Dinesh Kumar (Conductor) v. State of Uttarakhand

3:30 p.m. near Monabend the bus caught fire under the seat of the conductor. The passengers shouted and 3 asked the driver to stop the bus. However, the dirver (Ganesh Dutt), who was driving the bus, did not stop it at once. Conductor (appellant/accused Dinesh Kumar) also did not ask the driver to stop the bus. By the time bus stopped, fourteen passengers got roasted in the bus and died due to burn injuries. Eighteen other passengers also suffered partial burn injuries. PW1 Harak Singh, PW2 Narayan Singh and some others namely Bishan Singh, Sher Singh, Malti Devi, Narayan Singh, Shanti Devi, Kala Upadhayay were among the surviving passengers. It is alleged by the prosecution that the driver and conductor ran away after the bus stopped. However, accused/appellant Dinesh Kumar (conductor of the bus) gave a report (Ex. A15) to the Patwari Chaukuni regarding the incident, on the very day (28.12.1989). In certain areas of Uttarakhand Hills certain Revenue Officials are given police powers. It appears that after enquiry on the report of conductor, Patwari Chaukuni lodged First Information Report No. 12 of 1990 (Ex.A28) against both the driver (Ganesh Dutt) and conductor (Dinesh Kumar), in respect of offences punishable under Section 279, 304‐A of I.P.C. . 4 4) PW3 Devendra Singh, the then Patwari Chaukuni himself investigated the crime. The postmortem examination on the dead passengers was conducted, after preparing inquest reports of their bodies. After interrogating the witnesses, and on completion of investigation the Investigating Officer submitted the chargesheet (Ex. A30) against the accused/appellants Ganesh Dutt (Driver), and Dinesh Kumar (Conductor) for their trial in respect of offences punishable under Section 279, 304 of I.P.C., and under Section 177, 183, 184 and 187 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 5) Judicial Magistrate, Ranikhet on receiving chargesheet, and after giving necessary copies to the accused/appellants as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial. After hearing the parties, the learned Sessions Judge, Almora framed charge of offences punishable under Section 279 and 304 Part‐I of I.P.C., against both the accused/appellants Ganesh Dutt (Driver), and Dinesh Kumar (Conductor), who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The trial court on the same day further framed charge in respect of offences punishable under Section 183, 184 5 and 187 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against both the accused/appellants, and to that charge, also the two pleaded not guilty. 6) On this prosecution got examined PW1 Harak Singh (injured passenger), PW2 Narayan Singh (another passenger), and PW3 Devendra Singh (Patwari) (who investigated the crime). 7) The oral and documentary evidence was put to both the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in reply to which they pleaded that they were not at fault. They further pleaded that it was a simple accident. However, admitted accused/appellant Ganesh Dutt was the Driver, and accused Dinesh Kumar was the Conductor of the bus. It is also not disputed that fourteen lives were lost in the incident. No evidence in defence was adduced. The trial court after hearing the parties held that both the accused Ganesh Dutt and Dinesh Kumar, guilty charge of offences punishable under Section 304 Part‐ II of I.P.C., and under Section 184 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Accused/appellant Ganesh Dutt (Driver) was further convicted under Section 279 of I.P.C. while accused Dinesh Kumar (Conductor) further 6 convicted under Section 187 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Each of the convicts was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years under Section 304 Part‐II of I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 184 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The accused Dinesh Kumar was further sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months under Section 187 of I.P.C. and accused/appellant Ganesh Dutt was further sentenced for a period of six months under Section 279 of I.P.C. It pertinent to mention here that accused Ganesh Dutt (Driver of the bus) filed separate appeal (Criminal Appeal No. no. 689 of 2001), against the impugned judgment but due to his death during the pendency of said appeal his appeal was abated vide order dated

31.10.2012. (cid:147)This appeal was preferred by Dinesh Kumar (Conductor of the bus) before Allahabad High Court, against judgment and order dated

