LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Abdul Ansar vs State of Kerala

Criminal Appeal · 2023 INSC 602Decided 5 Jul 2023
Criminal Appeal No. 1751 of 2023
Abhay S. Oka · Rajesh Bindal

Background

In 2005 in Kerala, a schoolgirl (PW-1) was trying to board an overcrowded bus at a bus stop, following her younger sister who had already boarded. The appellant, the bus conductor, rang the bell signalling the driver to start the bus before the girl had properly boarded, causing her to fall and land under the bus's rear wheel, fracturing her pelvis. The trial court convicted the conductor and the bus cleaner under Section 308 IPC (attempt to commit culpable homicide); the Kerala High Court acquitted the cleaner but upheld the conductor's conviction, reducing his sentence to one year given the 17-year lapse since the incident. The conductor appealed to the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that Section 308 IPC requires either intention to cause death/grievous injury likely to cause death, or knowledge that the act was likely to cause death, and on the facts (an overcrowded bus, no evidence the conductor intended or knew ringing the bell would likely kill the girl), this higher threshold was not met. However, invoking the principle under Section 222(2) CrPC (conviction for a lesser included offence), the Court found the conductor was clearly negligent and reckless in failing to verify all passengers had safely boarded before signalling the driver, despite knowing many schoolchildren were waiting at that stop, satisfying the lower threshold of Section 338 IPC (causing grievous hurt by a rash or negligent act endangering life). The Court substituted the conviction from Section 308 to Section 338 IPC, reduced the sentence to six months' simple imprisonment (with credit for time already served), and directed additional compensation of Rs. 25,000 (on top of Rs. 50,000 already deposited) be paid to the victim.

Lesson Learnt

A conviction for a serious offence like attempted culpable homicide requires proof of actual intention or knowledge of likely death: mere negligence, even if it causes grievous injury, is punished under a lesser provision (Section 338 IPC), and courts can convict for such a lesser included offence even without a separate charge being framed, so long as the accused had fair notice of the underlying allegations.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Criminal Law

Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Charming Rupon v. State of Meghalaya

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution's case riddled with serious doubt. Both the victim and her cousin (a key witness) admitted in cross-examination that they could not identify the accused and that his name had been supplied to them by the victim's mother, raising a strong suspicion of tutoring, especially since the victim admitted she had been coached by the public prosecutor before testifying. The mother's own conduct (not reacting urgently despite being told of the assault, and material facts missing from the belated FIR) was found "unnatural." A crucial witness, the school teacher whose disclosure triggered the FIR, was never examined, without explanation, warranting an adverse inference against the prosecution. The Court also noted that two medical witnesses were never meaningfully cross-examined because the defence counsel was absent on the relevant dates, and that the trial court had wrongly brushed aside credible alibi evidence led by the accused.

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Ramkrushna Prahllad Dongardive v. The State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court restored the trial court's acquittal. It found that the prosecution never produced the original cashbooks, daily registers, or audit reports that would have actually proven the appellant was entrusted with and misappropriated the money: the investigating officer himself admitted these documents were never shown to him despite being asked for. The department also failed to produce records the appellant had specifically sought in his own defence. Separately, the search and seizure of documents from the appellant's house was legally doubtful, since both independent witnesses to the seizure turned hostile and denied knowing its contents, and the mandatory procedural safeguards for such a seizure were not followed. The Court also flagged that the High Court convicted the appellant for the very first time on appeal without ever hearing him on the question of sentence, which the law required it to do.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Gurpreet Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi)

The Court accepted that the order recalling the proclaimed offender status be placed on record. Noting that the complainant was untraceable and the prosecution itself raised no serious objection to anticipatory bail, the Court found no reason to deny the applicant liberty. It granted anticipatory bail, directing release on a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with one surety in the event of arrest.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Mukesh Rani vs. Narcotics Control Bureau

The Court noted the investigation was complete, the chargesheet was filed, the co-accused had already been granted bail, and the combined quantity recovered (1.976 kg) still fell short of the "commercial quantity" threshold under the NDPS Act. With ten witnesses yet to be examined and no indication the trial would conclude quickly, the Court found continued detention unnecessary and granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Aakash vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

The Court noted that all prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and the guest house manager, had already been examined, and that a co-accused in the same FIR had already been granted bail. Given the complainant's own testimony about voluntary association with the petitioner and the completed trial evidence, the Court found the overall facts favoured bail. It granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions (reporting to police weekly, not influencing witnesses, providing address/mobile details).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Kundan Kumar vs. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

The Court relied on earlier Delhi High Court rulings holding that whether a broken promise of marriage was "false" from the outset (criminal) or a mere "breach" (not criminal) is a question for trial, not something requiring custodial interrogation. Noting the investigation was complete and the applicant had no prior criminal record, the Court granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with conditions, clarifying the order was not an opinion on the merits.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case