Legal Services India - Law Articles is a Treasure House of Legal Knowledge and information, the law resources is an ever growing database of authentic legal information.

» Home
Monday, November 25, 2024

Section 304A Of IPC Must Be Amended To Check Drunken Driving

Posted in: Criminal Law
Wed, Jan 20, 21, 13:49, 4 Years ago
star star star star star
1 out of 5 with 2 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 10511
Centre must immediately swing into action and make necessary changes to ensure that those indulging in drunken driving are strictly punished and not let off on bail or freed after spending few months to 2 years in jail at the most.

At the very outset, let me begin by stating that it is high time now and without wasting any more time, Centre must immediately swing into action and make necessary changes to ensure that those indulging in drunken driving are strictly punished and not let off on bail or freed after spending few months to 2 years in jail at the most. This I say because a very wrong message is going among drunken drivers that they can commit any crime they want, kill anyone whom they want by indulging in rash driving and after spending at the most 2 years in prison come out and again commit a crime and again be released and this process keeps continuing endlessly What utter nonsense is this?

When a person indulges in rash and negligent act which causes the death or injury of one, few or many innocents, do they not realize the gravity of the situation? Why should they be let off cheaply? Why should rash drivers be allowed to presume that they will come out easily after few months or at the most 2 years in prison even after grievously injuring or killing someone? Most recently, we saw how 15 labourers who were sleeping were crushed by a truck in Surat in Gujarat.

Why should they have the unfettered licence to be let off most lightly after killing anyone by indulging in road terrorism by driving most rashly and brazenly? Just because Section 304A of the IPC advocates leniency for them? Why are they released promptly on bail? What message are we sending to those rash and brazen drivers who have criminal bent of mind or who care a least for the lives of others? Are we not encouraging them to commit more crime and come off lightly to again commit another heinous crime? This is just not done!

I am not alone in feeling so. Many eminent jurists and senior lawyers have too felt the same way barring few exceptions. To top it all, now even the Supreme Court on March 30, 2015 noted with deep concern the serious menace posed by drunken driving and the large number of accident deaths in the country and very categorically asked the government to tighten a law used to charge errant drivers to ensure that the punishment had a deterrent effect.

Bluntly put: How long will Centre keep skipping this so sensitive issue which has the potential to either save or destroy so many lives of innocent hinging on Centre's stand? How long will Centre keep renewing the licence to rash drivers to kill anyone by indulging in most brazen and rash driving and yet come out of jail in just few months or at the most after 2 years if the Judge does not extend any leniency? How long will Centre keep forwarding the absurd logic that rash drivers just don't understand the serious consequences of driving rashly or killing anyone when they indulge in rash driving? All this nonsense must now stop immediately and I am happy to note that the Supreme Court too now feels much the same way.

While craving for my readers exclusive indulgence, let me point out here for their knowledge that drunk driving is usually charged under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as a rash and negligent act causing death and carries a maximum of two years in jail or fine or both. Section 304A of the IPC explicitly states that:
Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. It is not Sanjeev Sirohi or Dheeraj Kaushik alone who strongly feel that this Section allows offenders to escape after getting a very light punishment but even the Supreme Court which is the highest court of our nation which now strongly feels that the provision allows those charged under the act to get away with lenient sentences and this observation was made by it while delivering a landmark ruling on March 30, 2015.

Truth be told, it is most concerning to note that the Supreme Court itself observed that the law just did not have any deterrent effect as a two-year jail term for such acts was inadequate. Quoting Greek playwright Sophocles, the Apex Court said: Laws can never be enforced unless fear supports them. Drunkenness contributes to careless driving where other people become their prey. The poor feel their lives are not safe, the pedestrians think of uncertainty and civilised persons drive in constant fear... about the obnoxious attitude of the people who project themselves as 'larger than life'. In such circumstances, we are bound to observe that the lawmakers should scrutinise, re-look and re-visit the sentencing policy in Section 304A, IPC. We say so with immense anguish.

Of course, these strong words used by Apex Court itself should be enough for Centre and our law makers to at least now wake up and promptly amend this Section 304A which is making a mockery of our legal system and is openly allowing offenders to break law with impunity and yet escape either with no punishment or very little punishment as discretion bomb vests in the hand of Judges to award or not award punishment as per their own discretion. But yes, they cannot under any circumstance award punishment exceeding 2 years even though rash and negligent driving may cause huge damage or claim the lives of many innocent people! This is most ridiculous and absurd!

