Holding

A conviction under Section 304A cannot be sustained without evidence that the driver moved the bus before the passenger could board or without a signal, and no presumption of negligence applies.

Summary

The appellant, a driver of an Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation bus, was convicted under IPC Section 304A after a passenger fell from the bus while boarding and was run over by the rear wheel, resulting in death. The trial, sessions, and high courts held him guilty of culpable negligence, imposing a three‑year imprisonment. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether negligence could be presumed merely because the passenger fell while the bus was moving. It held that no presumption of negligence attaches to a driver in such circumstances; liability requires proof that the driver moved the vehicle before the passenger could board or without a signal to proceed. The evidence presented was insufficient to establish such negligence, and the principle of res ipsa loquitur was deemed inapplicable. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the driver.

Issues considered

Whether a driver can be held criminally liable under Section 304A for a passenger's death occurring while the passenger is boarding the bus.
Whether negligence can be presumed against a driver in the absence of specific evidence of improper vehicle movement.
Whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies to establish negligence in a motor vehicle boarding accident.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 304A

Subjects

culpable negligenceSection 304Amotor vehicle accidentpresumption of negligenceres ipsa loquiturcriminal negligencebus driver liabilityboarding accident

Judgment

MOHAMMED AYNUDDIN @ MIYAM A
v.
,J STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JULY28, 2000

[K.T. THOMAS AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] B

Indian Penal Code, 1860 : Section 304-A.

', Causing death by culpable negligence-Driver-Negligent driving-
Passenger falling down from bus while boarding it-Death-Liability of
driver-No presumption of negligence can be drawn against driver of bus-
c
To fasten liability on driver for negligent driving there should be evidence-
Evidence must show that he moved the bus suddenly before the passenger
could get into the vehicle or that the driver moved the vehicle even before
getting any signal from the rear side.
D
er Negligent driving-Principle of Res lpsa loquitor-Applicability of

The appellant was prosecuted under section 304-A of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860. The prosecution case was that the appellant was driv·
ing a bus of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation on
17.12.1993. Because of his negligent driving an accident took place in E
which a passenger while boarding the bus fell therefrom and the rear
wheel of the vehicle ran over her. The Trial Court, the Sessions Court and
the High Court held him guilty of culpable negligence. Accordingly, he
was convicted under section 304-A and sentenced to imprisonment for
three years. Hence these appeals. F

Allowing the appeals and setting aside the conviction and sentence,
this Court

- .. HELD : 1. It is a wrong proposition that for any motor accident
negligence of the driver should be presumed. An accident of such a G
nature, as would prima facie show, that it cannot be accounted to anything
other than the negligence of the driver of the vehicle may create a
presumption and in such a case the driver has to explain how the accident
happened without negligence on his part Merely because passenger fell
down from the bus while boarding the bus no presumption of negligence H
15
16 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A can be drawn against the driver of the bus. To fasten the liability with the
driver for negligent driving in such a situation there should be evidence
that he moved the bus suddenly before the passenger could get into the
vehicle or that the driver moved the vehicle even before getting any signal
·-·
from the rear side. [18-D; 18-B]
B
2. In the present case the possible explanation of the driver is that he
was unaware of even the possibility of the accident which happened. It
could be so. When he moved the vehicle forward his focus normally would
have been towards what was ahead of the vehicle. He is not expected to
move the vehicle forward when passengers are in the process of boarding
c the vehicle. But when he gets a signal from the conductor. that the bus can
proceed he is expected to start moving the vehicle. Here no witness has
said, including the conductor, that the driver moved the vehicle before
getting signal to move forward. The evidence in this case is too scanty to •
fasten him with criminal negligence. Some further evidence is indispensa-
D bly needed to presume that the passenger fell down due to the negligence of
the driver of the bus. Such further evidence is lacking in this case. There-
fore, the court is disabled from concluding that the victim fell down only
because of the negligent driving of the bus. The corollary thereof is that the
conviction of the appellant of the offence is unsustainable.[18-H; 19-A-C]

E 3. The principle of res ipsa loquitor is only a rule of evidence to
determine the onus of proof in actions relating to negligence. The said
principle has application only when the nature of the accident and the
attending circumstances would reasonably lead to the belief that in the
absence of negligence the accident would not have occurred and that the
F thing which caused injury is shown to have been under the management
and control of the alleged wrong doer. [18-E-F]

4. A rash act is primarily an over hasty act. It is opposed to a
deliberate act. Still a rash act can be a deliberate act.in the sense that it was

G
done without due care and caution. Culpable rashness lies in running the
risk of doing an act with recklessness and with indifference as to the
.
consequences. Criminal negligence is the failure to exercise duty with
reasonable and proper care and precaution guarding against injury to the
public generally or to any individual in particular. It is the imperative duty
of the driver of a vehicle to adopt such reasonable and proper care and
H precaution. [18-G]
MOHAMMED AYNUDDIN@ MIYAM v. STATE [THOMAS, J.) 17
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal Nos. 584- A
585 of 2000.
• J.

