Supreme Court acquits bus driver in passenger death case, says followingconductor’s signal is not negligence

Recently, the Supreme Court acquitted a bus driver working for Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) of any wrongdoing after it was found that he did not negligently act in an incident where a lady fell from the bus while getting down from it. The bus driver said that he had heard the conductor’s signal and thus moved ahead without noticing that the lady was trying to get down.

This incident happened on April 17, 2011 at around 3.30PM when she and her family members boarded the KSRTC bus from Athani to return to their village Mangasuli. At around 04.30 PM, since they were to alight from the bus, the bus conductor whistled to stop the bus near Mallayya Temple.

When she was in the process of taking off from the bus, the driver of the said bus, moved the bus in an alleged rash and negligent manner which resulted in her falling down from the bus.


As a result of this fall, she sustained grievous injuries on her head and was thereafter shifted to the hospital, however, later she succumbed to her injuries. After this, her family members filed an FIR against the driver at Kagawad Police Station.

The case went on for trial and the trial court heard witness testimony of her sister and mother and a third person who was on his bike behind the bus. Her family told the trial court that before the passenger could safely disembark the driver moved the vehicle. Mr. Patil, the motorcyclist who was coming from behind the said bus, corroborated the family’s version of events and said that the bus had stopped near Mallayya Temple and that it started moving when she was getting down.

The case went on for many years and was ultimately heard in the Supreme Court. On May 27, 2026, the Supreme Court acquitted the bus driver from all charges.

The Supreme Court said that the accused driver had followed the instructions of the conductor in stopping and moving the bus, which he was duty-bound to do, and thus it would be both unreasonable and illogical to attribute any negligence on his part.

The Supreme Court also said that the driver was not expected to turn his head back and to see for himself whether the passengers had alighted. His dependence on the signal of whistling by the conductor to start the bus was a normal and natural conduct.

The Supreme Court put significant emphasis on the witness testimony of the bus conductor, as reported by LiveLaw. The bus conductor had stated that he fired the whistle and signalled the driver to stop and then again whistled for him to go. The bus conductor said that he only gave a signal to go after the passengers had alighted.

The Supreme Court said that it is the conductor who signals the driver in an appropriate way to start the bus or to start again after stoppage, the passengers having got off the bus. The driver of the bus, who would otherwise be concentrating on the driving, would depend upon the indications, signals or whistling from the conductor to monitor and regulate the movement of the bus.

The Supreme Court also said that the application of the mind by the driver has to stay in driving the bus for the sake of safety, while he would follow the conductor's signals for starting, stopping and moving the bus.

The Supreme Court said that it was the conductor who was to ensure the due movement of the bus and who would be stepping inside the bus or alighting from the bus, as the case may be.

The Supreme Court said: “The evidence does not suggest that the driver was negligent and whose negligence resulted into the fall of said passenger from the bus while getting off the bus.”

Order:

The appellant (driver) is held not guilty and is acquitted of the offences under Section 279 as well as under Section 304A, IPC. He shall be released forthwith if still behind the bars, provided his detention is not required for any other offence.