Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

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