News
SLTB driver gets one year imprisonment for rash driving
View(s):The Supreme Court (SC) has upheld a 1-year custodial sentence of imprisonment delivered by the High Court (HC) on a Sri Lanka Transport Board (SLTB) bus driver who caused injury to a school teacher by pulling out of a halt as she was getting off.
“The accused-appellant was entrusted with the responsibility of carrying passengers in an omnibus and had a duty of care that, by his conduct, he does not expose the passengers to any danger that would result in any injury or harm being caused to them,” held Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare P.C., in last month’s ruling. He called, pulling away in the middle of passengers disembarking, “a grossly rash act”. Justices Priyantha Jayawardena P.C. and H.N.J. Perera agreed.
The accused-appellant, P Shantha Silva from Kalamula, Kalutara, was first charged in the Magistrate’s Court of Kalutara, for failure to avoid an accident; for causing grievous hurt to K. Lalithangani Rani, by rash or negligent act; and for failure to report an accident.
The injured was a teacher. To get to the school at which she was teaching, she had taken the bus driven by the accused, to come to Katukurunda junction. Before the bus could reach the destination, however, Mr Silva had indicated he will not proceed beyond a particular point and wanted all the passengers to disembark.
There had been about 15 passengers. As Ms Rani was about to get off, the bus had pulled out. As a result, she was thrown off. The impact of the fall left her with a fracture of her left wrist, among other injuries. The bus, however, had proceeded without stopping.
The Magistrate found Mr Silva guilty of the 2nd and 3rd counts. He imposed 3 months’ imprisonment and a fine of Rs 1,000 on the 2nd count. The operation of the term of imprisonment was suspended for 5 years. On the 3rd count, a fine of Rs 1,500 was imposed along with a default term of 1 month’s simple imprisonment.
Mr Silva appealed this judgment in the HC. At the hearing, it was submitted on behalf of the State, that the sentence imposed by the Magistrate was inadequate, when considering the rashness and negligence on the part of the accused-appellant. It was moved that it be enhanced.
The HC Judge set aside the sentence imposed by the Magistrate on the 2nd count and substituted it with a custodial sentence of imprisonment of 1 year. Mr Silva then took his appeal to the SC.
Counsel for Mr Silva contended that he had been employed as a driver with the SLTB and had no previous convictions. He was the father of 3 children, with 2 of them engaged in higher studies.
“It was also strenuously argued on behalf of the accused-appellant that the learned High Court Judge misdirected himself with regard to the degree of negligence that is needed to establish criminal negligence, and submitted that the principles laid down by courts suggests that the prosecution has to establish a high degree of negligence on the part of the accused, if the accused is to be found guilty of criminal negligence, and the prosecution had not adduced sufficient evidence to establish the degree of negligence required to convict a person for criminal negligence,” the judgement states.
However, the SC held that, “The accused-appellant had a duty of care to ensure safety of the passengers he carried. The conduct of the accused-appellant is reprehensible, to say the least, and sufficiently grave to fall within the ambit of criminal negligence.”
The SC upheld the High Court ruling, stating that, “One must bear in mind that punitive action is not only to reform the offender but should serve as a deterrence as well.” The SC directed the Magistrate to ascertain from the prison authorities whether Mr Silva had served any part of the sentence imposed by the HC Judge and, if so, to give necessary direction that he is required to serve only the balance part of the 1-year sentence imposed.