Sanjeev Nanda’s conviction in BMW hit-and-run case under the stringent Section 304 (II) of the IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) rather than 304 (A) IPC (rash and negligence) has sent a much-needed message to those who drink and drive.
Nanda is, however, not the first accused in an accident case to be booked under section of 304, in which the maximum sentence is up to 10 years. This year, the Bombay High Court had convicted Alistair Pereira in a similar case under Section 304 paving the way for other courts in the country to widen the scope of conviction under this Act.
Additional Session Judge Vinod Kumar based his judgment in BMW case on the Pereira case.
In a bout of drink-driving Pereira had crushed seven persons sleeping on in the night on a Mumbai footpath. Judge Kumar has convicted Sanjeev Nanda under Section 304 (II) of IPC.
The Section 304 (II) of the IPC is applied to cases where an accused commits a crime with the knowledge that it is likely to lead to death but without intending to cause death. The Section provides for a maximum prison term of 10 years or fine or both as punishment. Here knowledge is important, knowledge of the fact that one’s action may cause death.
The Bombay High Court had dealt with the aspect of knowledge while hearing the matter of Pareira. “I have pursued Pereira’s case in the Bombay High Court and I am of the opinion that it a treatise on the question as to what constitutes knowledge. In fact each and every sentence of that judgment requires to be quoted here but I refrain from it for the sake of brevity,” Judge Kumar observed for the BMW case.
Simply put, the court has held that Nanda had knowledge of the fact that driving fast while being drunk may cause death. That is exactly what happened on the fateful night when Nanda’s BMW crushed six persons on the pavement near Lodhi Road. That is why he has been held guilty under Section 304 (II) of the IPC which is stringent compared to Section 304 (A).
Another aspect of the judgment is that it may provide a boost to a long-standing demand for amendment in laws regarding cases of drink-driving. According to legal experts, this may be one of the rare cases where Section 304 (II) was used to convict an accused.
Do you think drink-driving laws need an overhaul? And in terms of behaviour patterns, are parents to blame for brats behind wheels?
Nanda is, however, not the first accused in an accident case to be booked under section of 304, in which the maximum sentence is up to 10 years. This year, the Bombay High Court had convicted Alistair Pereira in a similar case under Section 304 paving the way for other courts in the country to widen the scope of conviction under this Act.
Additional Session Judge Vinod Kumar based his judgment in BMW case on the Pereira case.
In a bout of drink-driving Pereira had crushed seven persons sleeping on in the night on a Mumbai footpath. Judge Kumar has convicted Sanjeev Nanda under Section 304 (II) of IPC.
The Section 304 (II) of the IPC is applied to cases where an accused commits a crime with the knowledge that it is likely to lead to death but without intending to cause death. The Section provides for a maximum prison term of 10 years or fine or both as punishment. Here knowledge is important, knowledge of the fact that one’s action may cause death.
The Bombay High Court had dealt with the aspect of knowledge while hearing the matter of Pareira. “I have pursued Pereira’s case in the Bombay High Court and I am of the opinion that it a treatise on the question as to what constitutes knowledge. In fact each and every sentence of that judgment requires to be quoted here but I refrain from it for the sake of brevity,” Judge Kumar observed for the BMW case.
Simply put, the court has held that Nanda had knowledge of the fact that driving fast while being drunk may cause death. That is exactly what happened on the fateful night when Nanda’s BMW crushed six persons on the pavement near Lodhi Road. That is why he has been held guilty under Section 304 (II) of the IPC which is stringent compared to Section 304 (A).
Another aspect of the judgment is that it may provide a boost to a long-standing demand for amendment in laws regarding cases of drink-driving. According to legal experts, this may be one of the rare cases where Section 304 (II) was used to convict an accused.
Do you think drink-driving laws need an overhaul? And in terms of behaviour patterns, are parents to blame for brats behind wheels?
