Negligence in bus accident needs definite proof

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and acquitted a KSRTC bus driver who had been convicted for offences under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code, along with an offence under the Motor Vehicles Act. The Court held that the prosecution had not established, with definitiveness, that the driver acted rashly or negligently so as to attract criminal liability for the passenger’s death.

The case arose from an incident on 17 April 2011. The informant, his sister-in-law Shobha, and her mother were travelling in a KSRTC bus. According to the prosecution, when the bus stopped near Mallayya Temple after the conductor whistled to indicate that the passengers should alight, the driver moved the bus while Shobha was in the process of getting down. She fell, suffered head injuries, and later died.

The trial court convicted the driver under Sections 279 and 304A IPC and Section 134 read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The appellate court affirmed the conviction. The High Court later interfered only to the extent of sentence under Section 279 IPC, but maintained the conviction and the sentence under Section 304A IPC.

Before the Supreme Court, the central question was whether the evidence proved rash or negligent driving beyond doubt. The Court examined the testimony of the informant and the deceased’s mother, who supported the prosecution version that the bus moved while Shobha was still alighting. It also considered the evidence of another witness who spoke about the bus stopping and then moving again.

The Court, however, found that the evidence did not conclusively establish that the driver alone was responsible for the fall. It observed that the deceased might have slipped while alighting because of her own movement, and that the driver had acted on the conductor’s indicative instructions in moving the bus. On that material, the Court held that it was difficult to attach criminal negligence to the appellant with certainty.

The Court therefore concluded that the courts below had committed a manifest error in convicting and sentencing the appellant. The conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of the offences under Sections 279 and 304A IPC.

Practical takeaway: In prosecutions for rash and negligent driving, courts will require clear proof that the driver’s conduct, and not merely the accident itself, caused the death.