Supreme Court Reduces Culpable Homicide Conviction to Negligence in Bus Accident Case: Abdul Ansar vs. State of Kerala (2023)

Date of the Judgment: 5 July 2023
Citation: (2023) INSC 624
Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Rajesh Bindal, J. The judgment was authored by Abhay S. Oka, J. This was a unanimous decision.

Can a bus conductor be held liable for attempt to culpable homicide if a passenger is injured due to the conductor’s negligence? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a bus accident where a young girl was severely injured. The court examined whether the conductor’s actions met the threshold for an attempt to commit culpable homicide, or whether the actions constituted negligence. The bench comprised Justices Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal, with Justice Oka authoring the unanimous judgment.

Case Background

On August 18, 2005, a tragic incident occurred at the Karithambu bus stop in Kerala. Josia (PW-1), an 8th-grade student, was waiting with her younger sister Jovan (PW-7) to board a bus to school. When the bus arrived, Jovan and two other girls boarded first. As Josia attempted to board, the bus cleaner (accused no. 3), allegedly pushed her, causing her to fall under the left rear wheel of the bus. Josia sustained serious injuries, including a pelvic fracture. The prosecution alleged that the bus conductor, Abdul Ansar (the appellant), rang the bell signaling the driver to start the bus without ensuring all passengers had boarded safely. This action was considered a contributing factor to the accident.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant (Abdul Ansar) and the bus cleaner (accused No. 3) under Section 308 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), sentencing them to four years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000 each. On appeal, the High Court of Kerala acquitted the bus cleaner (accused No. 3) but upheld the conviction of the appellant under Section 308 of the IPC. However, the High Court reduced the sentence to one year of imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50,000, noting the significant lapse of time since the incident in 2005. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of the following legal provisions:

• Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with the attempt to commit culpable homicide. 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 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section addresses causing grievous hurt by an act endangering life or personal safety. It states, “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 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines culpable homicide. It states, “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.”
• Section 222(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): This provision allows a court to convict a person of a minor offense even if they were charged with a major offense, provided the facts establish the minor offense.
• Rule 89 of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989: This rule outlines the duties of conductors, with clause (o) stating that a conductor should not interfere with persons mounting or preparing to mount 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 contended that the cleaner (accused no. 3) was responsible for pushing PW-1, and the appellant’s role was limited to ringing the bell for the driver to start the bus.
• It was submitted that the High Court’s acquittal of the cleaner should lead to the appellant’s acquittal as well.
• The appellant’s counsel highlighted the long passage of time since the incident (over 17 years) and the fact that the appellant had only served 36 days of incarceration and was on bail throughout.

Respondent’s Submissions:

