/2023 INSC 0602/
2023INSC602NON­REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
  CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1751 OF 2023
(Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 2161 of 2023)
Abdul Ansar               … Appellant
v.
State of Kerala                 ... Respondent
J U D G M E N T
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The question which arises in this appeal is whether the
conviction   of   the   appellant   for   the   offence   punishable   under
Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) can be sustained. 
RELEVANT FACTUAL ASPECTS
3. The   present   appellant   is   accused   No.   2.     The   accused
no.1   was   the   driver   of   a   stage   carriage   bus.     The   appellant–
accused No.2 was the conductor, and accused No. 3 was the
cleaner.     PW­1   Josia   (injured)   was   at   the   relevant   time
studying   in   8 th
  standard.     She   along   with   her   younger   sister
Jovan,   PW­7,   were   waiting   at   the   Karithambu   bus   stop   for
boarding   a   bus   for   going   to   their   school.     According   to   the
Criminal Appeal @ S.L.P. (Crl.) No.2161 of 2023 Page  1  of  10

prosecution   case,   after   the   bus   reached   the   said   bus   stop,
PW­7   Jovan   boarded   the   bus   followed   by   two   other   girls.
There   was   a   rush   for   boarding   the   bus.     When   PW­1   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.   The   girl
fell   down   on   the   road   and   came   under   the   left   rear   wheel   of
the   bus.   She   sustained   serious   injuries   including   fracture   of
pelvis.   The   allegation   against   the   appellant   was   that   without
waiting   for   the   PW­1   to   board   the   bus,   he   rang   the   bell   as   a
result   of   which   accused   No.1   started   the   bus.     The
prosecution   applied   offences   punishable   under   Sections   279
and   308   read   with   Section   34   of   IPC.     Apart   from   PW­1   and
PW­7,   PW­2   Sister   Elsamma,   a   teacher   was   an   important
witness.  She was a teacher working in the same school where
PW­1 and PW­7 were studying. She was standing at the same
bus stop when the incident occurred and therefore, she is an
eyewitness to the incident.  
4. The   learned   Additional   Sessions   Judge   acquitted   the
driver   –   accused   No.   1.   However,   he   convicted  the   appellant
and   accused   No.   3   for   the   offence   punishable   under   Section
308 read with Section 34 of IPC. He sentenced both of them to
suffer   rigorous   imprisonment   for   four   years   with   a   fine   of
Rs.5,000/­ each. In default of payment of the fine, a sentence
of rigorous imprisonment for six months was imposed.  Out of
the fine amount, a sum of Rs.7,500/­ was ordered to be paid
to  the  victim  of  the offence.    By  the  impugned  judgment, the
Criminal Appeal @ S.L.P. (Crl.) No.2161 of 2023 Page  2  of  10

appeal   preferred   by   the   appellant   and   accused   no.   3   was
decided.     The   High   Court   acquitted   accused   No.   3.   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   High   Court
noted that the incident was of the  year  2005 and a period of
17 years had lapsed from the date of the incident. 
RIVAL SUBMISSIONS
5. The   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the   appellant
submitted   that   the   offence   of   attempt   to   commit   culpable
homicide   not   amounting   to   murder   was   not   established   on
the   evidence.     He   submitted   that   accused   no.3,   the   cleaner
was standing on the footboard of the bus. He pointed out that
the   allegation   against   him   was   that   while   PW­1   was
attempting to board the bus, he not only did not help her but
virtually   pushed   her   out   of   the   bus.     He   submitted   that   all
that   is   alleged   against   the   appellant   is   that   he   rang   the   bell
which   was   a   signal   to   the   driver   to   start   the   vehicle   and
accused   No.1   started   the   bus   as   a   result   of   which   PW­1   fell
down   and   sustained   serious   injuries.     He   submitted   that   as
accused   no.3   has   been   acquitted   by   the   High   Court,   the
conviction   of   the   appellant   cannot   be   sustained.     He
submitted   that   the   incident   occurred   on   18 th
  August   2005
which is more than  17 and half years old. The appellant has
undergone   incarceration   for   a   period   of   36   days.     He   was
throughout on bail.
Criminal Appeal @ S.L.P. (Crl.) No.2161 of 2023 Page  3  of  10

