Click the Play button to listen to article

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused to reduce the sentence of a school bus driver convicted for rash and negligent driving after the bus he was driving overturned, leaving several school children, teachers and the conductor injured. [2026 LiveLaw (PH) 305]

The Court observed that a school bus driver is under a “higher duty” to drive safely and responsibly while transporting children.

Justice Shalini Singh Nagpal said, "Petitioner herein was not an ordinary driver of a vehicle, who caused an accident and resultant injuries. He was a professional driver employed by a School to carry young children and teachers from home to school and back. Being entrusted with the transportation of minor school going children, he was under a higher duty to drive the vehicle safely and responsibly, to maintain safe and reasonable speed, keep proper look out for turns, maintain proper control of the vehicle, while observing all applicable traffic rules and safety regulations. He was required to exercise special care and caution to ensure that the children safely reached home."

The Court added, any rash, negligent, dangerous driving by driver of a school bus constitutes a serious breach of duty besides the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC. On account of the culpable act of the petitioner, several persons including school children suffered grievous injuries.

The petitioner, employed as a driver on a school bus of Little Flower Model School, Hoshiarpur, was tried on an FIR registered in 2018 under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 427 IPC after the bus he was driving overturned near the Rest House, Hoshiarpur, injuring the children and staff traveling in it. The complainant, an e-rickshaw driver stationed nearby, stated that the bus had come at high speed and been driven recklessly before losing control and overturning.

The trial court convicted the petitioner under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment of three months, three months and six months respectively (to run, presumably, as indicated by the trial court). The conviction and sentence were upheld in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur. The petitioner approached the High Court in revision, seeking only a reduction of sentence to the period already undergone, not challenging the conviction itself.

The Court first examined whether the conviction itself called for interference, even though only sentence was under challenge, and found none. It noted that the complainant (PW-1) identified the accused as the driver; that PW-2, a Class 10 student who suffered a fractured arm, gave a detailed account of the rash driving; that PW-3, a teacher who suffered shoulder and leg injuries, corroborated the version; that the bus conductor (PW-4), who suffered a fractured leg, also inculpated the accused; and that other student and teacher witnesses gave identical accounts. Medical witnesses proved the simple and grievous injuries suffered by the occupants, and the mechanical inspection report negated the defence plea of a mechanical defect in the bus.

On the question of sentence, the Court held that sentencing serves a deterrent and social purpose and cannot be treated as a mere formality, and that the discretion to sentence must be exercised judiciously having regard to the manner of commission of the offence, the accused's circumstances, and the harm caused. 

The Court held that the sentence already awarded by the trial Court, and affirmed in appeal, reflected a lenient view, and that any further reduction would not serve the interest of society, particularly given that the case involved injuries to school-going children entrusted to the petitioner's care.

Dismissing the revision plea, the Court held that the conviction and sentence under Sections 279 (rash driving), 337 (endangering human life) and 338 (grievous hurt) IPC, as affirmed in appeal, were maintained, and refused the prayer for reduction in sentence.

Case Title: Manpreet Singh v. State of Punjab

Click here to read order

Tags: