Two Views Were Possible—Accused Must Get the Benefit: Karnataka High Court Acquits School Bus Driver in Fatal Road Accident Case

“Where identification is disputed and official testimony contradicts eyewitnesses, the only lawful course is to extend benefit of doubt”, In a significant ruling reinforcing the principle of benefit of doubt in criminal trials, the Karnataka High Court set aside the concurrent conviction of a school bus driver accused under Sections 279, 337, 338, and 304-A IPC in connection with a tragic accident that claimed the life of a child and injured several others.

Justice S. Rachaiah ruled that both the Magistrate Court and the Sessions Court had committed error in sustaining the conviction despite conflicting evidence about the identity of the driver, including denial from the school authorities that the accused was on duty that day.

“Where two views are possible, the one favourable to the accused must prevail… The courts below erred in ignoring this principle despite material contradictions.”

Child Killed and Others Injured in Bus Crash, Driver Convicted Under 304A IPC

The case originated from a road accident on 5 October 2010, when a school bus belonging to Sneha Public School allegedly struck several pedestrians, including students walking to school. One girl, Lolakshi alias Aishwarya, succumbed to injuries, while others suffered simple and grievous injuries. The driver of the bus, Moidin, was arrested and charged with rash and negligent driving.

After examining 12 witnesses and 23 documents, the Trial Court convicted him in 2015. The Sessions Court upheld the conviction in 2017, prompting the revision petition.

“Injury Alone Cannot Establish Guilt”—Court Finds Serious Contradictions in Evidence

Justice Rachaiah examined the testimonies of key prosecution witnesses, noting that PWs 1 and 3 (injured persons) supported the occurrence of the accident, but PW7, the Headmistress of the school, categorically stated the accused was not driving the vehicle on that day.

“Some witnesses identified the accused as the driver, but the school authority denied it… Such contradictions go to the root of the prosecution’s case.”

Further, PW6, a shopkeeper near the accident site, failed to identify the driver, while the spot mahazar witness (PW2) was declared as an eyewitness but his status was not corroborated by other material evidence.

“Identification in Court Cannot Override Institutional Denial”—Court Applies Standard of Reasonable Doubt

Emphasizing that criminal liability cannot rest on uncertain or contradictory identification, especially when the employer (school) denies that the accused was operating the vehicle, the Court observed:

“No doubt, injuries and a tragic death occurred… But who was behind the wheel must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, not inferred from injury alone.”

“The identity of the driver must be established by credible, corroborated evidence—not by default.”

Conviction and Sentence Set Aside, Accused Acquitted

Holding that the trial courts had failed to appreciate these material contradictions, the High Court allowed the revision petition and acquitted the petitioner:

“The petitioner is acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of IPC… Bail bonds, if any, stand cancelled.”

This ruling reinforces the cardinal principle of criminal law that the burden of proof rests entirely on the prosecution, and any reasonable doubt must go to the benefit of the accused—even in emotionally charged cases like those involving schoolchildren. The decision also affirms that identification of the accused must be unimpeachable when liberty is at stake.

“A conviction cannot rest on contradiction. It must be founded on clarity, certainty, and due process.”

Date of Decision: 20 May 2025