Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, N.V. ANJARIA, JJ.
Mohammad Hanif Jainum Khalifa – Appellant
Versus
The State of Karnataka – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2902 of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 573 of 2026)
Decided On : 27-05-2026
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 279 and 304A – Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 134 read with Section 187 – Causing death by rash and negligent driving – Conviction and sentence – It is Conductor who signals driver in appropriate way to start bus or to start again after stoppage, passengers having got off the bus – Driver of bus, who would otherwise be concentrating on the driving, would depend upon indications, signals or whistling from Conductor to monitor and regulate movement of bus – 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 moving bus – When appellant accused had followed instructions of Conductor in stopping and moving bus, which appellant was duty-bound to do, it would be both unreasonable and illogical to attribute any negligence on his part – Appellant driver was not expected to turn his head back and to see himself whether passengers had alighted – His dependence on signal of whistling to start bus was a normal and natural conduct – Driver acted as per Conductor’s indicative instructions – Deceased might have slipped from bus due to her own conduct less than careful – Driver deserves to be exonerated from charge of acting negligently – Appellant deserves to be exonerated from charge of acting negligently – Appellant held not guilty and acquitted of offences under Section 279 as well as under Section 304A, IPC. (Paras 5.3.1, 5.4, 5.4.1, 5.6.1, 7.1, 8, 9, 10 and 11)
(B) Torts – Concept of “Culpable Rashness” and “Culpable Negligence” – These concepts and considerations become relevant in road accident cases to judge negligence for becoming an offence in eye of law – “Recklessness” is perhaps a higher degree of “carelessness” – One acts reckless when one conducts himself regardless or heedless of possible harmful consequences of one’s act – Recklessness covers a whole range of state of mind from failing to give any thought to what is to be acted upon – Recklessness presupposes that no thought was given in the matter by the doer before he did the act – In a given case, “rashness” or “negligence” cannot become presumptive, but must be informed by attendant facts, circumstances and evidence. (Paras 5.5.1, 5.6 and 5.8)
Facts of the case:
Appellant herein, who was serving as a driver in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation bus, came to be tried and convicted for offences under Sections 279 and 304A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 134 read with Section 187 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Appellant came to be sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for four months for the offence punishable under Section 279, IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 304A, IPC.
Findings of Court:
Appellant is held not guilty and is acquitted of offences under Section 279 as well as under Section 304A, IPC. He shall be released forthwith if still behind the bars, provided his detention is not required for any other offence.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Key Points: - The High Court’s order setting aside the four-month sentence under Section 279, IPC while maintaining the six-month sentence under Section 304A, IPC was set aside and the appellant was acquitted of both offences. (!) (!) - The Supreme Court held that the appellant-driver acted in accordance with the conductor’s signals and cannot be held negligent or rashly driving, exonerating him from offences under Sections 279 and 304A, IPC. (!) (!) (!) (!) - The judgment emphasizes that the conductor’s role and the driver’s reliance on whistle signals governed the movement of the bus, and the driver acted bona fide following the conductor’s instructions. (!) (!) (!) - The decision discusses the concepts of negligence, culpable rashness, and recklessness, concluding there was no evidence of criminal negligence by the driver given the circumstances. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - The Court references Ravi Kapur v. State of Rajasthan to articulate the standard of culpa or rashness, and applies it to conclude no mens rea or state of mind to commit an offence under 304A in this case. (!) (!) (!) - The impugned order of the Karnataka High Court dated 25.03.2025 is set aside; the appellant is acquitted and to be released if not required for other offences. (!) (!) - The appellant’s conviction and sentence in the trial court and appellate court are reversed in light of the above. (!) (!) - The evidence from PW6 (conductor) supports that the driver stopped on conductor’s signal and started after passengers alighted, indicating no negligence by the driver. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - The judgment reiterates the duty of the conductor to signal stoppage and movement, and the driver’s duty to follow conductor’s signals for safety. (!) (!)