Let me point out here for my esteemed readers benefit that this landmark ruling was made by a bench comprising Justices Dipak Misra and PC Pant who took a very dim view of the Punjab and Haryana High Court reducing the jail term awarded to a person in a case of rash driving to 24 days already spent in prison. This is not an isolated case. Such instances are galore where offenders escape with virtually no punishment or very light punishment.

This ludicrous mockery of law must end once and for all. There must be a minimum punishment of at least five years or ten years and maximum life term. In this case, an uncle-nephew duo was killed in 2007 while returning from a marriage party when a car coming at high speed from the opposite side driven on the wrong side by Saurabh Bakshi hit their vehicle.
The prosecution was able to prove in this case that the accused, a young person was driving rashly.

The top court noted with anger that:
In this case, rash and negligent driving has been established. This court has been constantly noticing the increase in number of road accidents and has also noticed how the vehicle drivers have been totally rash and negligent. It seems to us driving in a drunken state, in a rash and negligent manner or driving with youthful adventurous enthusiasm as if there are no traffic rules or no discipline of law has come to the centre stage.

Sentencing Bakshi to six months, the Supreme Court said the high court's decision to release the driver after he had paid Rs 85,000 to the families of the dead would shatter the public's faith in the judicial system. Justice Misra said that, A man with the means has, in possibility, graduated himself to harbor the idea that he can escape from the substantive sentence by payment of compensation.

A very wrong message goes out that if the offender is rich and affluent, he/she can escape punishment by paying cash to the affected family. This mockery of law must end and they must be made to serve a minimum term of few years so that they realize the gravity of the act done by them instead of taking law for granted! Supreme Court on being pained by the lenient jail terms awarded for causing death by rash and negligent driving requested Parliament to enhance the punishment by amending the existing provisions to put fear of law among those who drive as emperors of roads.

It said: There is a nonchalant attitude among drivers. They feel that they are the emperors of all they survey. This has contributed to India's dubious road accident record in a big way. The bench said result of this leniency and non-deterrent effect of law was there for everyone to see.

Let me point out here that Indian roads are among the most dangerous in the world – 17 people are killed in accidents in an hour and in 2019 India had topped the list among nations in road accidents death. Delhi tops the list of fatal accidents among Indian cities. To stop it or at least check it, it is imperative that the Section 304A which governs rash and negligent driving is now promptly made more stringent as the Apex Court has very rightly suggested and this should be done at the earliest.

This I say so that potential offenders have a fear of law and realize that they cannot escape after paying heavily to the affected family and if they indulge in rash and negligent driving and kill someone, they will have to cool their heels for at least some years in jail and not few days or few months as we are seeing even in this landmark case where Apex Court too sentenced them to just 6 months which according to me is wholly inadequate and makes a mockery of our legal system!

This must end now! The earlier this is done, the better it shall be for lakhs of innocents who every year lose their live for no fault of theirs! For this to happen, it is Centre which has to act now and bring a suitable legislation in this regard and get it passed by Parliament after adequate serious debate and discussions! I hope Centre is listening!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.