6. 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 appellant had knowledge that at the bus stop, many
students were waiting to board the bus to reach their schools.
Therefore,   knowledge   on   his   part   can   be   inferred   that   by   his
act   of   ringing   the   bell   without   taking   precautions,   death   can
be  caused  of  a  passenger  who   is  trying   to  board  the  bus.  He
pointed   out   the   injuries   sustained   by   PW­1.     He   submitted
that the injuries were very serious, though  fortunately, PW­1
survived.   He would, therefore, submit that the offence under
Section 308 was established. 
OUR VIEW
7. We  have  perused  the   evidence   of   PW­1.   Her   version   in
the examination­in­chief reads thus: 
“Jovan   (CW7­my   sister)   and   I   were   waiting
at Karithambu bus stop for going to  school.
Bus   named   Ponmankal   had   arrived.   As   it
was packed,  I  told  Jovan  that we will  get in
the   next   bus.   Jovan   told   that   she   had
special   class   and   that   we   will   board   this
bus.   We   board   the   bus   in   line.   Jovan
boarded  the  bus.  Jovan’s  bus  fare  was  with
me.   Jovan   was   studying   in   7 th
  standard.
After   Jovan,   2   other   elder   girls   boarded   the
bus.  Cleaner was standing inside the bus.   I
stepped   my   one   leg   inside   the   bus   and
boarded it. By that time the bus moved. I
Criminal Appeal @ S.L.P. (Crl.) No.2161 of 2023 Page  4  of  10

asked   the   cleaner   to   hold   me.   Cleaner
came   to   hold   me   but   did   not   get   hold   of
me.   By   then,   I   tripped   and   fell   outside.   I
fell beneath the bus. I was unconscious.”
(emphasis supplied)
8. In   the   cross­examination,   PW­1   stated   that   if   her
younger   sister   (PW­7)   had   not   boarded   the   bus,   she   would
not have boarded the bus. As the bus ticket of her sister (PW­
7)   was   with   PW­1,   she   attempted   to   board   the   bus.     PW­2
Sister   Elsamma   was   standing   at   the   same   bus   stop   at   the
time   of   the   incident.     She   stated   that   though   some   of   the
students   of   her   school   boarded   the   bus,   she   decided   not   to
board the bus as it was overcrowded.   She stated that while
PW­1 was attempting to board the bus, the bell rang and the
bus   started   moving   as   a   result   of   which   she   fell   down   from
the footboard.   PW­7 partly did not support the prosecution.
PW­7   stated   that   PW­1   had   suggested   her   to   take   the   next
bus.   However, she insisted on boarding the said bus as she
had   to   attend   special   classes.     She   stated   that   while   PW­1
was   attempting   to   board   the   bus,   the   conductor   rang   the
bell.  
9. Prosecution placed reliance on the Kerala Motor Vehicle
Rules, 1989 (for short, “the Kerala Rules”) which are framed
under   the   Motor   Vehicles   Act,   1988.   Under   Rule   89,   the
conduct,   duties   and   functions   of   conductors   have   been   laid
down.   Clause   (o)   of   Rule   89   relied   upon   by   the   Prosecution
lays down that it is the duty of the conductor not to interfere
with   persons   mounting   and   preparing   to   mount   upon   any
Criminal Appeal @ S.L.P. (Crl.) No.2161 of 2023 Page  5  of  10

other   vehicle.   Clause   (o)   is   obviously   not   applicable   to   this
case.
10. It   is   borne   out   from   the   evidence   of   PW­2   Sister
Elsamma that the bus was completely packed and therefore,
she did not board the same.   Even PW­1 stated that the bus
was   packed.     According   to   her,   as   PW­7   had   to   attend   a
special   class,   she   boarded   the   bus.   PW­1   tried   to   board   the
bus as PW­7’s bus ticket was with her. Both PW­2 and PW­7
stated that the bell rang when PW­1 was attempting to board
the   bus.   After   having   perused   their   cross­examination,   we
find   that   there   is   no   reason   to   disbelieve   the   said   version.
Thus,   the   appellant   gave   a   signal   to   the   driver   to   start   the
bus even before PW­1 could properly board the bus.
11. Under   Section   308,   an   attempt   to   commit   culpable
homicide   not   amounting   to   murder   has   been   made   an
offence.     Therefore,   we   will   have   to   examine   whether   there
was   any   attempt   on   the   part   of   the   appellant   to   commit
culpable homicide.
12. It   is   not   the   prosecution’s   case   that   the   appellant   had
any   intention   to   cause   the   death   of   PW­1   or   intention   to
cause   such   bodily   injury   to   her   as   is   likely   to   cause   her
death.  The question is whether the appellant had knowledge
that he, by virtue of the act of ringing the bell, was likely to
cause death.  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 PW­1.   The bus was over crowded.   The cleaner
Criminal Appeal @ S.L.P. (Crl.) No.2161 of 2023 Page  6  of  10

