304A IPC | No Drunkenness, No Flight, But Negligence Proven: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Conviction, Reduces Sentence in School Jeep Death Case

“It was incumbent upon the accused to drive the vehicle at a speed that would allow him to maintain control under any unforeseen circumstances” —  Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati partly allowed a criminal revision filed by Agali Narasappagari Chiranjeevi, a jeep driver convicted for causing the death of a six-year-old schoolgirl and injuring another passenger due to rash and negligent driving.

Justice T. Mallikarjuna Rao upheld the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur, on the driver’s guilt under Sections 304A and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, but reduced the imprisonment from six months to three months under Section 304A and from three months to one month under Section 338, directing both sentences to run concurrently.

The accident occurred on 15 September 2006 on the Agali–Rolla mud road, when the petitioner, driving a jeep carrying 25 passengers including 12 school children, overturned the vehicle after sighting an oncoming bullock cart. The vehicle landed on its left side, crushing a young girl, Darshini, who died instantly, and fracturing the leg of another passenger, Manjunath.

The Court noted the consistent, corroborated testimony of PWs. 1 to 7, including the complainant and injured eyewitnesses, as well as medical and mechanical inspection evidence, which “clearly established gross negligence on the part of the accused, who is solely responsible for the accident.”

Rejecting the defence theory of a slippery road and evasive action, Justice Rao observed:

“It was incumbent upon the accused to drive the vehicle at a speed that would allow him to maintain control under any unforeseen circumstances… He was also expected to anticipate the possibility of vehicles or obstacles appearing from the opposite direction.”

The Court also referred to the fact that the accused was carrying an excessive number of passengers on a rural mud road without margins, and that the bullock cart had already been moved to the side.

On the accused’s silence during his Section 313 CrPC examination, the Court cited Ravi Kapur v. State of Rajasthan, reiterating that this provision “is not a mere procedural formality… If the accused deliberately fails to avail this opportunity, then the consequences in law have to follow.”

However, while affirming guilt, Justice Rao found several mitigating factors: the offence was not aggravated by intoxication, the driver was only 24 years old at the time, had no prior criminal record, nearly 19 years had passed since the incident, and he had attempted to rescue victims immediately after the accident.

The Court stressed the principle of proportionality in sentencing:

“The sentence ordered must be proportionate to the gravity of the proven guilt, and it should not be excessive or exorbitant.”

Accordingly, the Court reduced the sentence, granted set-off for time already undergone under Section 428 CrPC, and ordered the petitioner to surrender within three weeks to serve any remaining sentence, warning that failure to do so would invite enforcement by the Trial Court.

Date of Decision: 7 August 2025