Criminal negligence in bus accident cases requires proof of rash or negligent driving, not mere passenger fall while alighting.

Moving a bus after passengers had alighted, on the conductor's signal, did not amount to rash or negligent driving under Sections 279 and 304A IPC on these facts. The conductor's evidence showed the bus was stationary, passengers got down, and the driver moved only after receiving instructions. The Court found no basis to infer criminal negligence merely because the deceased fell while descending from the bus, and held that the ingredients of the charged offences were not satisfied. The conviction and sentence were therefore unsustainable, and the appellant was entitled to acquittal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant's act of moving the bus while passengers were alighting amounted to rash or negligent driving attracting conviction under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Analysis: The evidence of the bus conductor showed that the bus was stopped on his whistle, the passengers alighted, and only thereafter he signalled the driver to move the bus. On these facts, the driver acted on the conductor's instructions and could not reasonably be said to have driven in a rash, reckless, or culpably negligent manner. The Court found no basis to infer criminal negligence merely because the deceased fell while getting down, and held that the incident did not satisfy the ingredients of the offences charged.

Conclusion: The conviction and sentence were unsustainable, and the appellant was entitled to acquittal.

---