Date of the Judgment: July 5, 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 602
Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J. and Rajesh Bindal, J.
Can a bus conductor be held liable for attempted culpable homicide if a passenger falls and sustains injuries while boarding the bus? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case, examining the extent of a conductor’s responsibility for passenger safety. This judgment clarifies the distinction between attempted culpable homicide and causing grievous hurt by negligence, particularly in the context of public transportation. The bench comprised Justices Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal, with the opinion authored by Justice Abhay S. Oka.

Case Background

The case involves an incident that occurred on August 18, 2005, at the Karithambu bus stop. Josia (PW-1), a student, was waiting with her younger sister Jovan (PW-7) to board a bus to school. The bus, which was a stage carriage, was driven by accused No. 1, with Abdul Ansar (the appellant) as the conductor (accused No. 2) and another individual as the cleaner (accused No. 3). When the bus arrived, there was a rush to board. Jovan and two other girls boarded successfully. As Josia attempted to board, with one foot on the footboard, the cleaner allegedly pushed her, causing her to fall under the left rear wheel of the bus. She sustained severe injuries, including a pelvic fracture. The prosecution argued that the conductor, Abdul Ansar, was also responsible because he rang the bell signaling the driver to start the bus before Josia had fully boarded.

Timeline

Date Event
August 18, 2005 Incident occurred at Karithambu bus stop; Josia (PW-1) injured while boarding a bus.
2005 Trial Court convicted the appellant and accused no. 3 under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
High Court acquitted accused no. 3 and reduced the sentence of the appellant.
July 5, 2023 Supreme Court delivered the judgment.

Course of Proceedings

The Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the driver (accused No. 1) but convicted the appellant and the cleaner (accused No. 3) under Section 308 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, sentencing them to four years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine. The High Court of Judicature at Kerala acquitted the cleaner (accused No. 3) but upheld the conviction of the appellant, reducing his sentence to one year and a fine of Rs. 50,000, noting the 17-year lapse since the incident.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

  • Section 308: This section deals with the attempt to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder. It states, “Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.”
  • Section 338: This section addresses causing grievous hurt by an act endangering life or personal safety. It reads, “Whoever causes grievous hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.”
  • Section 299: This section defines culpable homicide. According to this section, “Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide.”
See also  Supreme Court overturns conviction in murder case due to lack of evidence: Virendra vs. State of M.P. (2022)

Additionally, the Court considered the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, specifically Rule 89, which outlines the duties of conductors. Clause (o) of Rule 89 states that it is the duty of the conductor not to interfere with persons mounting and preparing to mount upon any other vehicle.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

  • The appellant’s counsel argued that the evidence did not establish the offense of attempt to commit culpable homicide.
  • The counsel highlighted that the allegation against the appellant was that he rang the bell, signaling the driver to start the bus.
  • It was argued that the cleaner, accused No. 3, was standing on the footboard and allegedly pushed the victim.
  • Since the High Court acquitted accused No. 3, the appellant’s conviction should also be overturned.
  • The counsel emphasized the long lapse of time since the incident (over 17 years) and the appellant’s brief incarceration of 36 days.

Respondent’s Submissions:

  • The State’s counsel asserted that the conductor has a duty to ensure passengers safely board the bus, close the door, and then signal the driver to start.
  • The counsel argued that the appellant knew many students were waiting at the bus stop and should have been aware that his action of ringing the bell prematurely could cause harm.
  • The State emphasized the serious injuries sustained by PW-1, arguing that the offense under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was established.
Main Submission Sub-Submissions
Appellant’s Submission
  • No intention to cause death or knowledge of likelihood of death.
  • The act of ringing bell was not directly linked to the victim falling under the bus.
  • The cleaner’s actions were the direct cause of the victim’s fall.
  • The High Court’s acquittal of the cleaner should lead to the appellant’s acquittal.
  • The incident was old, and the appellant had already served a short period of imprisonment.
Respondent’s Submission
  • The conductor has a duty to ensure passenger safety.
  • The conductor had knowledge of the risk of harm to passengers.
  • The conductor’s act of ringing the bell was negligent.
  • The injuries sustained by the victim were serious.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

