Law Does Not Countenance Resurrection Of Stale Claims Through Inventive Drafting: Karnataka High Court Rejects 20-Year-Old Partition Dispute CPC Provisions Cannot Be Used to Transfer Consumer Complaints Across States: NCDRC Invokes Section 62 to End Forum-Shifting Ordeal in Nirmal Spinning Mills Case FSSA Provisions Prevail Over PFA Act In Cases Of Overlapping Jurisdiction, Prosecution Under Old Act Impermissible: J&K High Court Motive Pales Into Significance When Direct Ocular Evidence Establishes Crime; Enmity Is A Double-Edged Sword: Allahabad High Court Plaintiff Cannot Succeed Merely On Weakness Of Defence; Initial Burden To Prove Claim Rests On Claimant: Madras High Court Witness Threats Noted By Higher Courts Disentitle Convict To Suspension Of Sentence: Gujarat High Court Family Court Orders Must Be Enforced Immediately, Pendency Of Applications No Excuse For Disobedience: Delhi High Court 'Fraud And Justice Never Dwell Together': Karnataka High Court Reverses Order To Grant Land Based On Fabricated Records Development Authority Competent To Sanction Land Use Conversion From Residential To Nursing Home If Permitted Under Master Plan & Zoning Regulations: Allahabad High Court Notification Changing Import Policy From 'Free' To 'Restricted' Operative Only From Exact Time Of Publication In E-Gazette: Delhi High Court On Name Of Protection of the Complainer Excluding Relevant Defence Evidence in Sexual Offences Trials May Breach Fair Trial Rights: UK Supreme Court Boundaries In Sale Deed Prevail Over Discrepancy In Property Description; Adverse Possession Begins From Date Of Hostile Notice: Punjab & Haryana HC Supreme Court of UK Upholds HMRC Decision: Professional Fees Incurred by Investment Holding Company Are Capital Expenditure Criminal Law Cannot Be Used To Silence Citizens Questioning Legality Of Police Action: Madras High Court Quashes Obstruction Case Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs Centre To Treat Ashok Khemka As Empaneled For Future Assignments, Says Denying Relaxation Granted To Peers Is Discriminatory Section 34 Court Cannot Substitute Arbitrator’s Plausible View With Its Own; Not Bound By Technical Rules Of Evidence Act: Madras High Court Article 227 Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Reopen Decrees Finalized Four Decades Ago: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Challenge To 1985 Order Daughter Has No Right To Inherit Agricultural Land If Succession Opened Before 2005 HSA Amendment: Delhi High Court Rejects Plaint Indian Trust Act Inapplicable To Public Religious Endowments; Sale Of Charity Property Without HR&CE Commissioner's Permission Void: Madras High Court Supreme Court Clarifies Status of Collateral Warranties Under Construction Contracts FIR Quashed Against Newsclick: PMLA Proceedings Cannot Stand Alone Without A Predicate Offence, Rules Delhi High Court Assessee Claiming TDS Exemption On "Reimbursement" To Non-Residents Must Obtain Mandatory Tax Determination Under Section 195(2): Madras High Court

Supreme Court Sets Aside Conviction Under Section 308 IPC, Imposes Sentence for Negligence in Bus Accident

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India has set aside the conviction of the appellant, Abdul Ansar, under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Court found that the appellant’s act did not amount to an attempt to commit culpable homicide. Instead, the Court held the appellant guilty of negligence under Section 338 IPC for his role as a conductor in a bus accident. The judgment was delivered by Hon’ble Justice Abhay S. Oka and Hon’ble Justice Rajesh Bindal on July 5, 2023.

The case arose from an incident that took place in 2005, where the appellant, as the conductor of a stage carriage bus, rang the bell to start the bus while a passenger, PW-1 Josia, was attempting to board. As a result, PW-1 fell and suffered serious injuries, including a fracture of the pelvis. The trial court had convicted the appellant and another accused, but the High Court acquitted the second accused and reduced the appellant’s sentence.

The Supreme Court examined the evidence and found that the appellant did not have the intention or knowledge to cause death, as required for an offence under Section 308 IPC. However, the Court held that the appellant had acted negligently by failing to verify whether all passengers had safely boarded the bus before giving the signal to start. This act of negligence endangered human life and caused grievous hurt to PW-1. Accordingly, the Court modified the conviction to Section 338 IPC, which pertains to causing grievous hurt by an act endangering life or personal safety of others.

The Court imposed a sentence of six months of simple imprisonment on the appellant for the offence of negligence. Noting that the appellant had already served 36 days of imprisonment, the Court granted a set-off for the period already undergone. Additionally, the appellant was directed to pay a total compensation amount of Rs. 75,000. Out of this amount, Rs. 50,000 had already been deposited, and an additional sum of Rs. 25,000 was to be deposited within two months. Failure to pay the additional amount would result in one month of simple imprisonment. The Court further ordered that Rs. 45,000 of the compensation be paid to PW-1, with the remaining Rs. 5,000 going to the State Government.

This judgment highlights the distinction between the offence of attempt to commit culpable homicide and negligence. The Court emphasized the duty of a conductor to ensure passenger safety and held the appellant accountable for his failure to perform this duty diligently. The decision serves as a reminder of the importance of upholding safety standards in public transportation systems.

 Date of Decision: July 5, 2023

Abdul Ansar  vs State of Kerala         

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/05-Jul-2023-Abdul-Ansar-Vs-State.pdf"]                                         

Latest Legal News