was standing near the footboard. 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.   This is not a case
where   if   the   appellant’s   act   would   have   resulted   into   the
death  of  PW­1, he  would  be guilty   of  culpable  homicide,  not
amounting to murder.
13. By   applying   principles   incorporated   in   sub­section   (2)
of   Section   222   of   the   Code   of   Criminal   Procedure,   1973   (for
short, “CrPC”), the Court can consider whether the appellant
has committed any other offence which is a minor offence in
comparison to the offence for which he is tried.  
14. Now, we turn to Section 338 of IPC, which reads thus:
“338.   Causing   grievous   hurt   by   act
endangering   life   or   personal   safety   of
others .—Whoever causes grievous hurt to
any   person   by   doing   any   act   so   rashly   or
negligently   as   to   endanger   human   life,   or
the   personal   safety   of   others,   shall   be
punished   with   impris onment   of   either
description   for   a   term   which   may   extend
to   two   years,   or   with   fine   which   may
extend   to   one   thousand   rupees,   or   with
both.”
At that relevant time, the bus was overcrowded.   There were
a number of passengers waiting at the bus stop.  Therefore, it
was the duty of the appellant as a conductor to take care of
the   passengers.   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. He could
Criminal Appeal @ S.L.P. (Crl.) No.2161 of 2023 Page  7  of  10

have   ascertained   this   from   accused   no.3   –   cleaner   who   was
standing near the door of the bus.  However, he did not take
that   precaution   and   care   which   he   was   under   an   obligation
to take. Therefore, the appellant acted rashly and negligently
as   he   did   not   perform   his   duty   of   being   careful.     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.    However,  he  did  not verify  whether
the   passengers   had   properly   boarded   the   bus.   Therefore,   he
is   guilty   of   negligence   as   he   failed   to   perform   his   duty.   In
fact, this  was  an  act of  recklessness  on  his  part.  The fact is
that   due   to   the   negligence   on   the   part   of   the   appellant,
human   life   was   endangered.     Grievous   hurt   was   caused   to
PW­1 as she suffered fracture of pelvis. 
15.   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.   There will not be any
prejudice   caused   to   him   as   the   appellant   had   sufficient
notice   of   allegations   of   negligence   against   him   during   the
trial.   Hence, omission to frame charge under Section 338 of
IPC   will   not   be   fatal.     For   the   offence   punishable   under
Section 338 of IPC, the period of imprisonment can extend to
two years.    As noted earlier, the incident is of 2005.  So far,
the   appellant   has   undergone   the   sentence   for   only   36   days.
In   our   view,   considering   the   fact   that   the   incident   is   of   the
Criminal Appeal @ S.L.P. (Crl.) No.2161 of 2023 Page  8  of  10

year   2005   and   other   factual   aspects,   a   sentence   of   simple
imprisonment   for   six   months   will   be   an   appropriate
punishment in the facts of the case.  As per the directions of
the High Court, a sum of Rs.50,000/­ had been deposited by
the   appellant.     Looking   at   the   serious   injuries   sustained   by
PW­1  at  the   young   age  of  13  years,  she   must  be  adequately
compensated.     The   High   Court   had   imposed   a   fine   of   Rs.
50,000/­   which   amount   has   been   deposited.   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/­.
16. Hence, impugned judgments are modified insofar as the
appellant–accused No.2 is concerned.  Instead of Section 308
of   IPC,   he   is   held   guilty   of   an   offence   punishable   under
Section   338  of  the   IPC.    The   appellant  shall   undergo   simple
imprisonment   for   a   period   of   six   months.     He   is   entitled   to
claim   a   set­off   for   the   period   of   incarceration   already
undergone.
17. The   appellant   shall   pay   a   total   amount   of   Rs.75,000/­
out   of   which   a   sum   of   Rs.50,000/­   has   already   been
deposited.     Out   of   the   said   amount,   a   sum   of   Rs.45,000/­
shall be paid over to the victim – PW­1 as compensation.  The
remaining   amount   of   Rs.5,000/­   will   go   to   the   State
Government.     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.   The said amount
shall also be paid to PW­1 as compensation.  In default of the
Criminal Appeal @ S.L.P. (Crl.) No.2161 of 2023 Page  9  of  10

payment   of   the   said   amount,   the   appellant   shall   undergo
simple imprisonment for one month. Accordingly, the appeal
is partly allowed in the above terms.  We direct the appellant
to surrender within a period of four weeks from today before
the   Trial   Court   to   enable   the   Trial   Court   to   send   him   to
prison for undergoing the remaining sentence. A copy of this
judgment shall be forwarded to the Trial Court.
……..….……………J.
    (Abhay S. Oka)
……...………………J.
      (Rajesh Bindal)
New Delhi;
July 5, 2023.    
Criminal Appeal @ S.L.P. (Crl.) No.2161 of 2023 Page  10  of  10