S.81 IPC | Bus Driver Cannot Claim 'Necessity' Defence After Crushing Two Persons To Save Cyclist: HP High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that the defence of necessity under Section 81 IPC cannot be invoked where the accused, while allegedly attempting to avoid harm to one person, ends up causing greater harm to others. Observing that the doctrine permits infliction of lesser harm to prevent a greater one, the Court rejected its application in a case where the accused's act resulted in the death of two persons, holding that such conduct falls outside the protective ambit of Section 81 IPC.Justice Rakesh Kainthla remarked that: “In the present case, even if the plea of the accused is accepted to be correct that he was trying to save a cyclist, he caused major harm by crushing two persons under the tyres of the bus, and he cannot claim the benefit of Section 81 of the IPC.” Background:The case arose from a road accident in which a bus driven by the accused struck a cyclist and then swerved to the opposite side, hitting a motorcycle. Two persons riding the motorcycle died on the spot, while the cyclist sustained injuries.The Trial Court convicted the accused, and the Appellate Court affirmed the conviction and sentence. The accused then filed a criminal revision before the High Court challenging the findings.The Court observed that the testimonies of eyewitnesses corroborated each other, and there is nothing in their statements to show that they were making false statements or had any motive to depose against the accused. The Court noted that the defence itself suggested that the accused swerved the bus to save a cyclist. This amounted to an implicit admission that the accused was driving and had taken the bus to the wrong side.The Court remarked that according to site plan and photographs it was apparent that the driver of the bus had taken it towards the right side of the road. The accused had breached the rules of the Road regulation, which led to the accident, and both the Courts below had rightly held that the accused was negligently driving the bus. The Court stated that further the courts below rightly inferred high speed and rashness from the fact that the motorcycle was dragged for a considerable distance.Thus, the Court upheld the conviction under Sections 279, 337, and 304A IPC and also held that the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act could not have been extended to the accused as two precious lives were lost, and one person sustained injuries in the accident.Case Name: Dalel Singh V/s State of H.P. Case No.: Cr. Revision No.43 of 2025Date of Decision: 12.03.2026 For the petitioner: Mr. Surya Chauhan, AdvocateFor the respondent: Mr. Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate GeneralClick Here To Read/Download Order

S.81 IPC | Bus Driver Cannot Claim 'Necessity' Defence After Crushing Two Persons To Save Cyclist: HP High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

S.81 IPC | Bus Driver Cannot Claim 'Necessity' Defence After Crushing Two Persons To Save Cyclist: HP High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers