School Girl Injured After Conductor Signals Driver To Move While She Was Boarding The Bus: Kerala High Court Upholds Conviction U/S 308 IPC
The Kerala High Court recently ruled that a conductor of a stage carriage bus, ringing its bell and signalling the driver to move forward when a passenger was boarding it thereby causing serious injury to the passenger is an act punishable under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code.Section 308 punishes the attempt to commit culpable homicide.Justice P.G. Ajithkumar held so after finding that...
The Kerala High Court recently ruled that a conductor of a stage carriage bus, ringing its bell and signalling the driver to move forward when a passenger was boarding it thereby causing serious injury to the passenger is an act punishable under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code.
Section 308 punishes the attempt to commit culpable homicide.
Justice P.G. Ajithkumar held so after finding that the conductor has a statutory duty to ensure the safety of the passengers and that he would thereby have sufficient knowledge that his action of ringing the bell could have fatal consequences.
"Every prudent man should know if a person falls down from a moving bus, that would cause fatal injuries to him. If so, a licensed conductor should have sufficient knowledge about such a certain consequence while ringing the bell thereby asking the driver of the bus to move from the bus stop, without ensuring that no passenger is mounting the bus and the door is closed.
A school-going girl was boarding a bus when its conductor rang the bell, thereby signalling the driver to move forward. It is alleged that despite seeing her on the footboard, the cleaner obstructed her from entering the bus. When the bus moved forward, she lost her grip and fell backwards, leading to the rear tyre almost running over her, thereby causing her serious injuries.
The prosecution alleged that the conductor and cleaner of the bus had the knowledge that by their acts, there was every likelihood of causing death of passengers trying to board the bus. The accused on the other hand denied the incriminating circumstances in evidence put to them and their involvement in the incident.
The conductor and cleaner of the bus were found guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under Section 308 read with Section 34 of IPC. Challenging this, they approached the High Court.
Advocate Nandagopal S. Kurup appearing for the conductor acknowledged the incident but asserted that the trial court convicted them without there having any evidence about the way in which the incident occurred or their identity.
Advocate Jobi Jose Kondody appearing for the cleaner argued that this is a case of a mere accident which unfortunately resulted in injuries to a minor girl and that it cannot be an attempt to commit culpable homicide; since they could never have knowledge that the act would likely have caused her death.
Public Prosecutor Sanal P. Raj submitted that the prosecution has proved that the incident occurred only because the conductor rang the bell and the cleaner failed to ensure that no passenger was boarding while the bus was on the move. Thus, their act and the illegal omission amounted to the offence punishable under Section 308, it was contended.
From the depositions of occurrence witnesses and the discharge certificates of the injured girl, the Judge confirmed that the girl had sustained serious injuries from the incident which could have resulted in her death if not treated timely.
Further, when the appellants took the defence that the girl was in a hurry to board the bus, the Court emphasised that as per Rule 89(o) of Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, a conductor has a statutory duty to ensure the safety of the passengers and not to interfere with the persons mounting the vehicle.
"Therefore, the 2nd accused (conductor )had a bounden duty before ringing the bell thereby giving signal to the driver to proceed to ensure that the foot-board was clear and the door is closed."
The Single Judge also found that here the cleaner was standing on the footboard when the incident happened and yet did nothing to see that the bus started moving.
"The purpose of employing a cleaner in a stage carriage is undoubtedly to ensure the safety of the passengers, who are boarding and alighting the bus. Therefore, it was his duty also to see that the bus is not moved ahead with any passenger on the foot-board or before the door is cleared."
However, the identity of the cleaner could not be proved by the prosecution, and his conviction was therefore set aside. As such, it was held that as a result of the conductor ringing the bell without ensuring that nobody was boarding the bus, the driver took the bus ahead and that is the proximate cause of the girl falling down.
The next question was whether this act amounts to an offence under Section 308 of IPC. If the act was done with the knowledge that the likely consequence of the act would be death or causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death of a person, that will constitute an offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Since Rule 89(o) casts a duty on the conductor to ensure safety of the passengers, when that statutory obligation is shirked, it was held to be an illegal omission amounting to an act as stated in Section 308.
The sentence imposed on him was however modified, considering his age and other aspects.
Case Title: Abdul Ansar v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 302