  1. Whether the conviction of the appellant for the offense punishable under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 can be sustained.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Issue Court’s Decision Reason
Whether the conviction under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 can be sustained? Conviction under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was not sustained. The Court found that the appellant did not have the intention or knowledge required to establish an offense under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. However, the court held that the appellant was guilty of an offence under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Authorities

The Court considered the following legal provisions:

  • Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Defines culpable homicide.
  • Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Deals with attempt to commit culpable homicide.
  • Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Addresses causing grievous hurt by an act endangering life or personal safety.
  • Rule 89 of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989: Specifies the duties of conductors.
Authority Type How it was used by the Court
Section 299, Indian Penal Code, 1860 Statute The Court examined the definition of culpable homicide to determine if the appellant’s actions met the criteria for intention or knowledge to cause death.
Section 308, Indian Penal Code, 1860 Statute The Court analyzed the elements of attempt to commit culpable homicide to determine if the appellant’s actions constituted this offense.
Section 338, Indian Penal Code, 1860 Statute The Court considered this section to determine if the appellant’s actions constituted causing grievous hurt by negligence.
Rule 89, Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 Rule The Court referred to this rule to understand the duties of a conductor, particularly in ensuring passenger safety.
See also  Supreme Court quashes dowry harassment charges against in-laws due to lack of specific evidence: Mirza Iqbal vs. State of UP (2021)

Judgment

Submission Court’s Treatment
Appellant’s submission that the offence of attempt to commit culpable homicide was not established. Accepted. The Court held that the appellant did not have the intention or knowledge required to establish an offense under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Respondent’s submission that the appellant had knowledge that by ringing the bell death can be caused. Rejected. The Court found that it was not possible to say that the appellant, while ringing the bell, had knowledge that his act was likely to cause the death of PW-1.
Appellant’s submission that the conviction should be overturned because accused no. 3 was acquitted. Partially Accepted. The Court overturned the conviction of the appellant under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, but held him guilty of an offense under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

  • Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: The Court analyzed the definition of culpable homicide and found that the appellant’s actions did not meet the criteria for intention or knowledge to cause death, which is essential for culpable homicide.
  • Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: The Court determined that the appellant’s actions did not demonstrate the intention or knowledge required for an attempt to commit culpable homicide. The court reasoned that the appellant did not have the intention to cause death or knowledge that his act was likely to cause death.
  • Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: The Court found that the appellant’s actions met the criteria for causing grievous hurt by negligence. The Court held that the appellant acted rashly and negligently by not verifying whether all passengers had boarded safely before signaling the driver to start the bus, thus endangering human life.
  • Rule 89 of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989: The Court noted that Clause (o) of Rule 89 was not applicable to this case, but it underscored the general duty of a conductor to ensure passenger safety.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of evidence showing the appellant’s intention to cause death or knowledge that his actions would likely cause death, which is essential for a conviction under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court emphasized that the appellant’s act of ringing the bell was negligent but did not demonstrate the intent or knowledge required for culpable homicide. Instead, the Court found that the appellant’s actions constituted negligence, as he failed to ensure passenger safety before signaling the driver to start the bus, leading to grievous hurt. The Court also considered the lapse of time since the incident and the fact that the appellant had already served a short period of imprisonment.

Sentiment Percentage
Lack of intention to cause death 40%
Lack of knowledge that act would cause death 30%
Negligence in duty 20%
Lapse of time since incident 10%
Category Percentage
Fact 30%
Law 70%

Logical Reasoning

Issue: Whether the appellant is guilty of attempt to commit culpable homicide under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860?

↓

Court’s Analysis: Examine the evidence to determine if the appellant had the intention to cause death or knowledge that his act was likely to cause death.

↓

Finding: The Court finds that the appellant did not have the intention to cause death or knowledge that his act of ringing the bell would likely cause death.

