Supreme Court clears KSRTC driver over alighting passenger’s death, says he moved bus on conductor’s signal
The Supreme Court opines that common sense often guides the interpretation and application of law and holds that attributing any negligence to the driver would be illogical.
The KSRTC bus conductor was a witness in the case against the driver. (File Photo) The Supreme Court has acquitted a Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) driver convicted for causing the death of a passenger after he moved the bus while she was still alighting.
A bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and N V Anjaria on May 27 allowed an appeal filed by Mohammed Hanif Jainum Khalifa and said, “When appellant accused had followed instructions of conductor in stopping and moving the bus, which the appellant was duty-bound to do, it would be both unreasonable and illogical to attribute any negligence on his part.”
The bench also highlighted that the conductor signals the driver when it is appropriate to start and restart the bus after a stop. The driver, who would otherwise concentrate on driving, would depend on the conductor’s indications, signals, or whistling to regulate the vehicle’s movement.
The court also said, “The appellant driver was not expected to turn his head back and to see for himself whether the passengers had alighted. His dependence on the signal of whistling to start the bus was a normal and natural conduct. Holding that appellant-accused in the capacity of the driver conducted himself without due care or with negligence would not be a justifiable conclusion in the facts of the case.”
Conviction and Karnataka High Court’s decision
As per a complaint filed by Shamra Yalu Mane on April 17, 2011, Shobha fell from the bus and sustained grievous head injuries after Khalifa moved the bus in a rash and negligent manner while she was still alighting. She later succumbed to the injuries. The bus was proceedings from Athani to Miraj in Belagavi district.
The police charged Khalifa with offences punishable under section 279 (rash driving or riding on a public way) and section 304 A (causing death by negligence) of the Indian Penal Code. In 2015, the trial court convicted Khalifa on both charges, holding that starting the vehicle before all passengers could safely disembark constituted rash and negligent driving.
The Karnataka High Court later allowed a revision petition partly. It set aside the sentence for the offence under IPC section 279 and retained the sentence for the offence under IPC section 304 A.
Conductor’s whistle had signalled driver to move
The bench referred to the conductor’s statement that the bus had stopped after his whistle and that he had whistled again after the passenger had alighted.
“It was the conductor who was to ensure the due movement of the bus and who would be stepping inside the bus or alighting from the bus. The evidence does not suggest that the driver was negligent and whose negligence resulted into the fall of said passenger, Shobha, from the bus while getting off the bus.”
The order held, “It is therefore difficult to conclude with definitiveness that deceased Shobha had died on account of driver’s negligence. The driver, in any view, deserves to be exonerated from the charge of acting negligently.”
‘Law is also common sense’
The bench opined that common sense often guides the process of interpretation and application of law, “for the law is also common sense when exposed to certain set of facts and circumstances”.
Observing that applying common sense, wisdom, and ordinary understanding to day-to-day affairs and natural human activities helps one judge matters more accurately, the bench said in its order, “The deceased might have slipped while alighting from the bus because of her own movement being less than careful.”
The bench thus said, “The appellant is held not guilty and is acquitted of the offences under Section 279 as well as under Section 304A, IPC. He shall be released forthwith if still behind bars, provided his detention is not required for any other offence.”
The conductor was a witness in the case against the driver.
Share