From the Judgment and Order dated 1.11. 99 of the Andhra Pradesh High
Court in Crl.R.C. No. 515 of 1998 and Crl.R.P. No. 513 of 1998.

R. Santhanakrishnan and D. Mahesh Babu for the Appellant. B

Ms. T. Anamika and Guntur Prabhakar for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

THOMAS, J. Leave granted. c
A passenger, while boarding a bus, fell down therefrom as the vehicle
moved forward. The driver of the bus was held guilty of culpable negligence
in that episode. He now stands convicted under Section 304A of Indian Penal
Code and was sentenced to imprisonment for three months. All the three
D
courts, the trial court, the Sessions Court and the High Court in revision - took
the same stand. Hence these appeals.

The finding of facts cannot be disturbed now. The only question which
survives for decision is whether on such facts a conclusion that the appellant
is guilty of negligent driving must necessarily follow. The facts which the E
courts found to have been established in the case are these:

On 17.12.1993 the appellant was driving a bus of the Andhra Pradesh
Road Transport Corporation. A passenger by name Agamma boarded the bus
enroute at some point. When the bus moved forward she fell out of the vehicle
and its rear wheel ran over her. She died of the injuries sustained in that F
accident.

The conductor of the bus was examined as PW3. He did not say how
the accident happened. However, he admitted that while the bus was in
motion he heard a sound of accident and the bus was then stopped. The only G
witness who spoke about the occurrence was PW4. What that witness has
deposed in the examination-in-chief is the following:

"Agamma was boarding the bus and the bus was moved; and she fell
down beneath the bus and died on the spot; the bus stopped at some
distance. I saw the driver of the bus at that time." H
18 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A What is the culpable negligence on the part of the bus driver in the
above accident? A passenger might fall down from a moving vehicle due to
one of the following causes: It could be accidental; it could be due to the
negligence of the passenger himself; it could be due to the negligent taking
off of the bus by the driver. However, to fasten the liability with the driver
for negligent driving in such a situation there should be the evidence that he
B
moved the bus suddenly before the passenger could get into the vehicle or that
the driver moved the vehicle even before getting any signal from the rear side.

A driver who moves the bus forward can be expected to keep his eyes
ahead and possibly on the sides also. A driver can take the reverse motion when
c that driver assures himself that the vehicle can safely be taken backward.

It is a wrong proposition that for any motor accident negligence of the
driver should be presumed. An accident of such a nature as would primafacie
show that it cannot be accounted to anything other than the negligence of the
driver of the vehicle may create a presumption and in such a case the driver
D has to explain how the accident happened without negligence on his part.
Merely because a passenger fell down from the bus while boarding the bus no
presumption of negligence can be drawn against the driver of the bus.

The principle of res ipsa loquitor is only a rule of evidence to determine
the onus of proof in actions relating to negligence. The said principle has
E
application only when the nature of the accident and the attending circum-
stances would reasonably lead to the belief that in the absence of negligence
the accident would not have occurred and that the thing which caused injury
is shown to have been under the management and control of the alleged wrong
doer.
F
A rash act is primarily an over hasty act. It is opposed to a deliberate act.
Still a rash act can be a deliberate act in the sense that it was done without due
care and caution. Culpable rashness lies in running the risk of doing an act with
recklessness and with indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negligence
is the failure to exercise duty with reasonable and proper care and precaution
G
guarding against i11jury to the public generally or to any individual in particular.
It is the imperative duty of the driver of a vehicle to adopt such reasonable and
proper care and precaution.

In the present case the possible explanation of the driver is that he was
H unaware of even the possibility of the accident which happened. It could be
MOHAMMED AYNlJDDIN@ MIYAM v. STATE [THOMAS, J.] 19
so. When he moved the vehicle forward his focus normally would have been A
towards what was ahead of the vehicle. He is not expected to move the vehicle
forward when passengers are in the process of boarding the vehicle. But when
he gets a signal froll} the conductor that the bus can proceed he is expected to
start moving the vehicle. Here no witness has said, including the conductor, that
the driver moved the vehicle before getting signal to move forward. The
B
evidence in this case is too scanty to fasten him with criminal negligence. Some
further evidence is indispensably needed to presume that the passenger fell
down due to the negligence of the driver of the bus. Such further evidence is
lacking in this case. Therefore, the court is disabled from concluding that the
victim fell down only because of the negligent driving of the bus. The corollary
thereof is that the conviction of the appellant of the offence is unsustainable. c
In the result, we allow these appeals and set aside the conviction and

- sentence and he is acquitted.

T.N.A. Appeals allowed.

--