• The State’s counsel argued that the appellant, as the conductor, had a duty to ensure all passengers boarded safely before signaling the driver to start.
• The counsel contended that the appellant had knowledge that many students were waiting to board the bus and that his act of ringing the bell without taking precautions could cause death or injury.
• The State pointed out the serious injuries sustained by PW-1 and argued that the offense under Section 308 of the IPC was established.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) can be sustained.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Regarding attempt to commit culpable homicide.
• Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Regarding causing grievous hurt by an act endangering life or personal safety.
• Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Defining culpable homicide.
• Section 222(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Allowing conviction for a minor offense.
• Rule 89 of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 – Duties of conductors.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court held that the ingredients of Section 308 of the IPC* were not met as there was no intention or knowledge on the part of the appellant to cause death.
• The Court applied Section 338 of the IPC* to convict the appellant for causing grievous hurt by a rash and negligent act.
• The Court referred to Section 299 of the IPC* to define culpable homicide and determine that the appellant’s actions did not meet the criteria for culpable homicide.
• The Court applied Section 222(2) of the CrPC* to allow for the conviction of the appellant under Section 338 of the IPC, even though he was initially charged under Section 308 of the IPC.
• The Court noted Rule 89 of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989*, but found that clause (o) was not directly applicable to the facts of the case.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Lack of Intention or Knowledge: The Court emphasized that for a conviction under Section 308 of the IPC, there must be an intention or knowledge that the act could cause death. The Court found that the appellant did not possess such intention or knowledge.
• Negligence and Rashness: The Court found that the appellant’s actions constituted negligence and rashness under Section 338 of the IPC. The appellant failed to ensure that all passengers had safely boarded the bus before signaling the driver to start.
• Duty of Care: The Court stressed that the appellant, as a conductor, had a duty of care towards the passengers. This duty was breached when the appellant failed to verify the safe boarding of passengers before signaling the driver.
• Application of Section 222(2) of CrPC: The Court invoked Section 222(2) of the CrPC to convict the appellant under a lesser charge (Section 338 IPC) when the facts established this offense, even though the initial charge was for a more serious offense (Section 308 IPC).
• Time Lapsed and Compensation: The Court considered the significant time that had lapsed since the incident in 2005 and the need to provide adequate compensation to the victim.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered that the appellant’s act of ringing the bell, while negligent, did not demonstrate the intention or knowledge required for culpable homicide. The Court also considered the overcrowded nature of the bus and the presence of the cleaner near the footboard. The Court noted that while the appellant’s actions were not intended to cause harm, they were negligent and endangered human life. The Court also considered that the appellant had a duty to ensure the safety of passengers and that he had breached that duty. The Court also noted that the incident was of 2005 and that the appellant had already undergone a period of incarceration.

The Court concluded that the appellant’s actions constituted negligence and rashness, warranting a conviction under Section 338 of the IPC. The Court also considered the long time lapse since the incident and the need to provide adequate compensation to the victim.

The Court stated, “It is not possible to say that the appellant while ringing the bell, had knowledge that his act is likely to cause the death of PW­1.” The Court further stated, “Therefore, the appellant acted rashly and negligently as he did not perform his duty of being careful.” The Court also noted, “In fact, this was an act of recklessness on his part. The fact is that due to the negligence on the part of the appellant, human life was endangered.”

Key Takeaways

• A bus conductor has a duty of care to ensure the safety of passengers.
• Ringing the bell to signal the driver to start the bus without ensuring all passengers have safely boarded can constitute negligence.
• For a conviction under Section 308 of the IPC, there must be an intention or knowledge that the act could cause death.
• A person can be convicted under Section 338 of the IPC for causing grievous hurt by a rash or negligent act that endangers human life.
• Courts can use Section 222(2) of the CrPC to convict a person for a lesser offense if the facts support it.

Directions

The Supreme Court modified the judgments of the lower courts. The appellant’s conviction under Section 308 of the IPC was altered to a conviction under Section 338 of the IPC. The appellant was sentenced to six months of simple imprisonment, with a set-off for the period already served. 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, Rs. 5,000 to the State Government, and an additional Rs. 25,000 to be deposited in the Trial Court within two months, also to be given to the victim as compensation. Failure to deposit the additional amount would result in one month of simple imprisonment. The appellant was directed to surrender before the Trial Court within four weeks.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a bus conductor can be held liable for negligence under Section 338 of the IPC if they fail to ensure passenger safety before signaling the driver to start the bus. This case clarifies that while the act of ringing the bell may not constitute an attempt to commit culpable homicide, it can be considered a negligent act that endangers human life if done without due care. The case also highlights the application of Section 222(2) of the CrPC, which allows courts to convict individuals of lesser offenses if the facts support it, even if they were initially charged with a more serious offense. This decision reinforces the duty of care that public transport operators owe to their passengers.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Abdul Ansar v. State of Kerala (2023) modified the appellant’s conviction from attempt to commit culpable homicide under Section 308 of the IPC to causing grievous hurt by negligence under Section 338 of the IPC. The Court found that while the appellant’s actions were negligent, they did not demonstrate the intention or knowledge required for culpable homicide. The decision underscores the importance of duty of care for public transport operators and the application of Section 222(2) of the CrPC. The appellant was sentenced to six months of simple imprisonment and ordered to pay compensation to the victim.