JUDGMENT :
N.V. ANJARIA, J.
Leave granted.
2. The appellant herein, who was serving as a driver in the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation1[Hereinafter, “KSRTC”.] bus, came to be tried and convicted by the Court of learned 1st Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Athani at Athani2[Hereinafter, “trial court”.] by judgment and order dated 26.12.2015 passed in C.C. No.933 of 2011 for the offences under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 18603[Hereinafter, “IPC”.] and under Section 134 read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 19884[Hereinafter, “MV Act”.]. The appellant came to be sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for four months for the offence punishable under Section 279, IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 304A, IPC.
2.1 The Court of VII Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Belagavi, sitting at Chikodi5[Hereinafter, “Appellate Court”.] dismissed Criminal Appeal No.12 of 2016 preferred by the appellant against the judgment of the trial court by maintaining the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court.
2.2 The aggrieved appellant approached the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench6[Hereinafter, “High Court”.] by filing Criminal Revision Petition No.100222 of 2018 under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The High Court, by order dated 25.03.2025 which is the order impugned in this appeal, allowed the Revision Petition in part, maintaining the conviction of the appellant, however, observed that the doctrine of merger would apply and since the sentence of six months’ simple imprisonment was awarded for the offence punishable under Section 304A, IPC, sentence under Section 279, IPC could not have been separately awarded. Accordingly, the High Court set aside the sentence of four months simple imprisonment imposed by the trial court for the offence punishable under Section 279, IPC, maintaining the rest of the sentence.
3. As per the case in the complaint filed by the informant, who was a permanent resident of village Mangasuli, on 17.04.2011 at around 03.30 pm, he along with his sister-in-law Shobha and her mother Housabai took the bus bearing registration No.KA-23-F-390 driven by the appellant to travel from Athani to return home. At around 04.30 pm, since they were to alight from the bus, the bus conductor whistled to stop the bus near Mallayya Temple.
3.1 It is the prosecution case that while the informant along with his sister-in-law and mother were in the process of taking off from the bus, the appellant-accused, driver of the said bus, moved the bus in a rash and negligent manner which resulted in falling down of said Shobha from the bus. She sustained grievous injuries on her head. She was thereafter shifted to the hospital, however, later she succumbed to her injuries. Based on the complaint of the informant, First Information Report7[Hereinafter, “FIR”.] was registered against the appellant at Kagawad Police Station for the offences punishable under the aforementioned sections of IPC and MV Act.
3.2 For convicting the appellant, the trial court reasoned that the informant (PW1) and Housabai (PW4)-mother of deceased testified consistently that the appellant-accused moved the bus while deceased Shobha was in the process of getting down from the bus, and thus she fell down from the bus and subsequently died due to injuries sustained by her. It was held that starting the vehicle before the passenger could safely disembark would constitute rash and negligent driving. It was further observed that the evidence of Popat Ramchandra Patil (PW5), who was coming from behind the said bus on a motorcycle, corroborated that the bus had stopped near Mallayya Temple and that it started moving when Shobha was getting down.
3.3 The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and order passed by the trial court convicting and sentencing the appellant by relying upon the testimonies of PW1, PW4 and PW5. It was the defence taken by
Victim of accident cannot be held responsible for delay in registration of FIR.
The judgment emphasizes the need for conclusive evidence to establish criminal negligence in cases of rash and negligent driving, highlighting the principle of res ipsa loquitur and the imperative du....
The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused's actions were the direct cause of the accident, considering contributory negligence in criminal cases.
Negligence and rashness must be proven beyond reasonable doubt for conviction under Sections 279 and 304A IPC; mere involvement in an accident does not equate to guilt.
In a prosecution for causing death by negligence under Section 304-A IPC, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the driver of the vehicle and that their actions we....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the duty of a driver to exercise caution and adhere to traffic rules, emphasizing the need for deterrence in sentencing for offenses related to ras....
The court emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to establish negligence, which was not met in this case.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
