and remaining
18 Crl.A.No.25424/2024Rs.10,000/- compensation amount be
given to Maruthi, who are injured in
accident.
Send back the lower court records
along with copy of this judgment.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, typed &
computerized by her, corrected and signed by me and then pronounced
in the open Court on this the 7th day of April, 2026.)
(BALAPPA APPANNA JARAGU)
XXVIII Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Mayohall, Bengaluru.