Comments

There are no comments for this article.
Only authorized users can leave comments. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Share
Sponsor
About Author
Sanjeev Sirohi Advocate
Member since Apr 20, 2018
Location: Meerut, UP
Following
User not following anyone yet.
You might also like
The general principle, is that a FIR cannot be depended upon a substantive piece of evidence.The article discusses the general priciple, along with exceptions to it.
Victim plays an important role in the criminal justice system but his/her welfare is not given due regard by the state instrumentality. Thus, the role of High Courts or the Supreme Court in our country in affirming and establishing their rights is dwelt in this article.
Can anybody really know what is going inside the heads of criminal lawyers? I mean, yes, we can pick bits of their intelligence during courtroom trials and through the legal documents that they draft.
Terrorism and organized crimes are interrelated in myriad forms. Infact in many illustration terrorism and organized crimes have converged and mutated.
Right to a copy of police report and other documents As per section 207 of CrPC, accused has the right to be furnished with the following in case the proceeding has been initiated on a police report:
In terms of Section 2 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 hereafter referred to as 'the Act'), "human rights" means the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed under the Constitution
The Oxford dictionary defines police as an official organization whose job is to make people obey the law and to prevent and solve crime
the Supreme Court let off three gang rapists after they claimed a ‘compromise formula’ with the victim and agreed to pay her a fine of Rs 50,000 each for their offence.
benefit those prisoners who are kept in solitary confinement, the Uttarakhand High Court delivered a landmark judgment in the case of State of Uttarakhand v 1. Mehtab s/o Tahir Hassan 2. Sushil @Bhura s/o Gulab Singh Criminal Reference No. 1 of 2014 on April 27, 2018
this article helps you knowing how to become a criminal lawyer
helps you to know adultery and its types
In the landmark case of Manoj Singh Pawar v State of Uttarakhand & others Writ Petition (PIL) No. 156 of 2016 which was delivered on June 18, 2018, the Uttarakhand High Court issued a slew of landmark directions
Scope and ambit of Section 6 of Indian Evidence Act,1872
Victims of Crime Can Seek Cancellation of Bail: MP HC in Mahesh Pahade vs State of MP
State of Orissa v Mahimananda Mishra said clearly and convincingly that the court must not go deep into merits of the matter while considering an application for bail and all that needs to be established from the record is the existence of a prima facie case against the accused.
Yashwant v Maharashtra while the conviction of some police officers involved in a custodial torture which led to the death of a man was upheld, the Apex Court underscored on the need to develop and recognize the concept of democratic policing wherein crime control is not the only end, but the means to achieve this order is also equally important.
20 more people guilty of killing a 60-year-old Dalit man and his physically-challenged daughter. Upheld acquittals of 21 other accused, holding that there was insufficient evidence to establish their guilt. So it was but natural that they had to be acquitted
No person accused of an offence punishable for offences involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless
Accident under section 80 under the Indian Penal Code falls under the chapter of general exceptions. This article was made with the objective of keeping in mind the students of law who are nowadays in dire need of material which simplify the law than complicating it.
Nishan Singh v State of Punjab. Has ordered one Nishan Singh Brar, convicted of abduction and rape of a minor victim girl, and his mother Navjot Kaur to pay Rs 90 lakh towards compensation.
Rajesh Sharma v State of UP to regulate the purported gross misuse of Section 498A IPC have been modified just recently in a latest judgment titled Social Action Forum Manav for Manav Adhikar and another v Union of India Ministry of Law and Justice and others.
Kodungallur Film Society vs. Union of India has issued comprehensive guidelines to control vandalism by protesting mobs. Vandalism is vandalism and it cannot be justified under any circumstances. Those who indulge in it and those who instigate it must all be held clearly accountable and made to pay for what they have done most shamefully.
Ram Lal vs. State of Himachal Pradesh If the court is satisfied that if the confession is voluntary, the conviction can be based upon the same. Rule of prudence does not require that each and every circumstance mentioned in the confession must be separately and independently corroborated. Absolutely right There can be no denying it
Joseph Shine case struck down the law of adultery under Section 497. It declared that adultery can be a ground for civil issues including dissolution of marriages but it cannot be a criminal offence. It invalidated the Section 497 of IPC as a violation of Articles 14 and 15 and under Article 21 of the Constitution
Mallikarjun Kodagali (Dead) represented through Legal Representatives v/s Karnataka, Had no hesitation to concede right from the start while underscoring the rights of victims of crime that, The rights of victims of crime is a subject that has, unfortunately, only drawn sporadic attention of Parliament, the judiciary and civil society.
State of Kerala v Rasheed observed that while deciding an application to defer cross examination under Section 231(2) of the Cr.P.C. a balance must be struck between the rights of the accused, and the prerogative of the prosecution to lead evidence. The Apex Court in this landmark judgment also listed out practical guidelines.