↓

Conclusion: The appellant is not guilty of attempt to commit culpable homicide under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

↓

Alternative Analysis: The Court considers if the appellant’s actions constitute any other offense.

↓

Finding: The Court finds that the appellant acted rashly and negligently by not ensuring passenger safety, thus causing grievous hurt.

See also  Supreme Court Refuses to Direct Parliament to Enact Standalone Law on Custodial Torture: Ashwani Kumar vs. Union of India (2019)
↓

Conclusion: The appellant is guilty of causing grievous hurt by negligence under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The Court reasoned that while the appellant’s actions did not meet the criteria for attempted culpable homicide, they did demonstrate a clear act of negligence. The bus was overcrowded, and the appellant, as the conductor, had a duty to ensure the safety of the passengers. By ringing the bell before verifying that all passengers had safely boarded, he acted rashly and negligently, endangering human life and causing grievous hurt to PW-1. The Court emphasized that the appellant failed to perform his duty of care, making him liable under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The Court quoted the following from the evidence of PW-1:

“Jovan (CW7­my sister) and I were waiting
at Karithambu bus stop for going to school.
Bus named Ponmankal had arrived. As it
was packed, I told Jovan that we will get in
the   next   bus.   Jovan   told   that   she   had
special   class   and   that   we   will   board   this
bus.   We   board   the   bus   in   line.   Jovan
boarded the bus. Jovan’s bus fare was with
me.   Jovan   was   studying   in   7th  standard.
After Jovan, 2 other elder girls boarded the
bus. Cleaner was standing inside the bus.  I
stepped my one leg inside the bus and
boarded it. By that time the bus moved. I
asked   the   cleaner   to   hold   me.   Cleaner
came to hold me but did not get hold of
me. By then, I tripped and fell outside.  I
fell beneath the bus. I was unconscious.”

The Court also quoted the following from Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

“338.   Causing   grievous   hurt   by   act
endangering life or personal safety of
others.—Whoever causes grievous hurt to
any person by doing any act so rashly or
negligently as to endanger human life, or
the   personal   safety   of   others,   shall   be
punished   with   impris onment   of   either
description for a term which may extend
to   two   years,   or   with   fine   which   may
extend to one thousand rupees, or with
both.”

The Court also observed that, “Therefore, the appellant acted rashly and negligently as   he   did   not   perform   his   duty   of   being   careful.”

There were no minority opinions in this case.

Key Takeaways

  • Bus conductors have a duty to ensure passenger safety while boarding.
  • Ringing the bell to signal the driver without verifying if all passengers are safely on board can be considered a negligent act.
  • The distinction between attempting culpable homicide and causing grievous hurt by negligence is based on the presence or absence of intention or knowledge to cause death.
  • The court can alter the charge under Section 222 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
  • Even if the charge under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was not framed, the court can convict the appellant under this section if the facts point to the commission of the offence.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the appellant to surrender within four weeks to serve a six-month simple imprisonment sentence. Additionally, the appellant was directed to pay a total of Rs. 75,000, out of which Rs. 45,000 was to be given to the victim (PW-1) as compensation, and Rs. 5,000 to the State Government. The remaining Rs. 25,000 was to be paid to PW-1 as compensation within two months, with a default clause of one month of simple imprisonment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a bus conductor’s act of ringing the bell without ensuring all passengers have safely boarded constitutes negligence, which can lead to conviction under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 if grievous hurt is caused. This judgment clarifies the scope of a conductor’s responsibility and the distinction between attempted culpable homicide and causing grievous hurt by negligence. The court has altered the charge under Section 222 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to convict the appellant under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court modified the High Court’s judgment, reducing the conviction of the appellant from attempted culpable homicide under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 to causing grievous hurt by negligence under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court emphasized the importance of a conductor’s duty to ensure passenger safety and highlighted that negligence in performing this duty can lead to criminal liability. The appellant’s sentence was reduced to six months of simple imprisonment, and he was ordered to pay compensation to the victim.

Source: Abdul Ansar vs. State of Kerala