14.07.2000, passed by learned Session Judge Sessions Trial No. 57 of 1996, this appeal received by this Court under Section 35 of U.P. Re‐organization Act, 2000 (Central Act, 29 of 2000), for its disposal. 8) It is admitted case to the parties that bus bearing Registration No. UGP 4156 belonging to U.P. 7 State Roadways was on its way from Ranikhet to Garud. It is also not disputed that accused/appellant Dinesh Kumr was Conductor of the bus, and co‐ accused Ganesh Dutt (since deceased) was the driver of the bus. It is also not disputed by the defence that fourteen passengers lost their lives in the incident, on

28.12.1989 at about 3.30 p.m. when bus caught fire near Monabend on the Ranikhet and Garud route. The above facts are also established on the record from the statements of PW1 Harak Singh (injured passenger) and PW2 Narayan Singh (another passenger) who traveled in the bus on that day. 9) The only question raised in this appeal on behalf of the appellant who is conductor of the bus is that weather the conductor had any role in causing death or injuries to the passengers or weather he committed violation provisions of Motor Vehicles Act,

#1988. In this connection, statements of PW1 Harak Singh (injured passenger), and PW2 Narayan Singh (another passenger) who were traveling in the bus, were read out and it was argued that the incident in question was nothing but simply an accident, in which the bus caught fire and fourteen passengers got roasted, apart from eighteen others who suffered burn 8 injuries. It is argued on behalf of the appellant Dinesh Kumar (conductor of the bus) that if at all there was any negligence in driving the bus, it was on the part of Driver Ganesh Dutt (since deceased), and conductor cannot be held responsible. As to the catching fire in the bus is concerned it is not the case of prosecution that accused/appellant Dinesh Kumar (Conductor) had loaded any inflammable item in the bus. If the some accident took place machine/motor of the bus, the conductor has no role to play in it. PW1 Harak Singh has clearly stated that it was the driver who was drunk and rashly driving the bus, and did not stop it. 10) Having re‐appreciated the evidence on record, in the light of the above contentions, this Court finds itself in agreement with learned counsel for the appellant, and there is no hesitation on the part of this Court in observing that the trial court has erred in law holding that the accused/appellant Dinesh Kumar is guilty of charge of offences punishable under Section 304 Part‐II of I.P.C., in respect of offence under Section 184 and 187 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Section 184 makes the person driving the vehicle responsible, if the speed of the vehicle exceeds the limit, which is 9 prescribed for the route. The conductor cannot be held responsible for the same, unless it is shown that he was the person, who asked the driver to reach the destination before the scheduled time. It is not the case of the prosecution that the conductor did not stop at the proper stoppage, and made the driver to reach the place of incident before time. 11) Similarly, the offence punishable under Section 187 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which provides punishment for violation of clause (c) of Sub‐section (1) Section 132 or Section 133 or Section 134 of the Act, does not get attracted against the conductor. It is pertinent to mention here Section 133 requires owner of the Motor Vehicle to give information to Police Officer authorized by the Government regarding the address and license of the driver and conductor. It does not make that conductor liable to do so. Section 134 also requires the driver of the vehicle to take steps for medical attention for the injured in case of accident. This also does not require that conductor has to do so. 12) For the reasons as discussed above though this Court feels that it is a sad story that fourteen 10 innocent passengers lost their lives and many others got injured accidental in the fire in the bus but for that incident conductor cannot held responsible in any way. There is no evidence that the bus loaded with any inflammable item. In that case it could be said that conductor could be responsible for the incident. So far as over loading of passengers is concerned it has come on the record that after bus proceeded from Ranikhet, failure of a bus, its passengers were transshipped in the bus in question PW1 Harak Singh, and PW2 Narayan Singh have admitted so in their statements. 13) Therefore the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order‐dated 14.07.2000, passed by Sessions Judge, Almora in Sessions Trial No. 57 of 1996, so far as it relates to conviction and sentence recorded against the accused/appellant Dinesh Kumar under Section 304 part‐II of I.P.C., under Section 184, and 187 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is set aside. The accused/appellant Dinesh Kumar (conductor of the bus) stands acquitted from the charge of offences punishable under Section 304 part II, under Section 184 and 187 Motor Vehicles Act, 11

#1988. He is on bail. He need not surrender. Lower court record be sent back.

18.12.2012 (Prafulla C. Pant, J.)