Opinion - Editorials   

Of negligence and culpable homicide

There are conflicting messages in the conviction and sentencing of Sanjeev Nanda, the grandson of a former navy chief and son of a wealthy arms dealer, in the infamous BMW hit-and-run case. On the one hand, it is an affirmation that no one — not even the very powerful and influential — is above the law. On the other, it is a reminder of how precariously placed the rule of law is. Consider how justice was almost subverted in this case, thanks to hostile witnesse s, attempts to destroy the evidence, and a shocking collusion between the prosecution and defence counsel. The BMW hit-and-run case, in which an inebriated Nanda killed six people in 1999 after driving his car through a police checkpoint, is a landmark in other ways as well. The Delhi sessions court, which sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment, found him guilty under a part of Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) that has rarely been applied to accidents resulting from rash and negligent driving. In turning down the plea of the defence — which argued that Nanda could at best be tried under the milder Section 304-A (causing death by negligence, with a maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment) — the court took note of the “degree of gross recklessness” in the case. Nanda had driven his car at a very high speed, dragged some of his victims under the car for “quite a long distance,” and “started with the knowledge that his act might result in the death of some persons.”

The Supreme Court observed last year that certain kinds of road accidents may be treated as acts amounting to culpable homicide rather than of just rash and negligent driving. The Delhi sessions court drew a parallel with the Alister Pereira case, in which the Mumbai High Court had found him guilty of culpable homicide for mowing down seven construction workers in a hit-and-run incident and sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment in September, 2007. The BMW brings to the fore suggestions that the IPC be amended to provide enhanced punishments for road accidents. In a recent paper on ‘Legal Reforms to Combat Road Accidents’, the Law Commission has recommended that the punishment for rash and negligent driving be raised to five years’ imprisonment, with a maximum seven-year term for hit-and-run cases. The Supreme Court too has bemoaned the absence of stiffer penalties for certain kinds of vehicular accidents. With a road network of about 3.31 million kilometres, a burgeoning vehicular population, and annual road fatalities of over one lakh, it is imperative to have legal provisions that act as strong deterrents against rash, negligent, and drunken driving.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

Importance of President Zardari
Of negligence and culpable homicide
NREGA: Andhra Pradesh shows the way
There is no ‘honour’ in killing
Religious practices versus secular laws
NSG waiver
Revealing
BMW case
‘I called the bluff on the spectrum story’

Copyright © 2008, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu