The life of a pedestrian in India, after having earned the dubious distinction of registering maximum number of deaths in road accidents, becomes all the more difficult with the rising incidents of rash driving where the person behind the wheel has gulped liquor beyond the limit. Not to mention the plight of the poor pavement dwellers, who have to bear the brunt of such indiscretion and negligence, and at times, suffer being crushed to death or grievously injured.
Is it merely an act of negligence or can knowledge be attributed to the driver, when he or she causes death by a rash act? Settling the issue, the Supreme Court in the 2012 Alistair Pereira case held that rash or negligent driving with the knowledge of the dangerous character, and the likely effect of the act, resulting in death may fall in the category of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
In a case where negligence or rashness is the cause of death and nothing more, Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) may be attracted, enjoining two-year maximum imprisonment or fine, or both. But where the rash or negligent act is preceded with knowledge that such act is likely to cause death, Section 304 Part II (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) IPC, with 10-year maximum jail term with fine, may be awarded. And if such a rash and negligent act is preceded by real intention on the part of the wrongdoer to cause death, offence may be punishable under Section 302 (murder) of the IPC.
A person, responsible for a reckless or rash or negligent act that causes death, which he had knowledge of as an act dangerous enough to lead to something untoward and that death was likely to be caused, may be attributed with the knowledge of the consequence and may be fastened with culpability of homicide not amounting to murder and punishable under Section 304 II, the Supreme Court ruled in the Alistair Pereira case.
Notably, for the offence in which Pereira drove his car onto the pavement killing seven persons and injuring eight others, the apex court found that the three-years sentence awarded by the Bombay High Court is too meagre and not adequate. But it refrained from considering issue of enhancement of prison term, noting that the Maharashtra government had preferred not to file an appeal.
The credit is here due to the high court, which took suo motu cognisance of the case after the trial court merely sentenced him to six-months simple imprisonment with Rs 5 lakh fine, holding him guilty only under Sections 304A (causing death by negligence) and 337 (causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others) of the IPC.
In 2012 Ravi Kapur Vs State of Rajasthan judgment, the Supreme Court asked the courts to adopt a parameter for reasonable care in determining the question of negligence or contributing negligence. The doctrine of reasonable care imposes an obligation or a duty upon a person (for example a driver) to care for the pedestrian and this duty attains a higher degree when the pedestrian happens to be a child.
“It is axiomatic to say that while driving a vehicle on a public way, there is an implicit duty cast on the drivers to see that their driving does not endanger the life of the right users of the road, may be either vehicular users or pedestrians. They are expected to take sufficient care to avoid danger to others,” the apex court said.
Dealing with Delhi’s infamous BMW hit-and-run case, the Supreme Court noted that drunken driving has become a menace to our society. “Everyday drunken driving results in accidents and several human lives are lost, pedestrians in many of our cities are not safe. Late night parties among urban elite have now become a way of life followed by drunken driving,” the court said.
In the same case, where Sanjeev Nanda mowed down six persons with his BMW, the apex court ruled that the Delhi High Court committed an error in converting his conviction to lesser charge of Section 304A in place of Section 304 II of the IPC as was held by the trial court.
As Nanda had already served two years behind the bars, he was asked to do community service for two years and pay Rs 50 lakh compensation to the Union government for distribution to the victims’ families.
His defence, that even if he was driving in a drunken state, no knowledge or intention could be presumed for causing death, was rejected by the court as “too childish”.
Is it merely an act of negligence or can knowledge be attributed to the driver, when he or she causes death by a rash act? Settling the issue, the Supreme Court in the 2012 Alistair Pereira case held that rash or negligent driving with the knowledge of the dangerous character, and the likely effect of the act, resulting in death may fall in the category of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
In a case where negligence or rashness is the cause of death and nothing more, Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) may be attracted, enjoining two-year maximum imprisonment or fine, or both. But where the rash or negligent act is preceded with knowledge that such act is likely to cause death, Section 304 Part II (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) IPC, with 10-year maximum jail term with fine, may be awarded. And if such a rash and negligent act is preceded by real intention on the part of the wrongdoer to cause death, offence may be punishable under Section 302 (murder) of the IPC.
A person, responsible for a reckless or rash or negligent act that causes death, which he had knowledge of as an act dangerous enough to lead to something untoward and that death was likely to be caused, may be attributed with the knowledge of the consequence and may be fastened with culpability of homicide not amounting to murder and punishable under Section 304 II, the Supreme Court ruled in the Alistair Pereira case.
Notably, for the offence in which Pereira drove his car onto the pavement killing seven persons and injuring eight others, the apex court found that the three-years sentence awarded by the Bombay High Court is too meagre and not adequate. But it refrained from considering issue of enhancement of prison term, noting that the Maharashtra government had preferred not to file an appeal.
The credit is here due to the high court, which took suo motu cognisance of the case after the trial court merely sentenced him to six-months simple imprisonment with Rs 5 lakh fine, holding him guilty only under Sections 304A (causing death by negligence) and 337 (causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others) of the IPC.
In 2012 Ravi Kapur Vs State of Rajasthan judgment, the Supreme Court asked the courts to adopt a parameter for reasonable care in determining the question of negligence or contributing negligence. The doctrine of reasonable care imposes an obligation or a duty upon a person (for example a driver) to care for the pedestrian and this duty attains a higher degree when the pedestrian happens to be a child.
“It is axiomatic to say that while driving a vehicle on a public way, there is an implicit duty cast on the drivers to see that their driving does not endanger the life of the right users of the road, may be either vehicular users or pedestrians. They are expected to take sufficient care to avoid danger to others,” the apex court said.
Dealing with Delhi’s infamous BMW hit-and-run case, the Supreme Court noted that drunken driving has become a menace to our society. “Everyday drunken driving results in accidents and several human lives are lost, pedestrians in many of our cities are not safe. Late night parties among urban elite have now become a way of life followed by drunken driving,” the court said.
In the same case, where Sanjeev Nanda mowed down six persons with his BMW, the apex court ruled that the Delhi High Court committed an error in converting his conviction to lesser charge of Section 304A in place of Section 304 II of the IPC as was held by the trial court.
As Nanda had already served two years behind the bars, he was asked to do community service for two years and pay Rs 50 lakh compensation to the Union government for distribution to the victims’ families.
His defence, that even if he was driving in a drunken state, no knowledge or intention could be presumed for causing death, was rejected by the court as “too childish”.