When PW-1 Josia tried to board the bus by putting her one leg on the footboard of the bus, accused no.3 pushed her down with his hands while he was standing on the footboard of the bus. However, he convicted the appellant and accused No 3 for the offence punishable under Section 308 read with Section 34 of IPC.
While confirming the conviction of the appellant under Section 308 of IPC, the sentence was brought down to one year by directing him to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent State pointed out that it was the duty of the appellant as a conductor to ensure that all the passengers safely board the bus at the bus stop and the further duty of the appellant was to close the door of the bus and thereafter, ring the bell for giving a signal to the driver to start the bus. He submitted that the injuries were very serious, though fortunately, PW-1 survived.
Jovan told that she had special class and that we will board this bus.
In the cross-examination, PW-1 stated that if her younger sister (PW-7) had not boarded the bus, she would not have boarded the bus. As the bus ticket of her sister (PW- 7) was with PW-1, she attempted to board the bus.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/extension-of-benefit-of-doubt-in-criminal-convictions/
Both PW-2 and PW-7 stated that the bell rang when PW-1 was attempting to board the bus. 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 PW-1.
Therefore, in the absence of intention and knowledge as contemplated by Section 299 of IPC, the offence of attempt to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder was not made out. Hence, before he rang the bell and gave a signal to the driver to start the bus, he ought to have verified whether all passengers had safely boarded the bus. The appellant knew that at the relevant bus stop, a large number of students were waiting to take the bus to reach their school and therefore, the appellant ought to have verified whether all the passengers had properly boarded the bus before giving the signal to the driver.
In the circumstances, we are of the view that the appellant is guilty of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 338 of IPC. In addition to the sum of Rs.50,000/-already deposited, we propose to direct the appellant to deposit an additional amount of Rs.25,000/-.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/vicarious-liability-under-section-34-of-ipc/
The appellant shall pay a total amount of Rs.75,000/- out of which a sum of Rs.50,000/- has already been deposited. The appellant is directed to pay an additional amount of Rs.25,000/- by way of deposit in the Trial Court within a period of two months from today.
Case Title: ABDUL ANSAR Vs. THE STATE OF KERALA (2023 INSC 602)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-001751-001751 / 2023