Reena Hazarika v State of Assam that a solemn duty is cast on the court in the dispensation of justice to adequately consider the defence of the accused taken under Section 313 CrPC and to either accept or reject the same for reasons specified in writing.
Zulfikar Nasir & Ors v UP has set aside the trial court judgment that had acquitted 16 Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) officials in the 1987 Hashimpur mass murder case. The Delhi High Court has convicted all the accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment.
In Babasaheb Maruti Kamble v Maharashtra it was held that the Special Leave Petitions filed in those cases where death sentence is awarded by the courts below, should not be dismissed without giving reasons, at least qua death sentence.
Shambhir & Ors v State upholding the conviction and punishment of over 80 rioters has brought some solace to all those affected people who lost their near and dear ones in the ghastly 1984 anti-Sikh riots which brought disrepute to our country and alienated many Sikhs from the national mainstream
Naman Singh alias Naman Pratap Singh and another vs. UP, Supreme Court held a reading of the FIR reveals that the police has registered the F.I.R on directions of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate which was clearly impermissible in the law.
It has been a long and gruelling wait of 34 long years for the survivors of 1984 anti-Sikh riots to finally see one big leader Sajjan Kumar being sentenced to life term by Delhi High Court
Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v State of Maharashtra held that criminals are also entitled to life of dignity and probability of reformation/rehabilitation to be seriously and earnestly considered before awarding death sentence. It will help us better understand and appreciate the intricacies of law.
Sukhlal v The State of Madhya Pradesh 'life imprisonment is the rule and death penalty is the exception' has laid down clearly that even when a crime is heinous or brutal, it may not still fall under the rarest of rare category.
Deepak v State of Madhya Pradesh in which has served to clarify the entire legal position under Section 319 CrPC, upheld a trial court order under Section 319 of the CrPc summoning accused who were in the past discharged by it ignoring the supplementary charge sheet against them.
It has to be said right at the outset that in a major reprieve for all the political leaders accused of being involved in the Sohrabuddin fake encounter case, in CBI, Mumbai vs Dahyaji Goharji Vanzara
Devi Lal v State of Rajasthan the Supreme Court has dispelled all misconceived notions about suspicion and reiterated that,
Madhya Pradesh v Kalyan Singh has finally set all doubts to rest on the nagging question of whether offences under Section 307 of IPC can be quashed on the basis of settlement between parties.
Dr Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v Maharashtra made it amply clear that if a person had not made the promise to marry with the sole intention to seduce a woman to indulge in sexual acts, such an act would not amount to rape.
Rajesh v State of Haryana conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (Abetment of Suicide) is not sustainable on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused, which led or compelled the person to commit suicide.
Nand Kishore v Madhya Pradesh has commuted to life imprisonment the death sentence which was earlier confirmed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court of a convicted for the rape and murder of an eight-year-old girl.
Raju Jagdish Paswan v. Maharashtra has commuted the death penalty of a man accused of rape and murder of a nine year old girl and sentenced him to 30 years imprisonment without remission.
Swapan Kumar Chatterjee v CBI permitting the application filed by the prosecution for summoning a hand writing expert in a corruption case of which the trial had started in 1985. On expected lines, the Bench accordingly delivered its significant judgment thus laying down the correct proposition of law to be followed always in such cases
Sukhpal Singh v Punjab that the inability of the prosecution to establish motive in a case of circumstantial evidence is not always fatal to the prosecution case. Importance of motive in determining the culpability of the accused but refused to acknowledge it as the sole criteria for not convicting the accused in the absence of motive.
Gagan Kumar v Punjab it is a mandatory legal requirement for Magistrate to specify whether sentences awarded to an accused convicted for two or more offences, would run concurrently or consecutively.
Dnyaneshwar Suresh Borkar v Maharashtra Even poem can help save a death convict from gallows. The Apex Court has in this latest, landmark and laudable judgment commuted the death penalty of a kidnap cum murder convict who was just 22 years of age at the time of occurrence
Himachal Pradesh v Vijay Kumar Supreme court held about acid attack crime that a crime of this nature does not deserve any kind of clemency.
Death Sentence Can Be Imposed Only When Life Imprisonment Appears To Be An Altogether Inappropriate Punishment: SC
S. Sreesanth v. The Board of Control For Cricket In India the Supreme Court set aside a life ban imposed on former Indian cricketer S Sreesanth in connection with the 2013 IPL spot-fixing scandal and asked the BCCI Disciplinary Committee to take a fresh call on the quantum of his punishment under the Anti-Corruption Code.
Adding Additional Accused To Invoke Section 319 CrPC Stronger Evidence Than Mere Probability of Complicity of A Person Required: SC stated in Sugreev Kumar v. State of Punjab
Top