Bus Driver Can't Be Held Negligent For Accident When Motorcyclist Fails To Ensure Road Is Clear Before Turning: P&H High Court

While granting acquittal in Death by negligence case, the Punjab & Haryana High Court said that the duty of care on the road applies equally to all motorists and that liability cannot be fastened on a bus driver in every case where  an element of contributory negligence on the part of the other driver is apparent.

The Court set-aside the conviction under Sections 304-A, 279, 427 IPC, wherein the appellant was convicted for rigorous imprisonment for 1 year.

Justice H.S. Grewal noted that, "The trial Court in...its judgment, observed that it was the duty of the bus driver to notice whether the motorcyclist was turning and to stop or slow down the bus. However, it was equally the duty of the motorcyclist to ensure, before taking the turn, that no vehicle was approaching from behind. The bus driver cannot be held negligent in every case where an element of contributory negligence on the part of the other driver is apparent."

The Court pointed that It was the responsibility of the deceased to make sure the road was clear before turning. The possibility of contributory negligence on his part cannot be ruled out. It is well settled that for an offence under section 304-A IPC, the act must be so rash or negligent that it shows a gross deviation from the care expected of a reasonable driver.

It observed that although the death of the motorcyclist, who was turning towards the city, is highly unfortunate, but it appears that the accident may have occurred due to his own negligence, lack of caution, or misjudgment while suddenly crossing to the other side without giving any signal.

The Court noted  that the alleged accident took place at about 01:00 PM in broad daylight. As per the prosecution version, the deceased Baljit Singh, while attempting to take a turn towards the city side on his motorcycle, was hit by a bus coming from the opposite direction, allegedly driven in a rash and negligent manner by the present petitioner.

The deceased fell on the road and was run over by the bus, resulting in his death. However, "a close scrutiny of the evidence reveals several material deficiencies in the prosecution case," the Court remarked.

Justice Grewal found that, "None of the passengers of the bus were examined to establish that the petitioner was, in fact, driving the said vehicle at the relevant time, or that he was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner."

The judge further pointed that the alleged eye-witnesses, are close relatives of the deceased and both admitted that they were standing at a considerable distance i.e. approximately 100 metres from the place of occurrence. "Their ability to correctly identify the driver of the bus, particularly when the occurrence was sudden and momentary, is therefore doubtful," said the Court.

Moreover, the Court said, "Moreover, no test identification parade was ever conducted during the course of investigation. The identification of the petitioner for the first time in Court amounts only to dock identification, which by itself, without corroborative evidence."

Observing that, "the responsibility of the deceased to make sure the road was clear before turning. The possibility of contributory negligence on his part cannot be ruled out. It is well settled that for an offence under Section 304-A IPC, the act must be so rash or negligent that it shows a gross deviation from the care expected of a reasonable driver. A mere error of judgment or simple negligence is not enough to establish guilt. In the present case, there is no reliable evidence to show that the petitioner acted in a reckless or careless manner so as to endanger life." the Court gave "benefit of doubt" to the accused and granted acquittal.

Mr. Tapan Masta, Advocate (Amicus Curiae) and Mr. Anirudh Kaushal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab.

Title: Bhajan Singh v. State of Punjab

Click here to read order