SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY S. OKA, RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.
Abdul Ansar – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1751 of 2023, SLP (Criminal) No. 2161 of 2023
Decided On : 05-07-2023
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 308 read with Section 338 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 222(2) – Attempt to commit culpable homicide – Conviction and sentence – It is not possible to say that appellant while ringing bell, had knowledge that his act is likely to cause death of deceased – Bus was over crowded – Before he rang bell and gave signal to driver to start bus, he ought to have verified whether all passengers had safely boarded bus – He did not verify whether passengers had properly boarded bus – He is guilty of negligence as he failed to perform his duty – Appellant is guilty of commission of offence punishable under Section 338 of IPC – Appellant had sufficient notice of allegations of negligence against him during trial – Omission to frame charge under Section 338 of IPC will not be fatal – Incident is of year 2005 – Appellant shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and pay fine of Rs.75,000/-. (Paras 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17)
Facts of the case:
Question which arises in this appeal is whether conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 308 of Indian Penal Code can be sustained.
Findings of Court:
Appellant shall pay total amount of Rs.75,000/- out of which a sum of Rs.50,000/- has already been deposited. Out of the said amount, a sum of Rs.45,000/- shall be paid over to the victim – PW1 as compensation. Remaining amount of Rs.5,000/- will go to State Government. Appellant is directed to pay additional amount of Rs.25,000/- by way of deposit in Trial Court within a period of two months from today.
Result : Appeal partly allowed.
JUDGMENT :
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The question which arises in this appeal is whether the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) can be sustained.
RELEVANT FACTUAL ASPECTS
3. The present appellant is accused No. 2. The accused no. 1 was the driver of a stage carriage bus. The appellant-accused No. 2 was the conductor, and accused No. 3 was the cleaner. PW-1 Josia (injured) was at the relevant time studying in 8th standard. She along with her younger sister Jovan, PW-7, were waiting at the Karithambu bus stop for boarding a bus for going to their school. According to the prosecution case, after the bus reached the said bus stop, PW-7 Jovan boarded the bus followed by two other girls. There was a rush for boarding the bus. When PW-1 Josia tried to board the bus by putting her one leg on the footboard of the bus, accused no. 3 pushed her down with his hands while he was standing on the footboard of the bus. The girl fell down on the road and came under the left rear wheel of the bus. She sustained serious injuries including fracture of pelvis. The allegation against the appellant was that without waiting for the PW-1 to board the bus, he rang the bell as a result of which accused No. 1 started the bus. The prosecution applied offences punishable under Sections 279 and 308 read with Section 34 of IPC. Apart from PW-1 and PW-7, PW-2 Sister Elsamma, a teacher was an important witness. She was a teacher working in the same school where PW-1 and PW-7 were studying. She was standing at the same bus stop when the incident occurred and therefore, she is an eyewitness to the incident.
4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the driver-accused No. 1. However, he convicted the appellant and accused No. 3 for the offence punishable under Section 308 read with Section 34 of IPC. He sentenced both of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each. In default of payment of the fine, a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months was imposed. Out of the fine amount, a sum of Rs. 7,500/- was ordered to be paid to the victim of the offence. By the impugned judgment, the appeal preferred by the appellant and accused no. 3 was decided. The High Court acquitted accused No. 3. While confirming the conviction of the appellant under Section 308 of IPC, the sentence was brought down to one year by directing him to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/-. The High Court noted that the incident was of the year 2005 and a period of 17 years had lapsed from the date of the incident.
RIVAL SUBMISSIONS
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the offence of attempt to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder was not established on the evidence. He submitted that accused no. 3, the cleaner was standing on the footboard of the bus. He pointed out that the allegation against him was that while PW-1 was attempting to board the bus, he not only did not help her but virtually pushed her out of the bus. He submitted that all that is alleged against the appellant is that he rang the bell which was a signal to the driver to start the vehicle and accused No. 1 started the bus as a result of which PW-1 fell down and sustained serious injuries. He submitted that as accused no. 3 has been acquitted by the High Court, the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained. He submitted that the incident occurred on 18th August 2005 which is more than 17 and half years old. The appellant has undergone incarceration for a period of 36 days. He was throughout on bail.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent State pointed out that it was the duty of the appellant as a conductor to ensure that all the passengers safely board the bus at the bus stop and the further duty of the appellant was to close the door of the bus and thereafter, ring the bell for giving a signal to the driver to start the bus. He submitted that the appel
SupremeToday
Point of Law : Rule 89(o) of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules casts a duty on the conductor to ensure safety of the passengers and not to interfere with the passengers mounting the vehicle.
Victim of accident cannot be held responsible for delay in registration of FIR.
Every court while framing a charge in cases of death involving use of motor vehicles and a final report is filed alleging offence under Section 304 of IPC, trial court is obliged to apply mind and de....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the omission in the charge to mention Section 304A of the IPC and the words ‘rashly or negligently’ would not render the conviction illegal, a....
Causing death by rash and negligent driving – Application of mind by driver has to stay in driving of bus for stakes of safety, while he would follow Conductor’s signals for starting, stopping and mo....
The court confirmed that knowledge of a likelihood of death is essential for culpable homicide under S.304 Part II IPC, distinguishing it from negligence under S.304A IPC.
It is settled law that sentence to be imposed in a case should be consistent with atrocity and brutality with which crime has been perpetrated, enormity of crime warranting public abhorrence and it s....
The judgment underscores the requirement for conclusive and determinative evidence to establish guilt in cases of rash and negligent driving, emphasizing the absence of negligence presumption without....
The judgment outlined that driving with a known disability and without a license constitutes culpable homicide when it leads to death, under Section 304 Part II of IPC.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.