Andhra Pradesh High Court: A revision petition was filed by the petitioner-accused, challenging the order which convicted him for the offence under Section 304-A of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), imposing the punishment of one year simple imprisonment, as the deceased succumbed to the injuries caused to her due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused. A Single Judge Bench of T. Mallikarjuna Rao, J., opined that the doctrine of contributory negligence was not applicable to criminal actions and the same could not be taken as a defence in the instant case. The accused was obligated to take precautions, and failure to do the same amounted to negligence. The Court, in addition to the fact that the deceased also acted negligently, acknowledged the conduct of the accused post the offence and noted that he rushed to take the deceased to the hospital and also had no criminal antecedents.
The Court opined that the doctrine of contributory negligence could be considered as a mitigating factor while sentencing the offender and thus observed that the punishment imposed by the Court was excessive and accordingly reduced the punishment to 3 months of imprisonment and partly allowed the petition.
Background
The accused, who worked as a bus driver for APSRTC, drove the vehicle rashly and negligently, causing severe injuries to the deceased, who succumbed to injuries at the government hospital. On PW1’s report, a case was registered with the police station and consequently, Sub-Inspector of Police, visited the scene, prepared an observation report and rough sketch, held an inquest, and sent the body for post-mortem.
The post-mortem report stated that the death of deceased occurred due to haemorrhagic shock from multiple injuries. The Motor Vehicle Inspector confirmed that there was no mechanical defect in the vehicle. Thus, the accused was arrested and remanded to the judicial custody.
The Trial Court took cognizance against the accused under Section 304-A IPC and he was examined under Section 251 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’). The Trial Court found the accused guilty and therefore convicted him and sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 500 and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month, for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC.
The accused appealed against the said order, before the Sessions Court but the appeal was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the accused filed the Revision Petition before the present Court.
Analysis, Law and Decision
The Court noted that the testimonies of PWs 1 to 4, who were all close relatives of the deceased, established that on 31-5-2006 at around 4.00 pm, they, along with the deceased, proceeded to the Vangipuram bus stop to travel to Nadendla. PWs 1 to 4 boarded the bus, while the deceased remained outside. PW7 stated that he accompanied them to the Vangipuram bus stand. While the deceased was crossing in front of the bus, the driver, without blowing the horn or noticing her presence, moved the vehicle forward and ran over her. PWs 1 to 3 were inside the bus at the time of the incident but did not witness the actual moment of impact. The conductor of the bus, stated that he did not know who was responsible for the negligence but, he mentioned that the deceased fell to the ground on the right side of the bus, i.e., the driver’s side.
The Court observed that the testimonies of PWs 2 and 4 indicated that they saw the deceased walking from the right side of the bus toward the front left side when the driver started the bus and moved it forward. According to them, the accused, without observing the presence of the deceased, negligently moved the bus, thereby causing the accident. Additionally, the evidence of PW6 and the contents of rough sketch and inquest report showed that the right front portion of the bus bumper hit the deceased, suggesting the point of impact and further corroborating the eyewitness accounts.
The Court noted that the accused had taken the defence that the deceased, being an elderly woman, fell under the bus on her own, and that there was no negligence on his part. Even in such circumstances, it was incumbent upon the driver, to explain the sequence of events but in the instant case the accused failed to offer any substantive statement or explanation during his examination under Section 313 CrPC. The absence of such a defence or clarification further undermined the accused’s stand.
The Court stated that the established legal standard mandated that before setting a bus in motion, the driver must diligently observe the surroundings to ensure safety. This duty of care was especially critical at a bus stop, where the presence of passengers and pedestrians demands heightened vigilance. The Court acknowledged that the bus could not have been travelling at a significant speed at the bus stop, the driver’s obligation to sound the horn as a precautionary measure remained unequivocal.
The Court opined that while the deceased also acted imprudently and contributed to the accident, the accident deemed to be the result of contributory negligence, but the doctrine of contributory negligence did not apply to criminal law. The accused was liable even though there was a degree of negligence on the part of the deceased. The accused must have anticipated reasonably foreseeable negligent acts of road users and was obligated to sound the horn, wait a reasonable period, or seek assistance from the conductor before moving the bus. Failure to adopt such precautions constituted negligence. Thus, the accused failed to exercise the highest degree of caution required of a public bus operator.
On the plea to reduce the sentence of the accused, the Court observed that the accused was not under influence of liquor or any other substance impairing his ability to drive at the time of the accident. Additionally, based on the testimonies of witnesses, it was observed that immediately after the accident, the accused shifted the injured to the Government General Hospital, Guntur, where she succumbed to the injuries on the same day. Thus, the Court opined that even though the doctrine of contributory negligence did not apply to criminal law, it might be considered as a mitigating factor while sentencing the offender. Therefore, in the light of mitigating circumstances, the Court found the punishment awarded by the Trial Court, excessive.
Accordingly, the Court held that even though there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, but such defence could not be taken in a criminal matter. The accused was rash and negligent while driving the bus and failed to exercise the highest degree of caution which was his duty as a public bus operator. Furthermore, as the accused took the victim to the hospital himself and was not under the influence of liquor nor had any criminal antecedents thus, the Court found the punishment of simple imprisonment of one year, to be excessive. Therefore, the Court upheld the conviction of the accused but reduced the sentence to 3 months and directed to set-off the period of imprisonment already undergone by the accused. The Court further directed the accused to surrender before the Sessions Court within 3 weeks failing which, the Trial Court was to take necessary action to enforce the remaining sentence.
[Islavath Taru Naik v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine AP 3243, decided on: 9-9-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Advocate for the Petitioner- O Kailashnath Reddy
Advocate for the Respondents- Public Prosecutor
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
