Order XLI Rule 23A CPC | Re-Trial Necessary When Crucial Parties Impleaded In Appeal: Telangana High Court Cannot Freeze Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Sums: Rajasthan High Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines Against Indiscriminate Account Freezes In Cyber Crime Probes 187(3) BNSS | No Extension Of Investigation Time Without Notice To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail In NDPS Case Road Widening Under Master Plan Cannot Be Stalled For Formal Land Acquisition, Section 305 Permits Direct Removal Of Encroachments: Madhya Pradesh High Court P&H High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 45-Day Delay In Informing Detenu Of Right To Represent 'Sole Allegation Of Torture Cannot Stand Alone': Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Husband Under Section 498A IPC After Dowry Demand Disproved Seeking Corroboration To Victim's Testimony Amounts To Adding Insult To Injury: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Offences Of Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust Cannot Coexist On Same Facts: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR Over Commercial Contract Dispute "Accident Alone Is Not Proof": Delhi High Court Acquits Bus Driver In 2003 Road Fatality Case, Rules Mere Speeding Or Collision Insufficient For Section 304A IPC Mandate Of Regulations Must Be Read Into Public Notices: Kerala High Court Reverses Order Directing NMC To Reopen Portal For Medical College's PG Seat Hike Unproven 1946 Oral Sale And Subsequent School Gift Cannot Convey Valid Title Over Tribal Land: Orissa High Court Orders Compensation After 80 Years ED Can Probe Money Laundering In J&K Corruption Cases: J&K High Court Rules S. 5(1)(d) J&K PC Act Corresponds To Amended S. 7 Of Central PC Act Not Mere Lip Service: Supreme Court Quashes GST Notice Under Section 74 Lacking Foundational Facts Of Fraud Or Suppression Selling Manufactured Goods At Factory Premises Doesn't Turn 'Industrial' Land Into 'Commercial' For Stamp Duty: Supreme Court Supreme Court Orders All States To Form Dedicated SITs To Probe Fake Motor Accident Claims, Warns Insurance Top Brass Against Selective Referrals Port Trusts Not Immune From Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods: Supreme Court Upholds Notification Declaring Mumbai Port Trust As Custodian Under Section 45

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