The Andhra Pradesh High Court has upheld the conviction of an APSRTC bus driver under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code for causing the death of a 75-year-old woman by negligent driving. However, while affirming his guilt, the Court reduced the sentence from one year of imprisonment to three months, citing mitigating factors.
The case arose from an incident where the bus driver started his vehicle without sounding the horn or waiting for the conductor’s signal. In the process, the bus hit a 75-year-old woman who was crossing the road, resulting in her death. The driver contended that the accident occurred because the deceased suddenly crossed the road, leaving him with no time to react. He argued that the victim’s conduct amounted to contributory negligence, which should absolve him of liability.
A single-judge bench of Justice Mallikarjuna Rao considered whether the defence of contributory negligence is available in criminal prosecutions under Section 304A. The Court ruled that contributory negligence, though relevant in civil cases concerning compensation, cannot apply to criminal liability under Section 304A. The Court clarified that even if a victim acts negligently, it does not automatically absolve the accused of responsibility if their rash or negligent act directly caused the death.
In its reasoning, the Court pointed out multiple lapses by the bus driver. He failed to blow the horn before moving the bus, did not ensure that the road was clear, and drove away without adequate caution near a bus stop where pedestrian movement is always expected. The Court stressed that drivers of public transport vehicles have a heightened duty of care because they must anticipate the possibility of pedestrians or other road users behaving carelessly.
The Court also examined the driver’s statement recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It observed that the driver had failed to explain the manner in which the accident occurred, which further weakened his defence.
While confirming the conviction, the Court considered certain mitigating circumstances in deciding the sentence. These included the absence of any criminal antecedents, the fact that the driver was relatively young, the lack of any evidence of intoxication or deliberate recklessness, and the considerable passage of time since the incident.
Taking these factors into account, the Court reduced the punishment under Section 304A from one year to three months’ simple imprisonment, along with a fine.
The ruling reinforces the principle that contributory negligence is not a defence in criminal cases under Section 304A. Drivers are expected to exercise a high degree of caution, especially in busy areas, and cannot escape liability simply by attributing fault to the victim. The Court underlined that ensuring public safety is paramount and that professional drivers carry an added responsibility to prevent accidents by anticipating possible negligent actions of others.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.