MOHAMMED AYNUDDIN @ MIYAM versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 15 · Decided: 28-07-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

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 c 
driver-No presumption of negligence can be drawn against driver of bus-
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 
E 
17.12.1993. Because of his negligent driving an accident took place in 
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 
G 
- .. 
negligence of the driver should be presumed. An accident of such a 
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 
c 
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 
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] 
G 
H 
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 
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 p

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.