Bus Driver Not Expected To Turn Back & Check If Passengers Alighted : Supreme Court Sets Aside Conviction For Death By Negligence

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (May 27) acquitted a Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) bus driver who had been convicted for causing the death of a passenger who fell while alighting from the bus, holding that a driver acting on the conductor's signal to move the vehicle cannot automatically be held criminally negligent. A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria set aside the conviction of the Appellant-driver under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code, observing that the prosecution failed to establish any rash or negligent act on his part. “When the appellant accused had followed the instructions of the conductor in stopping and moving the bus, which the appellant was duty-bound to do, it would be both unreasonable and illogical to attribute any negligence on his part.”, the court observed. “The appellant driver was not expected to turn his head back and to see himself whether the passengers had alighted. His dependence on the signal of whistling to start the bus was a normal and natural conduct.”, the court added. Background The case arose out of an incident that occurred on April 17, 2011 involving a KSRTC bus travelling from Athani to Mangasuli in Karnataka. According to the prosecution, the deceased passenger, Shobha, was attempting to get down from the bus near Mallayya Temple when the driver allegedly moved the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, causing her to fall and sustain fatal head injuries. The Trial Court convicted the driver under Sections 279 and 304A IPC as well as Section 134 read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The conviction was later affirmed by the Appellate Court and substantially upheld by the Karnataka High Court, which maintained the six-month sentence under Section 304A IPC. Aggrieved, the driver approached the Supreme Court. Decision Setting aside the impugned order, the judgment authored by Justice Anjaria placed significant reliance on the testimony of the bus conductor (PW6), who stated that he had first signalled the driver to stop the bus and later instructed him to move only after the passengers had alighted. Treating this testimony as crucial, the Court observed that the functioning of public buses necessarily involves a division of responsibility between the conductor and the driver. “It is the conductor who signals the driver in appropriate way to start the bus or to start again after stoppage, the passengers having got off the bus. The driver of the bus, who would otherwise be concentrating on the driving, would depend upon the indications, signals or whistling from the conductor to monitor and regulate the movement of the bus. The application of the mind by the driver has to stay in driving of the bus for the stakes of safety, while he would follow the conductor's signals for starting, stopping and moving the bus.”, the court observed. The Court added that a mere accident cannot be labelled as a 'rash and negligent' act, unless prosecution establishes the culpable rashness or negligence through specific evidence. “In the ultimate analysis, it was the conductor who was to ensure the due movement of the bus and who would be stepping inside the bus or alighting from the bus, as the case may be. The evidence does not suggest that the driver was negligent and whose negligence resulted into the fall of said passenger-Shobha from the bus while getting off the bus.”, the court said.HeadnoteDriving — Liability of a Bus Driver — A passenger bus driver cannot be attributed with culpable negligence or rashness if he moves or restarts the vehicle strictly in accordance with the indicative instructions or whistling signals of the bus conductor - The driver is duty-bound to concentrate on driving for safety stakes and naturally relies on the conductor who is the person in charge of regulating passenger movement to monitor when to stop or move the bus - The driver is not expected to turn his head back to personally verify if the passengers have safely alighted - Acting bona fide on the conductor's signals negates the element of criminal negligence or recklessness. [Paras 5, 6]Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 304A — Culpable Rashness and Negligence — To attract punishment under Section 304A, the rashness or negligence must be attributable to a state of mind involving a "deliberation in mind" risking the crime and the life of a person, rather than a mere error of judgment or acting bona fide under regulatory operational instructions - Highlighting the concept of "culpable rashness", negligence cannot be presumed merely from an accident but must be inferred from the distinct attendant circumstances. [Relied On Ravi Kapur v. State of Rajasthan, (2012) 9 SCC 284; State of Karnataka v. Satish, (1998) 8 SCC 493; Para 7-10]Evidence Act, 1872 — Appreciation of Evidence — Canon of Common Sense — The dictum of common sense and common wisdom serves as a vital canon for evaluating evidence and judging human...

Bus Driver Not Expected To Turn Back & Check If Passengers Alighted : Supreme Court Sets Aside Conviction For Death By Negligence

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Yash Mittal

Bus Driver Not Expected To Turn Back & Check If Passengers Alighted : Supreme Court Sets Aside Conviction For Death By Negligence

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers